MarkIII Standard vs. Target

[westtx28]

The .22LR Plinkers thread currently going got me wanting to a new .22.

I have a $250 gift certificate to my local hardware store that I've been sitting on for a while. They have a Ruger MarkIII standard in stainless steel in their case. Not a great price at $345 but I can knock off $250.

I don't want to have them order something else for me and use the certificate when I go to pay for it. That just seems kind of crappy.

Is there a significant or compelling advantage to the target version with the bull barrel over the standard with the tapered barrel?

 

[prezbucky]

FWIW, I like the tapered barrel better -- reminds me of the old-school Luger design. I am bound to buy a blue MKIII4 one of these days... probably for less than $300.

 

[Runningman]

Does one of them have fixed sights and the other have adjustable sighs? If so get the one with adjustable sights. The ability to dial in POI with adjustable sights on the Rugers shouldn't be overlooked from my experience with Mark I and mark IIs.

 

[GLOOB]

From what they show on their website, Ruger doesn't seem to be offering a tapered standard mkIII in SS as a standard factory offering. That might be a distributor exclusive. If that's really a SS tapered barrel, I don't think the price is bad, at all. SS is listed as MSRP > $100 more than blued versions, and on the street they seem to actually sell at $70-100 more. So comparing that SS standard taper to a standard blue mkiii at say 279.00 at my own LGS, that's more or less the expected price. And just the other day I saw a Backpages listing for a SS tapered barrel model Mk II for $400.

As for difference? I believe it's largely aesthetics. In fact, the tapered barrels are longer than the respective bull-barrel variants: 4.75 vs 4.5, 6 vs 5.5. And the bull barrel doesn't even come in 6.875. All the other barrels do. I think the average shooter would fare better with the longer sight radius of the tapered variants, if anything.