I stumbled upon something this morning, and I'm in a sort of denial phase where I don't really want to believe it's true. While browsing Admin "XavierBreath" 's blog this morning (http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/), I came upon his little write-up down the page about the KMK678G, i.e. the stainless MkII Govt. Model. In there, Xavier notes that the Govt Model came with a 25y proof target and that the pistol had its bore aligned by laser at the factory, and had 1:15 twist rifling instead of the standard Ruger 1:14 twist.
As soon as I read that about the twist ratio, I went waddling over to the Ruger site. I've been looking at rimfire pistols again lately (I sold off every gun I own several years ago, due to exceptional circumstances. I can explain, but its irrelevant here), so I'm in that mode where you hunt down info scraps. I used to own a blued Govt model that I bought for cheap due to abuse by the previous owner(s), and though it was in sad shape I loved it. When I started looking/shopping recently, I was extremely disappointed to see what Ruger had done to the ol' MkII. Mag disconnect safety? LCI? Internal lock? Not only are these new features unwelcome, they are hideously designed. Especially that LCI.
So, I've been a MkIII hater since first learning of them. Until perhaps this morning, when I discovered a possible raisin in the cowpie.
According to the Ruger website, all the MkIII pistols have an even tighter 1:16 twist ratio. While this probably won't make a practical difference except from a ransom rest or perhaps in the hands of some sick & twisted bullseye mutant, I still find this slight technical advantage to be enough to make me actually consider purchasing a MkIII (and promptly rip its PC guts out )
Am I reading this wrong? Are MkIII barrels really an improvement?
As soon as I read that about the twist ratio, I went waddling over to the Ruger site. I've been looking at rimfire pistols again lately (I sold off every gun I own several years ago, due to exceptional circumstances. I can explain, but its irrelevant here), so I'm in that mode where you hunt down info scraps. I used to own a blued Govt model that I bought for cheap due to abuse by the previous owner(s), and though it was in sad shape I loved it. When I started looking/shopping recently, I was extremely disappointed to see what Ruger had done to the ol' MkII. Mag disconnect safety? LCI? Internal lock? Not only are these new features unwelcome, they are hideously designed. Especially that LCI.
So, I've been a MkIII hater since first learning of them. Until perhaps this morning, when I discovered a possible raisin in the cowpie.
According to the Ruger website, all the MkIII pistols have an even tighter 1:16 twist ratio. While this probably won't make a practical difference except from a ransom rest or perhaps in the hands of some sick & twisted bullseye mutant, I still find this slight technical advantage to be enough to make me actually consider purchasing a MkIII (and promptly rip its PC guts out )
Am I reading this wrong? Are MkIII barrels really an improvement?