Been wanting a Ruger KMK 512

[steveus101]

Hi, I've found a new in box Mk III at a decent, not great price but it seems that many would prefer the Mk II or IV. Other than the loaded chamber indicator, which I don't like the looks of, are there any other "problems" with the MK III vs. the others? Thanks

 

[Mn Fats]

Not with me. I've owned one for a bit. I've never heard of it being called a KMK 512. But the newest MK's made have an easier breakdown.

Some folks complain about the complexity of taking a Ruger MK down for cleaning etc. I believe the Ruger MK IV alleviated that.

It never was an issue for me. You get used to it. The Ruger MK II is the sweet spot for me.

 

[Frankl03]

The Mk III has the loaded chamber indicator and a mag safety meaning it won't fire a round without a magazine in it. They are hard to field strip untill you get the hang of it. (you can learn almost anything on youtube). If you can find a MK IV at a decent price you will save your self learning to tear down a MK II or Mk III.

For under $500 you can buy a Ruger Mk IV Target with a bull barrel or for under $400 you can buy a Ruger Mk IV 22/45.. After you buy it you may want to upgrade with some VQ or Tandem Kross parts.

 

[Demi-human]

I have a MKIII, and wasn’t able to get the LCI pin out to remove the Loaded Chamber Indicator. I haven’t ever had a problem with it.

I did remove the magazine disconnector. Better trigger and safer clearing…

Steel plates, you have met your demise!

 

[bannockburn]

I have always been a fan of the Ruger Mk.II, more specifically the Model 512 (or KMK 512 in Ruger's designation for a stainless steel 5 1/2" bull barrel version). My current Mk.II was part of a limited edition made by Ruger for one of their distributors with a nicely blued upper receiver and a polished stainless steel grip frame. The trigger was great right out of the box and the way it balances in my hand with that bull barrel feels just right for me! It's a real tack driver (provided I do my part), with a preference for Wolf Match Target, CCI MiniMags, and CCI SV.

 

[AlexanderA]

The Mark III loaded chamber indicator, as originally designed, was a definite safety hazard. (A sharp blow on the side of the gun could set off a round.) Ruger redesigned the indicator, and announced a safety recall. Nevertheless, the LCI is ugly and unnecessary. There's a reason it wasn't carried over to the Mark IV. You can remove it and substitute an aftermarket filler piece.

The other big problem with the Mark III is the magazine disconnector. This not only adversely affects the trigger pull, but it makes the takedown process more difficult. You can remove the magazine disconnector mechanism, and substitute a Mark II hammer and sear.

The main advantage of the Mark III over the Mark II is the 1911-style magazine release, as opposed to the heel release. If you like the heel release, go with the Mark II.

Here's a picture of my Mark III with the filler piece in lieu of the LCI:

 

[steveus101]

Thanks everyone for all the info. Just what I was asking for.

 

[armedwalleye]

I think you’ll find, out of the box, the Mk II has about the best factory trigger of the series, followed by the MK IV. The MK III trigger, with the mag disconnect in place is light years down the curve, and it’s still far short with the disconnect removed.
Further, the chamber indicator and the lawyer sponsored billboard n the side of the barrel aesthetically degrade the pistol.
I have passed over the III in favor of a number of IIs and IVs and will continue to do so.

 

[AlexanderA]

I think you’ll find, out of the box, the Mk II has about the best factory trigger of the series, followed by the MK IV.

In my own experience, my 1970-vintage Mark I had the best trigger out of the box. I made no modifications to it at all, except for replacing the undercut front sight with a ramp sight. Each subsequent generation of Marks, although it had undeniable improvements, needed an increasing number of modifications to bring it up to par. What it boiled down to was this: of Ruger's "improvements," in each case, about half were good, and the other half had to be undone.

Regarding my Mark II, replacing the stock trigger with a Clark, and the sear with a Volquartsen, brought the trigger pull up to the "gold standard" of my Mark I. Otherwise it was OK.

If today I had to buy one, and only one, Ruger Mark, it would be a Mark IV. But I would do this knowing that I had to make a long list of changes before being fully satisfied. (6 or 7 changes by my count.) The unmodified Mark IV trigger pull is lousy. Probably the worst of the bunch. You must remove the magazine disconnector on that thing before you can get anywhere.

 

[armedwalleye]

In my own experience, my 1970-vintage Mark I had the best trigger out of the box. I made no modifications to it at all, except for replacing the undercut front sight with a ramp sight. Each subsequent generation of Marks, although it had undeniable improvements, needed an increasing number of modifications to bring it up to par. What it boiled down to was this: of Ruger's "improvements," in each case, about half were good, and the other half had to be undone.

Regarding my Mark II, replacing the stock trigger with a Clark, and the sear with a Volquartsen, brought the trigger pull up to the "gold standard" of my Mark I. Otherwise it was OK.

If today I had to buy one, and only one, Ruger Mark, it would be a Mark IV. But I would do this knowing that I had to make a long list of changes before being fully satisfied. (6 or 7 changes by my count.) The unmodified Mark IV trigger pull is lousy. Probably the worst of the bunch. You must remove the magazine disconnector on that thing before you can get anywhere.

Never had a Mk I or pre-Mk, nor shot one, so you may be right on that count.
However, as I indicated in the portion you quoted “out of the box”, meant just that. As is, no refinements.
While with refinements, you could even make the sow’s ear Mk III into a silk purse, that wasn’t the point of my post at all.