Do the Ruger Mk-III pistols the same internals as the 22/45 MK-III?

[aarondhgraham]

I've always found it confusing that Ruger Calls one pistol a Mk-III,,,
And another one of their pistols the 22/45 Mk-III.

I know the frames are different,,,
I know the mags and grip angle are different,,,
But what about the barrel, chamber, bolt, and trigger?

Are they the same internally?

Aarond

.

 

[Drail]

Yes, except for the magazine disconnect safety, the loaded chamber indicator and the magcatch. The mag safety can be easily deactivated with a simple bushing. There are stickies on how over at Rimfirecentral.com forum. Unless someone really wants the MK III gripframe with the 1911 angle and mag release I would advise them to look for and buy a MK II. It has a better balance in the hand from the extra weight IMO. It takes a while to get used to that weird Luger grip angle of the old MK I and II pistols - but it can be done.

 

[Confederate]

I've heard that the 22/45 models are more prone to malfunction than the standard Mark II/III models. Is this true? I'm also not fond of the magazine safety, but I can live with it. I'd like to see a skinny stainless barrel on a light polymer frame so it could be more easily carried on the trail. It would make a great "kit" gun.

Oh, and has anyone had any problems with the Mark III lock?



--

 

[Kp321]

If you are wanting a light weight Ruger, take a look at the models with a PAC-Nor barrel.

 

[susieqz]

i see no real malfunctions in my 22/45 after 2000 rounds.
all the marks are pretty much the same, but some mods people do are really to make a mark 3 into a mark 2.
in my opinion, the mark 3 is inferior to the 2, but after changing lots of the internals n spending many hours, my 22/45 is a custom gun with top accuracy out to 50 yards.
i would not be ashamed to use it in a bullseye competition. it does things i thot you needed a rifle to do.
if you can field strip the gun, replacing the mag safety with a good hammer bushing is fast n easy.. cost $12 for a VQ bushing to eliminate the stupid mag safety.

 

[Confederate]

Thanks, Susie.

Were there some things about the Mark IIIs you just couldn't live with? I've got a friend in Virginia who has several Mark IIs (like about six) and all are stainless. He doesn't want to get rid of any of them, but do they lack the magazine safety? How difficult is it to change the Mark III to bypass it. (Ever since they discontinued the Six-series of revolvers, I've parted ways with Ruger.

 

[susieqz]

the mark 2s had no mag safety. what i hated about the mark 3 22/45. was the mag safety, very easy to fix, n the heavy trigger. i got a VQ sear for $27 n got a trigger pull around 2 lbs. just perfect, but it was hard for me to reassemble. i'm no gunsmith.
most people have trouble learning how to field strip any of the marks.
you need lots of patience to learn that. i know people who have never field stripped their mark due to the great difficulty.
it took me hours the first few times, but now i can field strip in 5 minutes n reassemble in 10.
so, in my opinion, a mark 2 would be better, but not all that much, because if you want a real nice trigger you will have to replace the sear in any mark. removing the mag safety is no problem at all. you just remove it n the spring n replace with a new hammer bushing [$12]

there were times i wished i'd got a browning bushmark, but with the new sear, my gun is a superior custom gun.
i am not a skilled shot, but i mostly can hit a 4'' target at 50 yards. that is just amazing, so i'll never sell this gun.
if you get one, be prepared to put in lots of time n money. most people install the whole VQ kit, with new trigger, sear, hammer, but that runs $120. for me just changing the sear n removing the mag disconnect gave me the gun of my dreams.
thing is, i hate doing smith work, so this involved blood sweat n tears.

still to get this kinda accuracy out of the box, you'd have to buy the S&W for $1000.

when you start talking about malfunctions, you probably are thinking of the LITE ones. everyone has problems with those. they shaved off some weight but screwed up the basic design.

 

[Deus Machina]

No more malfunctions from a 22/45 versus the normal Mk series.
Maybe more on the MkIII versus the MkII, because the loaded chamber indicator can gather crud if you're using dirty ammo and don't clean it for thousands of rounds.

My personal 22/45 has only malfunctioned by driving the nose of a fresh round into the bottom of the feed ramp. No idea if this is mag related or mine has an out-of-spec feed ramp, but nothing inside that area is different between the 22/45 and regular MkIII.

 

[Drail]

The real problem with the magazine safety is that it requires extra steps to dis/reassemble the gun and doesn't really serve any purpose (other than making the legal dept. happy). The MK I and II guns required you to strip the magazine out of the well while depressing the heel catch, grabbing the base of the magazine and holding the gun all at the same time. Sounds like something the French would come up. Somehow switching to a 1911 style mag release - BUT still requiring you to strip the magazine out manually is considered an "improvement"? If the mag safety junk is removed the magazine will then drop free. Sounds like the engineers are fighting it out with the lawyers and you get the end result. Ultimately the lawyers will win and we can buy guns that are so safe they cannot ever be loaded or fired. Madness.

 

[Taurus 617 CCW]

The problem I have with the Mark III platform is that they have to mill an extra slot into the upper to allow for the LCI. That extra slot and the LCI itself are magnets for wax and carbon to build up. If they aren't kept in a clean state they can lead to malfunctions. The bolt also has an extra relief milled in to accommodate the LCI.

I don't care for the magazine disconnect safety. I understand why Ruger designed it that way but I have seen it interfere with magazine insertion on some guns. Due to the above concerns I bought a Mark II 22/45.

 

[340PD]

The problem I have with the Mark III platform is that they have to mill an extra slot into the upper to allow for the LCI. That extra slot and the LCI itself are magnets for wax and carbon to build up. If they aren't kept in a clean state they can lead to malfunctions. The bolt also has an extra relief milled in to accommodate the LCI.

I don't care for the magazine disconnect safety. I understand why Ruger designed it that way but I have seen it interfere with magazine insertion on some guns. Due to the above concerns I bought a Mark II 22/45.

All of which is easily removed from a MKIII or 22/45

 

[susieqz]

deus, i think that problem is ammo related.
i was silly enow to try some thunderbolts n that misfeed happened one out of twenty.
doesn't happen with anything else.

 

[Confederate]

I know how to diasseble and reassemble Rugers and have become quite good at it. I'd like to remove the magazine safety, but not reduce the trigger weight.

Has anyone ever tried the AMT Lightning? I have one of these and the gun is clearly a target pistol. Wrap-around rubber grips, Clark custom trigger, Millett sights. It was an incredible gun for an incredible price. Here's one next to a standard Mark II.



-

 

[susieqz]

con, as long as you can field strip the ruger, removing the mag safety is super easy. buy a nice hammer bushing. get one at brownell or a zillion other places.
then, you just back out the hammer pin from the right just far enow to pull the hammer out. the mag safety n its spring come with it.
pull them off n put the new bushing in the hammer n put it back. slide the pin back n you are done. there are tons of utube vids on this.
this procedure doesn't take more than 10 minutes. the mags will then drop free just like they should. some cheap people replace the mag safety with washers but i think this is a bad idea. there are 3 different makers of the bushing that exactly take up the space the disconnect used to take.
can you please tell us about the lightning?
i have promised myself a new gun for xmas n it sure looks nice.

 

[tuj]

The MKIII and the 22/45 are pretty much the same internally. I believe there may be one or two springs that are different, but I saved a buddy who took his apart and couldn't put it back together.

I do believe the 22/45 is slightly more prone to problems because of the polymer lower but I have nothing to back this up. I personally prefer the grip angle of the MKII / III better anyway.

Removing the mag safety is easily accomplished with an aftermarket bushing, check out the BAM bushing.

 

[susieqz]

tuj, the polymer seems to work fine, but i gotta say, who wants a plastic gun?
i own it,so i love it, but i'd be happier with all metal.

 

[tuj]

again, not saying anything bad about the 22/45. It is a reliable design, it is as accurate as the MKII/III because the upper-lower fit doesn't really matter in bench-testing, but it can show up at the extreme tolerances. I had a MKII that got fairly loose after about 20k rounds or something like that. I have a MKIII that is SUPER tight out of the box and continues to be about 8k rounds in.

As to the 1911 grip angle, plenty of masters are using it, but I prefer the steeper grip angles you see in international shooting.

 

[susieqz]

i'll be picking up a mark, just to see what that lugerish grip does to my accuracy. [yeah, yeah, i know it's modeled after the jap gun, but it looks lugerish to me].
i'll be surprised if it's better, but i'm willing to learn.

 

[tuj]

of all of these, I shoot the Pardini the best. Last year I shot a friend's Pardini with 1911-angle grips and I couldn't hit a thing with it.

 

[susieqz]

yow! that is one extreme angle.
that pardini with the 32 conversion kit is really appealing, but $3400 is more for really serious bullseye guys.

 

[aarondhgraham]

Thanks gentlemen,,,

I showed this thread to a friend of mine,,,
He is the one who says they are completely different.

Now he has to buy me one very nice bottle of beer.

Thanks for the info.

Aarond

.