Mark III or 22/45

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

firme67

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
39
I am considering each of these pistols:

Only considering the difference in grip size and angle: Which of the 2 pistols do you feel would be a better fit for a shooter with smaller hands? As a reference, I have the small grip inserts on my SR22. I more than likely will not be able to handle both guns so was just looking for some insight. Thank you in advance.
 
By original, which model do you mean? Sorry for the stupid question.
 
Both are excellent options. Pick up each and see which feels better in your hands. They are pretty common guns - most any big box outdoor store will have examples you can handle.
 
I think the biggest difference is the weight. The Marks are typically steel frame, the 22/45 polymer. There is no advantage to the 22/45 other than training for a 1911 (or a personal preference)
 
Either is a good choice. I have a Mark II. But I want to buy a 22/45 eventually also. I would suggest you get one of the heavy barrel versions for general shooting.

I suspect the Mark II/III will fit you better with smallish hands. But you really need to pick one or two up and handle them so you can make a judgement. But without holding one, I'd go with the Mark III.
 
The grip angle of the 22/45 fits me better, and the fatter Mark II 22/45 grips fit me better than the (early non-removeable grip) Mark III 22/45 did.

(I prefer the Buckmark over either these days, but they're all fantastic .22 pistols.)
 
As an instructor I keep both at the ready for my students. Most gravitate to the MK III Hunter. It must be the grip angle and the looks that drive their decision but I have turned dozens of students into really fine shooters with this gun. Full Volquartsen internals help a lot.

RugerMkIIIHunter.gif
 
Mk II/III here. I like the balance of the all steel frame, the 22/45 feels top heavy.

And you just can't beat the classic lines of the orginal Ruger pistol.
 
I believe the original grip design would be better for smaller hands.
Click to expand...
I've actually got somewhat larger than average hands, and I find the original grip design works better for me. I think it has more to do with our preferred grip angle than anything to do with hand size, although I have heard some people say that the original grip angle works better for single-handed, bullseye style shooting (which I use my Mk. III Comp for) while the 22/45 grip angle works better for a two-handed shooting style. In the end, the OP just really needs to hunt down an example of each to see which he likes best.
 
My little nephew had a little trouble with my Mark III, but more cause of the weight, Bull Barrel, holographic sight..

It's really going to depend on the person.. Try them out.
 
Thanks for the replies. I called Cabelas and they have some of each so I may just have to take a trip up there this weekend.
 
It's a win-win decision between the two. Both excellent plinkers. I prefer the grip angle of the MK III, but you really need to handle both to make up your mind.

If you do go with the 22/45, I'd recommend the one with replaceable grips. The one without is far too narrow in my opinion. But that can also be somewhat corrected with a Hogue grip sleeve.
 
The version of the MKIII 22/45 that has no option for replacable grip panels is very small. Feels almost like a childs toy when grasped with my slightly larger than average hands. The fact that it is all plastic may influence that feeling. Anyway, this gun may be my choice if were in this position. I dislike the swept back grip of the other MK models.

I own a 22/45 with the factory cocbolo grips. I would not consider it small. Medium maybe.
 
MkIII hunter for me. Great pistol and very accurate! I also installed the VQ stuff including trigger. It has one of the finest triggers of any gun I own!
 
I have small hands and have always preferred the grip angle of the Mk.I, II, III over that of the 22/45. Also for me the 5 1/2" bull barrel gives me a proper sight radius and balance. Add a pair of thumbrest tarrget grips and you have a pretty decent .22 pistol for plinking, target shooting, or small game hunting.
 
I love my 22/45. It feels a little topheavy, but I kind of attribute that to being the 5.5" bull-barrel model.

I have medium hands and kind of wish the grip was wider. Not larger, really, but it's so flat and doesn't have much to get into my palm. It's not the model with replaceable grips, but I'm going to add a slip-on to it soon enough.

I don't think the non-replaceable one would be a problem for small hands, but the traditional grip might be better, if only because you can replace the grips. Then again, I remember it being fairly close to Luger-sized, and I learned on a .22 version when I was somewhere around eight, so that may not be an issue.
 
Go to your local gun shop (or better, rental range), try them, and you tell us. Everyone's grip is different, it's going to be a personal choice.

I had a student who was 4'11" with tiny hands that loved the Beretta 92FS. Go figure...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
Which .22 pistol is best for me.
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
stinger 327
stinger 327
A
  • Locked
Do the Ruger Mk-III pistols the same internals as the 22/45 MK-III?
Replies
20
Views
2K
aarondhgraham
A
S
  • Locked
Mark III 22/45 question
Replies
5
Views
614
Coyote3855
Coyote3855
stchman
  • Locked
Installed Tandemkross bushing for Mark III.
Replies
13
Views
2K
tuj
tuj
G
  • Locked
Mark III 22/45 red dot
Replies
4
Views
594
JDGray
J
Back
Top