Ruger Mk. II vs Mk. III?

[Panzerschwein]

Hey guys, I've sold a gun for some fat cash and I've decided to... what else... BUY ANOTHER GUN!!!

So I've been wanting a new .22 handgun for some time. I actually own an NAA mini revolver but pray tell, that is not so much a good target gun, to say the least.

So I've been interested in the Ruger Mk. II since I shot my uncles years ago. It was really fun. But, I hear Ruger doesn't make that model anymore and instead have a "new and improved" version in the Mk. III that is maybe not as good as the older Mk. II. I hear the Mk. IIIs are hard to take apart for one thing.

So, what should I do? Which is the better, more simple gun? Should I hunt down a Mk. II or will the Mk. III be better?

Thanks!

 

[minutemen1776]

Both are relatively difficult to disassemble, but the Mark III has a few extra steps. The Mark III added a push-button mag release, loaded-chamber indicator, and magazine safety. For that reason, I'd say the Mark II is the simpler design. That said, they handle about the same. I'd also suggest trying a Browning Buck Mark. I've handled lots of rimfire pistols, and the Browning is the one I prefer by far.

 

[stchman]

The OP could also look at a Mark III 22/45. I own a Mark III 22/45 and it is a really accurate 22LR pistol.

I removed the magazine disconnect and replaced it with a Tandemkross bushing, the re-assembly has been greatly simplified as you no longer have to keep re-inserting the magazine.

 

[CZ9shooter]

I'd go for a new 22/45 for the better ergos and looks, IMO of course. The model with wood grip panels. Then later a change some trigger parts for a sweet shooting gun. Simpler too.

 

[Panzerschwein]

Buckmark... ah yes, BUCKMARK!!!!

I forgot about them ones. Shoulda stuck that one in the poll too. DANG IT TA HADES!!!!

Eh-hmm... sorry about that, now where was I... ah yes, the Browning Buckmark. How are the new ones of those if you don't mind me asking while we're here? They look sharp.

 

[9mmepiphany]

closed at OP's request