High Standard vs. Ruger MKII

[Okiecruffler]

I'm currently looking at a High Standard Citation in good condition for $399 to replace my Mitchell. Since I have spent way too much money lately, I'll have to put it on layaway. But today while picking up some powder, I stumbled onto a Ruger MKII NIB, 5.5inch Bull barrel and adj. sights for $265. I started wondering if it might be better to get the Ruger and put $100 in after market parts on it. Anyone know if that would put the Ruger in the same class as the High Standard? Or does anyone have a better idea for around $400?

 

[Old Fuff]

The Hi-Standard is a much better gun, in that the adjustments in the rear sight are more uniform and they usually have a much better trigger pull. If it is one of the Military series the grip is the same as a Government Model Colt. It is also much easier to take down for cleaning, and you can exchange barrels. By the time you have the Ruger "worked over" you may well find you've spent more money then the Hi-Standard costs.

On the other side of the coin, it is easier, and less expensive to find magazines and accessories for the Ruger then the Hi-Standard.

 

[Grump]

I've shot both. The High Standard gets the nod. You won't *need* aftermarket accessories. The difference in craftsmanship is far more than the $139.00 price difference.

Errr...what kinds of aftermarket accessories are you thinking of anyway? It's a .22 semiauto pistol...

 

[10-Ring]

I've shot both & like both. I prefer the Ruger for all the aftermarket parts that are available for it when it becomes time to customize

 

[Standing Wolf]

3 to 0 at my house.

 

[Okiecruffler]

The wife brought up an interesting twist. The Ruger may hold it's value, but the HS is more of an investment. I love when she gives me a reason to buy a gun. Now if I could just pry the checkbook from her talons.