Ruger MK III Target - stainless vs alloy


PDA






SDShooter
January 10, 2011, 11:47 PM
I'm looking at a Mk III Target. Stainless is about $100 more than the alloy. The stainless looks great, but I'm wondering if that's the only advantage. Are there any other benefits to the stainless version? Thanks!

If you enjoyed reading about "Ruger MK III Target - stainless vs alloy" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
GambJoe
January 11, 2011, 02:04 PM
I have the stainless bull barrel and its fun to shoot and very accurate. I keep it oiled like any other gun, inside and out. Stainless does corode allot slower than carbon. That and good looks got me to buy it. One disclaimer it is a pain in the A** to reassemble after cleaning.

Greg528iT
January 11, 2011, 02:24 PM
I debated nearly the same.
It came down to, I walked into a shop, they had the 5.5" bull barrel in blue, and it's a nice blue finish.. so I walked out the door with it.
Stainless IS softer than most carbon steels, so may loose some luster quicker than a blued barrel.
But really it's a range toy for me. Pull it out of the rug, shoot, put back into the rug, take home and clean / wipe down.

I also dropped a red dot sight on top. That in itself is just fun to shoot with.

SDShooter
January 11, 2011, 07:54 PM
Thanks a lot guys. It really is a range toy, and I can buy a lot of 22 ammo for 100 bucks. The stainless does look great though.

bigfatdave
January 11, 2011, 10:23 PM
"alloy"
Both stainless AND carbon steel are alloys, are you referring to the blued carbon steel version when you say "alloy"? Most people being non-specific with the term "alloy" are talking about various lightweight Aluminum framed guns.

As far as advantage, I don't think it makes a mechanical difference in most guns, and even less in something so lightly mechanically stressed as a .22lr pistol.

I wouldn't (didn't) pay the extra for stainless, but I don't dig stainless in the first place so maybe I'm biased.

ColtPythonElite
January 11, 2011, 10:28 PM
I have one of each.

I have a 1965 MK I Target that is blue. The finish blue on it is still nearly as nice as when new because it has had obvious care. You just have to keep them protected with oil or wax to ward off rust. Johnson's paste wax will do a good job protecting the gun and really make the blue shine.

I have a 1994 MK II Target in stainless....Right now, I am in the middle of polishing it to a mirror finish. I've done the top half and am about finished with the bottom half. It will look like chrome when I get done.

The Lone Haranguer
January 11, 2011, 10:44 PM
:confused: I associate "alloy" with aluminum alloy. To my knowledge the Ruger .22s are either all steel or have polymer lower frames (22/45).

SDShooter
January 11, 2011, 11:50 PM
Sorry, I was comparing the blued "alloy steel" model to the "stainless steel" model. I'm still kinda new at this. The one for sale at the range has the "bull" barrel, but now I notice a model with a longer, "tapered" barrel. I'm not sure which one I like better. They only have one in stock. Apparently, the tragedy in Tucson has caused some overraction, and some folks are worried that handgun sales will soon be outlawed.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ruger MK III Target - stainless vs alloy" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!