DMK
Member
I see the new Luger like MkIII and the new 22/45 MkIII referred to in Ruger magazine ads, but don't see anything on their website yet. Does anybody know anything about them? What the difference between them and the old models?
Anybody know anything good about the new Ruger MkIII and 22/45 MkIII?
- Thread starter DMK
- Start date
- Status
If you check the Ruger site it lists the differences. I have been waiting for a MKIII 22/45 for a while now and finally could wait no longer, I haven't been able to find anyone with one in stock so a week ago I bought a MKII 22/45. I'm a little bummed with having done it though, after shooting it and then seeing a good deal on a little Millet red dot, the idea of pairing them up sounds cool, but alas, mine is not drilled and tapped for scope mount, if I had waited for the MKIII it would be.
OP
OP
DMK
Member
Doh! I didn't notice the "new stuff" links.
wally
Member
Where can you buy them. Says they are not in production for 1" scopes???
How much?
--wally.
How much?
--wally.
No but if it requires removing the rear sight there are a couple others I've been looking at which also require moving the rear sight.
this one
or this one
I will look into the one you posted also, it would be good for a scope that doesn't already come with rings.
DelayedReaction
Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2004
- Messages
- 645
Would kill Ruger to offer a 22/45 model with removable grips?
Adding removable grips to the polymer frame would defeat it's purpose of the light weight as more polymer has to be added to the frame for support. The total grip dimension would then become greater also as the grip will then be wider.
When you milled off the top of the grip you have made a support. Then attaching other grip panels only adds the weight and grip circumference I was talking about. The pistol is now bigger and heavier in the grip frame.
You have also just raised the price of the pistol as more material is now added into the total production cost.
You have also just raised the price of the pistol as more material is now added into the total production cost.
Cortland
Member
The Mark IIIs add magazine disconnect, internal lock, and traditional magazine release (the only real improvement, I believe). I'll stick with my Mark IIs (even with heel mag release).
Regarding the scope mounts, my advice is to get a gunsmithing-required number. (so it'll cost a few extra bucks to get it drilled and tapped). One of the problems with scope mounts on the Mark IIs is that due to the polishing process, the contour of the top of each Mark II varies. Thus the scope mount doesn't fit completely flush. When the radius of the scope mount is larger than that of the Mark II (which it always is in my experience), the scope mount only touches the gun along the very top surface of the gun. Even with red loctite I couldn't get the scope mount to stay tight on my Mark II. To get it to stay, I ended up epoxying the screws and the scope mount onto the gun with acraglas (based on someone else's advice). I'm told that most epoxies (including acraglas) break down at about 400 degrees (well below any danger of affecting the heat treatment of the metal). So it's not necessarily a permanent, you'll just need a propane torch to get it off
- Status
