Question about Ruger Mark III

[ajsilvaoc]

Hey everyone, I am new to the group and new to handgun ownership. I am looking at the Ruger Mark III but was wondering what the difference is between the standard Mark III and the Mark III 22/45. the seem as if they are the same pistol.

thanks.
AJ

 

[FTF]

The grip is different... the angle of the 22/45 is supposed to mirror the superior grip of the .45 1911. Superior being in the eye of the holder... heh holder.

 

[jac714]

The MKIII 22/45 is a polymer framed pistol that has a grip and operating controls that mimic the 1911.

The basic MKIII is a steel framed Ruger design. I shoot a MKIII for bullsseye and plinking and love it. Probably the most shot gun I won.

Either one will work great, try holding each of them (shooting them if possible) and decide which you like the most.

Good Luck.

 

[darwin-t]

The 22/45 dosn't have removable grips - and the grip is really thin. Some people have ground them down and inserted lugs (or whatever they're called to use screws to hold grip on) to install grips. I bought a rubber wrap-around grip, hollowed out the inner surface to match the shape of the "grips" and used clear silicone sealer to hold them on. It worked out really well.

The magazine release is like the one on a 1911 - up closer to the trigger shroud.

As for MKIII, it has a loaded chamber indicator that is magnet for crud. The magazine safety is a huge pain in the neck. I think you have to insert or remove the magazine 6 or 7 times while field stripping it. You can replace the hammer and hammer bushing with MKII versions to eliminate that problem, but you should never sell a pistol you've modified that way and if it ever goes to Ruger for repairs, say bye-bye to anything non-stock.

I had a 22/45, traded it for an MKII - I like the angle of the grip better and no "safety" "features" other than the normal stuff. And the MKII has a 10" barrel.

 

[ZeSpectre]

Any comments I have on the matter can be found on this post.

All said I really like my 22/45 MK III now that it's a little broken in and I'm more familiar with it.

 

[Coyote3855]

I have a couple of original Ruger .22 Standards, a Mark II .22/45 w/ 5.5" barrel and adjustable sights, and a fairly new Mark III .22/45 with fixed sights adn 4.5 inch barrel. I like the Mark III .22/45 because of the 1911 ergonomics AND the flatter grips. I put skateboard tape on the front and back strap of the Mark II, the Mark III gives me a secure grip without it. I carry the Mark III IWB around the place for ground squirrels and prairie dogs. The trigger pull on the Mark III is the worst of the four Rugers. My reliable local smith said the trigger/sear interface had the toughest surface hardening he's encountered. Brownell's service dept. recommended not stoning the sear or trigger lest one destroy the surface hardening. The trigger pull has smoothed up a little with use. Volquartsen has an trigger sear upgrade, but I am reluctant to spend 2/3 the price of the pistol on a trigger job.

Coyote3855

 

[El Tejon]

Why Ruger went to this Mark III config I cannot fathom.:banghead:

The Mark II 22/45 is such a neat weapon once you stone the trigger and put in a hex nut to ease the field strip. However, I understand it is the gun industry and no one has any idea what they are doing.