Ruger Mark III

[tk1971]

I'm hardly ever satisfied with any firearm out of the box.

Customizing / personalizing is part of the fun.

The V-notch rear sight blade can easily be changed with a square notched version (about $5):


I also changed out my front blade with a thinner Marble's sight.


I really like this setup:


My MKIII has had the mag disconnect, LCI, and internal lock removed. It's basically like a MKII with a mag release button and all Volquartsen innards.

 

[Dentite]

My MkIII has the square rear sight notch.

I have a few minor mods on mine:

 

[jbkebert]

I like the v-notch rear sight on my mark III hunter. works just fine and to me its easier to pick up the front sight quickly.

 

[wild cat mccane]

I guess I should have said I don't understand how to use it.

With the picture above, are you trying to dot the i, or form a straight l? With 3 dot I know its the picture looks like . . .

 

[WardenWolf]

I'll never understand why people hate the loaded chamber indicator and magazine disconnect on this gun so much. The LCI works fine, and is safe (and cannot make the gun fire if struck; this has been heavily tested), and the magazine disconnect is kind of a moot point. It's a target pistol, not a carry piece. Neither of these features have any negative impact on its primary function.

The button magazine release is also a significant improvement, regardless of what adherents to Ruger's particularly-awful heel release say. There's good ways to do a heel release. Good: Walther PPK, Makarov, and any of a variety of European designs. These are all quick and easy to operate, with a minimum of pressure required to release the magazine. The magazine on these actually pushes itself partway out when released. Bad: Ruger's, where you can't get any real bite on the release and it takes a ton of pressure and effort to get the magazine loose, and it requires pulling outward on the magazine since it doesn't self-eject.

The Mark III is still a notable upgrade, and eliminates the one glaring design flaw that has plagued this series of pistol since the beginning: the mag release.

 

[Kiln]

My MK3 is all stock and doesn't have a "V" notch back site. Do they have different variations?

I am experienced with a few things but I will admit that the differences between the Ruger MK series is not one of them.

 

[WardenWolf]

My MK3 is all stock and doesn't have a "V" notch back site. Do they have different variations?

I am experienced with a few things but I will admit that the differences between the Ruger MK series is not one of them.

There's variations depending on what version of the Mark III you purchased. There's even some distributor-exclusive variants that mix and match features of different standard versions. Some of the versions have different sights.

 

[Jolly Rogers]

A Mark III with the mag disconnector removed will allow the mag to pop out just like a 1911. No other changes but the hammer bushing to effect the removal of the mag disconnect dropped my trigger pull 3 lbs. Good deal for me.
Joe

 

[JohnM]

The LCI and the mag disconnect are idiotic lawyer add on's to protect fools from themselves. And serve no other function plus make the action more complex.
Far as sights go, yeah, there are several options available. I kinda like the patridge.

 

[Kiln]

I'll never understand why people hate the loaded chamber indicator and magazine disconnect on this gun so much. The LCI works fine, and is safe (and cannot make the gun fire if struck; this has been heavily tested), and the magazine disconnect is kind of a moot point. It's a target pistol, not a carry piece. Neither of these features have any negative impact on its primary function.

The button magazine release is also a significant improvement, regardless of what adherents to Ruger's particularly-awful heel release say. There's good ways to do a heel release. Good: Walther PPK, Makarov, and any of a variety of European designs. These are all quick and easy to operate, with a minimum of pressure required to release the magazine. The magazine on these actually pushes itself partway out when released. Bad: Ruger's, where you can't get any real bite on the release and it takes a ton of pressure and effort to get the magazine loose, and it requires pulling outward on the magazine since it doesn't self-eject.

The Mark III is still a notable upgrade, and eliminates the one glaring design flaw that has plagued this series of pistol since the beginning: the mag release.

I agree, these things never bothered me either. I also prefer the mag release on newer versions over the old style.

 

[wild cat mccane]

^also agree. LCI and mag disconnect aren't horrible. Nor does pulling the disconnect out REALLY measurably affect the trigger.

 

[jbkebert]

I personally dot the i and hold dead on target. If trying to form a solid I aim with a 6 o'clock hold. It took me a few mags and some explaination from Ruger for me to really catch on.

For plinking rabbits and squirrels I love the speed of the sight and the hi-viz front. It comes to aim at least for me so much faster than a black front sight and a black horseshoe rear sight. Even better while in the woods where shade a shaddows at least for me make things harder to see.

Shooting at a range with plenty of light and taking my sweet time. Yeah a more standard sight may be favored.

 

[tuj]

the magazine disconnect is kind of a moot point. It's a target pistol, not a carry piece. Neither of these features have any negative impact on its primary function.

Wrong, the magazine disconnect drags on the hammer bushing, negatively affecting the feel of the trigger. This, like you say, is a target gun, one that requires dry-firing to take it down nonetheless, so it seems very stupid to have a magazine disconnect safety.

 

[Shadow 7D]

I have a hunter, trigger could use some work, it's light - enough.. - crisp - kinda
but there is more not grit, just, well I have some that have a SWEET trigger, like say a Polish P64 in SA (scary actually), and for a 'target pistol' type gun, the trigger just isn't there, and you have the other crap thrown in, the lawyer trash, the basic gun is great and will last me a lifetime, even if I have to watch the YouTube video and pull up the bookmarked detailed instruction, every time I want to break it down for a detail clean.

Sights are whatever you want, and there are enough aftermarket parts, you could end up with just the grip (not the 'frame/receiver') that's actually Ruger

 

[bragin]

Mark III

Nearly 35 years ago, I wathced my stepdad knock 19 squirrel's out of trees in TX's Big Thicket, with 19 shots w/a Mark I. He shot 21 times that day to bag them. Two of them squirrels hit the ground and attempted skurry away and he shot twice more for the kill. 19 squirrel w/ 21 pops. Over the yrs, we've talked about that outing together with him saying, "Might as well not tell that story, cause most won't believe it". Since, I'm on my second Ruger .22. First the Mark II and now the Mark III. Can't shoot it like he can, but absolutely no issues w/either. I believe if you put it in a vice and MT'd the clip at about 40/50 yrds, it would just make the hole grow.

 

[Dentite]

Originally Posted by WardenWolf
I'll never understand why people hate the loaded chamber indicator and magazine disconnect on this gun so much. The LCI works fine, and is safe (and cannot make the gun fire if struck; this has been heavily tested), and the magazine disconnect is kind of a moot point. It's a target pistol, not a carry piece. Neither of these features have any negative impact on its primary function.

The button magazine release is also a significant improvement, regardless of what adherents to Ruger's particularly-awful heel release say. There's good ways to do a heel release. Good: Walther PPK, Makarov, and any of a variety of European designs. These are all quick and easy to operate, with a minimum of pressure required to release the magazine. The magazine on these actually pushes itself partway out when released. Bad: Ruger's, where you can't get any real bite on the release and it takes a ton of pressure and effort to get the magazine loose, and it requires pulling outward on the magazine since it doesn't self-eject.

The Mark III is still a notable upgrade, and eliminates the one glaring design flaw that has plagued this series of pistol since the beginning: the mag release.

The mag disconnect actually does negatively affect it's function as a target pistol...as mentioned above it causes more drag on the trigger.

And the fact that you don't like to have to pull the mags out of the MkIs and MkIIs you should like the fact that once you remove the mag disconnect the mags will drop free.

LCI take it or leave it. I just don't see the point and I would prefer it without for only the cleaner look and one less thing to gunk up and have to clean.

But I do agree with you that neither are deal breakers for me to not want to buy a MkIII. My pistol functioned fine out of the box. It just functions better now.

 

[Kiln]

The MK3 trigger gets better over time. At first it was kind of gritty but after a thousand rounds it felt fine. Now after quite a few more it is smooth as butter.

 

[StrutStopper]

I think the worst thing about the mag disconnect is the mag in, mag out hokey-pokey you have to do when disassembling/reassembling the gun.

 

[BCRider]

Mag disconnect? My pistols all see use at the local club level Speed Steel matches. At the end of the last string of shots I have to "slide forward and hammer down" before I holster. Having to stick a mag into the gun to do this is a PITA and opens up the door to an ND if for some reason I don't do things correctly for whatever reason. Simply put the mag disconnect serves no useful or safety related purpose in a target pistol at all. And as mentioned already it degrades the trigger pull and makes it less easy to drop mags.

The LCI I could care less about except that it's a dirt trap of the worst possible sort.