MkIII 22/45 Hunter: good choice for 50ft UT campus range?

[MatthewVanitas]

Greetings,
We're getting capacity crowds most nights at the UT Austin campus shooting range, which means that we're getting a little short on .22 pistols. We have just enough to cover each lane, but we usually have at least one or two pistols down for repair/cleaning at a time. These kids shoot 'em like the stole 'em, so they get grungy fast and burn up extractors and buffers.

So, an extra pistol on hand is needed. I was first thinking Neos, because of the apparently good design, small grip, etc. But then it occurred to me that a MkIII 22/45 would be close enough to our MkIIs, but different enough to provide some variety. Our MkIIs and 22a get tons of use (and abuse) and run like champs.

Only downside: the MkIII 22/45 only comes in 6.8" Hunter fluted barrel, or the bull barrel in variety of lengths with adjustable sights. Would the bull, long or short, be too heavy for beginners? I'm hoping that the long fluted barrel would balance better than the bull. Man, but I wish that the slabsided 22/45 had adjustable sights, but it's a fixed.

Anything I'm missing here, or would the 22/45 Hunter be a good range gun? Should I save some of the club's money ($240 vs. $400ish) and get the blued bull with adjustable instead? Maybe better to toss in an extra $20 and get stainless.

Actually, I could buy a Neos and a 22/45 bull for a litte more than what the Hunter would cost. Hmmm...

-MV

 

[longeyes]

My Neos (4500 rounds) is a jammer. I bought it because it's easy to take down. Mistake.

 

[PotatoJudge]

I would consider a few things if making this decision:
1. If these guns get worked on on a regular basis, having one type of gun will make it easier to always have the part you need on hand and reduce the time any gun is down. I don't know how many of the 22/45 parts interchange with the MKIII, but I know the mags don't. The uppers may be the same.
2. The hunters are very cool looking, and people like cool looking guns. +1 for the RKBA here.
3. The hunters have an adjustable v-notch rear and fiber optic front sight. This makes for a different sight picture which may make teaching with it difficult, but itsn't a negative to me.
4. Stainless tolerates abuse better than blueing, and is probably worth the extra money.
5. Is the club better off with one Hunter, or a cheaper 22/45 and upgrades for the other guns (really just a VQ sear, I'm thinking). Or would anyone even want the upgrades?
6. Its really tough to justify $400 for the hunters. I tried, and ended up getting a Standard made in 1976 with a 6in bbl for about 1/3 that price. The Hunters are a luxury item relative to the other Rugers for 50ft shooting.

On the other hand, I'd still like the Hunter. You know, if the UT pistol club was open to UT Houston students, it'd be nice to shoot with you guys. In that case, get the Hunter and I'll see you there.

 

[weregunner]

Some things to consider here. Ruger MK III are hefty. That is partly why I bought it with the 5.5 barrel. It sits in the hand for bullseye shooting and has less waver than the 22/45 my wife uses. Then the 22/45s are cheaper and still get a great pistol. Since dureability is an issue the Rugers will last. These guys are right. 22/45 mags and MK III mags are different. Take a look at the standard pistol models of both Ruger and Browning Buckmark. The cost of either standard model would be cheaper than a adjustable sighted model. Brownings have good attributes like the Rugers do. On the other hand the Ruger I have has digested thousands of rounds and has never bobbled once. That is also without cleaning sometimes. Bad habit letting the cleaning go after a session. Did that for over 500 rounds and the Ruger kept ticking. Have a brother in law who shoots his Buckmark for competition and does well. He had a Walther and sold it because he had many problems. Others probably do not. That's my opinion. Take it for what it is worth and good luck on your choice.