Ruger Mark II or III

[dak0ta]

Hi,

I'm leaning more towards at Mark II, cause the III seems to have so many unnecessary parts like the loaded cocking indicator and magazine disconnect.

Are the Mark II's also better shooters? Would you recommend the standard or target model with better sights?

 

[wally]

I'm leaning more towards at Mark II,

Good luck finding one, around here when you do, used run more than new MK III equivalent models.

I prefer the target models as they come drilled and tapped for the (should be) included rail. My old eyeballs have made me pretty much give up on iron sights so making adding a red dot easy is a big plus for me.

 

[Hickok44]

I would not buy a new Ruger today. The stupid load chamber on the autos. The ugly Houge grips on the revolvers. Ruger demise began in the early 2000 's in my opinion. I own 8 Rugers. I love the ones I own. My MKII is from 1998.
It is a rimfire eater. Never a problem. Dead on accurate. I have the 6in model. It will be with me to the end. If you can get a MKII get it. I prefer the standard fix sight myself.

 

[flphotog]

The mag disconnect is pretty easy to remove, you just need to buy an inexpensive bushing. As for the LCI, I don't care for them but it doesn't hurt anything. If you really don't want it remove it, you don't need to buy anything to remove it.

 

[dak0ta]

How is the quality compared between the Mark III vs Mark II?

The luger style magazine removal is unique on the II's

 

[doggy_breath]

I have a Mark III and can give a summary of that experience.

I used to have a significant number of FTFs and FTEs (maybe 10%). After installing Volquartsen's firing pin and extractor (see the "bolt tune-up kit"), it's extremely reliable, even with discount ammo. It might seem unfortunate to have to replace factory parts, but now it's "custom" and I know the gun that much better.

The rear sight has a tendency to slide over time.

It can be a bit difficult to take apart and put together at first, but put in a good movie and spend a couple hours repeatedly taking it apart and putting it together, and it'll get easier. Some say you don't need to take it apart to clean it, but for me, that's part of the fun of shooting.

 

[strange246]

I own both, the overall feel is one of more quality with the II, the III is a great pistol, but if I could only have one? I'll take my MKII Stainless Government Competition Model all day long.

 

[Drail]

I have owned and shot MK IIs for many years and almost wore one of them out (not an easy feat) and I have repaired and done trigger work on IIs and IIIs. I would choose a used MK II in almost any condition over a new MK III. Ruger has managed to really ruin a perfectly good design.

 

[Quentin]

How is the quality compared between the Mark III vs Mark II?

The luger style magazine removal is unique on the II's

Actually the Luger introduced the magazine release location we consider standard today. The 1911 borrowed it and really made it popular. The Mark III does use the standard magazine release while the Mark II and earlier use the heel release. Still I prefer the Mark II over the Mark III if they're factory stock. With a little work the Mark III can be excellent. I have a Mark I Target, Mark II and Mark III, the quality is about equal.

 

[MrBorland]

I have a MkIII, and to tell the truth, I think I prefer it to the MkII - the mag release is easier to hit with the thumb, and the receiver's already drilled and tapped for a sight rail.

 

[dook]

I've had 3 Mark II's over the last 20 years, all 5 1/2" bull barrels. One was blued, two were stainless. All performed flawlessly and were very accurate and fun to shoot. On the last two, I installed a Volquartsen sear, which costs around twenty bucks and brings the trigger pull down to about 3 pounds. Highly reccommended.
Fun fun fun.

 

[shooter1059]

I actually like the MK III better. It has a magazine release button on the side in front of the grip like a modern semi auto. The MK II has the old magazine release like the old Walther P-38 on the bottom of the grip. No fast reloads that way. lol
All the MK series guns are all good shooters.

 

[ClemY]

When you get down to it, the only differences between the Mk II and Mk III are the location of the mag release. If you like the Browning mag release, go with the Mk III. If you prefer the heal release, go with the Mk II. Yes there are some extra components in the Mk III: the LCI, the mag safety, and the screw lock. The mag safety can be easily removed. A bushing is available, but I chose to use a VQ Mk II hammer when I did a trigger job, so it does the same thing. I don’t particularly mind the LCI, but it is removable if it bothers you and I never touch the screw lock.

I prefer the Browning mag release, but both the Mk III button and Mk II heal release are too small for me, so I replaced both types with extended releases, so I am happy with both types.

Recently I got a 22/45 with removable wood grips. I was afraid I would find it top heavy with the steel upper/plastic lower, but it feels good. I did the usual mods to it with the addition of slightly thicker checkered wood grips and I find I actually prefer it slightly to either the Mk II or Mk III. Go figure.

 

[bannockburn]

If I had a choice in the matter, I would go with a Mk.II model over a Mk.III. It's just that the Mk.II has and does everything I need it to do without the need for any additional safety related features.

 

[mesinge2]

I like both my prefer my MkII:

 

[mountain_man]

I wouldn't even hesitate on a mk III. I have used a couple of different ones and they preformed flawlessly. Only hiccups was with one of them and it was ammo related. 2 rounds of the extremely cheap crappy ammo were way too long ant they wouldn't feed, and around 3 rounds failed to fire they were complete duds. Loaded them back into the gun several times and no boom. Put them in a different gun and once again no boom. Did I mention that that was some of the worst ammo that I have ever used.

 

[jakk280rem]

I've owned a Standard (MkI), a MkII, and a MkIII 22/45. The only one I still own is the 5" blued slabside MkII. I don't ever recall a single malfunction.

 

[mdauben]

When you get down to it, the only differences between the Mk II and Mk III are the location of the mag release. If you like the Browning mag release, go with the Mk III. If you prefer the heal release, go with the Mk II.

I orginally wanted the "Browning style" release on the new guns, but now wish I had the old heel release on my Mk.III. That's mainly because its a Competition model with the target grips. The oversized thumb rest on the target grips partially blocks the release button, making it impossible to hit with your shooting hand without switching your grip on the gun.

 

[Kiln]

I own a MK3 with well over 10k rounds through it without a single issue. Going by my experience I wouldn't hesitate to buy another one. The LCI bugs some people and so does the mag disconnect, I couldn't possibly care less about it. It has never caused an issue so to me, it is a non issue.

 

[Drail]

Until it causes an issue.... And having a 1911 style thumb mag dump button is pretty pointless if you then have to rip the mag out of the gun because it doesn't fall free because of the magazine disconnect safety. I'll stick with the MK II. Everything you need and nothing that you don't.

 

[PO2Hammer]

I have a Mark II 'standard' and had a Mark III hunter.
Besides the LCI and mag disconnect, the Mark III had a lot of sharp edges that aren't there on a Mark II. My Mark III also leaded the bore with cheap ammo, something the Mark II never does.
That said, I'm looking at buying a Mark III 22/45 Lite for a beater, something to shoot up all my hot ammo like Stingers and not worry about wear. My Mark II is getting on in years, and needs a break.

 

[Fiv3r]

I've got one of those stock 4" bull barrel 22/45 MkIIIs that eats anything. It's plain Jane and doesn't even have removable grips as the whole lower is polymer.

I've lost count of the number of rounds through it. I've taken it apart once, and now all I do is clean it out with break free. I haven't shot it in about a year and a half because I couldn't feed it regularly.

I love that it's basic, reliable, and feels like a 1911 in my hands. Boringly accurate as well. It's one of my favorite camping guns. Two loaded mags, a tanker style shoulder rig, and a pill bottle of 50 rounds, and I feel very well prepared for trail use.

 

[Kiln]

Until it causes an issue.... And having a 1911 style thumb mag dump button is pretty pointless if you then have to rip the mag out of the gun because it doesn't fall free because of the magazine disconnect safety. I'll stick with the MK II. Everything you need and nothing that you don't.

There are looots of MK3's in circulation being used constantly for plinking, competitions, and even defensive pistols for recoil sensitive individuals. It is a non issue that isn't really necessary but also isn't a real problem to anyone other than internet warriors obcessed with trashing the admittedly mildly annoying lawyer features on several modern handguns.

 

[ClemY]

I orginally wanted the "Browning style" release on the new guns, but now wish I had the old heel release on my Mk.III. That's mainly because its a Competition model with the target grips. The oversized thumb rest on the target grips partially blocks the release button, making it impossible to hit with your shooting hand without switching your grip on the gun.

Extended mag releases are available to help the mag release clear the grips.

 

[wildchild2010]

Them load chamber things are easy to take out a few buddies done it.