Inflammatory title I realize, but let me qualify the question. Having read yet another “I don’t want a Mk IV” thread I felt this sort of discussion was High Road worthy.
What I think I know from reading threads is that the Mk II is the pinnacle of perfection (unless a Mk I owner shows up to respond), the Mk III is abysmal due to a few removable parts, and the Mk IV is targeted at a group known as the “illiterati” who are too stupid to follow disassembly instructions that Mk II owners were seemingly born knowing.
I also “know” that despite better quality processes and control, new machinery, and a host of aftermarket support (which is often inquired about) that later Mark pistols need these things while the I and II are perfection from the box (even as the owners describe the VQ goodies they’ve stuffed inside).
I know that a nearly invisible hinge makes the IV ugly, that it may wear out as a result of being hinged, and that “many people” favor the Mark II. Now anyone perusing the rifles section is also painfully aware of all those 10/22s with metal trigger guards that 1-hole any dime size 50 yard target and are versed in how much better a Series xyz Mini-14 is than today’s pot metal excuse.
So I ask again, is Ruger simply producing cheapened, over priced, ugly, poorly shooting garbage these days or are the straw man arguments mere justification for the insecure? I’d hate to think that my money is foolishly spent or that despite outstanding tolerances and process investment that every last one of my 7 recently purchased Ruger rifles/pistols is in all ways inferior.
