Anyone else think Ruger should build this?

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jogar80

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
564
Location
Brownsville, Tx
I have always loved Rugers Mk series .22 pistols. I think the looks, ergonomics, reliability and everything else about them is pretty much perfect. I have always thought that a pistol in 9mm in the same pattern would be awesome and I'm sure it would sell well. Both times I have mentioned this to Ruger customer service I have pretty much been blown off. I'm just wondering, is this idea really so bad it's not even worth considering? Your thoughts please!
 
Realistically it would be a niche product to say the least. They also couldn't really do it as is. The Mk series is blow-back. 9mm can't be done in a blow-back like that, and the design with the external fixed barrel doesn't lend itself well to the traditional browning locking mechanism used in most modern centerfires.

About the best that could be done in a similar form factor would be a .380, unless they did a total redesign that only resembles it externally (and then you basically have a Luger :)).

THEN after all that is said and done, you have to ask - who is going to buy it? Its too big to conceal, and the mag capacity is too small to make it a viable competition gun.

In the end, it ends up being just an expensive novelty. If you want something similar looking/feeling in 9mm, look into getting a P-08 Luger or a Lahti L-35.
 
If you wanted it to be as close to the MK II as possible - then you would end up with a very large bolt in the rear and you'd need more room for a larger stronger spring to bring the bolt back forward. In the end, it's not going to look like a MK II

So you're probably looking at a toggle-locked design like the Luger P08

Bill Ruger was a big fan of the P08 and duplicated it in his .22 Standard and subsequent MK n pistols
 
It comes up from time to time but I think at this point in firearms design and offerings that they would have to appease the feature/capacity/accessory crowd to the point that it would not be the pistol you, I and others really wanted.

Imagine it this way: If they built a sweet singlestack, .22 like full size, the majority of gun rag "editors" would wear us out telling us what it isn't rather than appreciating the intended market.

You see the same thing in cars, trucks, motorcycles and the like where the market will clamber for say, a CJ grade Jeep but then if Jeep builds a simple, rugged, down-market product, the magazines and TV shows will commence to beat it down due to lack of Lexus features and eventually the nay-saying will filter to Joe-six-pack not wanting to own the press destroyed - otherwise perfect vehicle for him.

Or... After release you'd be hearing/reading all kinds of: "I'd really like that new Ruger 9mm if only they'd..." motivated by magazine and internet warbling.
 
jogar80 said:
I have always loved Rugers Mk series .22 pistols. I think the looks, ergonomics, reliability and everything else about them is pretty much perfect. I have always thought that a pistol in 9mm in the same pattern would be awesome and I'm sure it would sell well. Both times I have mentioned this to Ruger customer service I have pretty much been blown off. I'm just wondering, is this idea really so bad it's not even worth considering? Your thoughts please!
Click to expand...

You mean like one of these.

49.2.jpg
 
The idea isn't bad, but the execution would make the results less than desirable as adding a locking system to the MkIII would change it's lean lines.

Having it remain a blowback action would really make in heavy and likely ungainly (Hi-Point)...to say nothing of hard to manipulate with it's heavy springs (Astra 600)
 
As others have said, maybe hanging a gas system under the barrel like a P7 would allow the blowback system to work, or using a toggle action. Then again, it is an answer looking for a question, as we already have the P7, and P-08.
 
mljdeckard, the Ruger .22 pistol series was based on the looks of the Luger and Nambu. However, there is nothing similar internally.

The problem with the Ruger Mark series is that certain critical components, such as the recoil spring assembly, are not particularly robust. About the best you're going to do is .22 Magnum, and that's if you're lucky (that recoil spring assembly is pretty trashy), without totally redesigning it. And, at that point, there would be no point anymore. They're fine guns as they are, but the design doesn't scale.
 
The problem with the Ruger Mark series is that certain critical components, such as the recoil spring assembly, are not particularly robust. About the best you're going to do is .22 Magnum, and that's if you're lucky (that recoil spring assembly is pretty trashy), without totally redesigning it.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The design of the recoil spring assembly is robust, and not "trashy" at all. It is very well designed and actually overbuilt FOR A .22.

I have thousands and thousands of rounds through one of my MK II's which I bought new in 1991. The recoil spring assembly is original and still running fine.
 
Why would you pitch the idea to customer service reps? That's like telling the cashier at McDonald's they should add something to the menu.
 
The Spanish CETME and H&K delayed-blowback rifles in .308 NATO with roller locking use fixed barrel without the complications of a gas or recoil system.

However, to incorporate roller locks in the bolt design for a Ruger style pistol, you would probably have to go to a rectangular bolt and slab-sided receiver. The locking system would probably need to be at the rear section of the bolt/receiver. Could get interesting but would there be a market?
 
Carl N. Brown said:
However, to incorporate roller locks in the bolt design for a Ruger style pistol, you would probably have to go to a rectangular bolt and slab-sided receiver. The locking system would probably need to be at the rear section of the bolt/receiver. Could get interesting but would there be a market?
Click to expand...
In a roller-delayed system the roller system can't be at the rear. You need room behind the rollers to for the breach block extension to move backwards to allow the roller to retract.

Plus the receiver would have to be almost twice the width of the current Ruger
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top