Questions about Ruger .22 pistols
- Thread starter RM
- Start date
- Status
I have the Mark III Hunter 6 7/8". It, like the others ( II and III for sure, can't say for sure about the I) can be dry fired; which as you may already know, is unusual for .22 rimfires.
I have read many espousing the Mark II.
I think that many like the II because it does not have the safety additions that have been added to the III, such as the inability of the Mark III to fire unless the magazine is in. Also regarding the magazine-in-safety in the III, because it is there, there are a couple of extra things to be aware of when breaking it down, such as having to keep the trigger depressed a certain times which, if I recall, is not required with the II.
Many like the 5 1/2" II.
I really like my III Hunter, tho'.
cavman
I have read many espousing the Mark II.
I think that many like the II because it does not have the safety additions that have been added to the III, such as the inability of the Mark III to fire unless the magazine is in. Also regarding the magazine-in-safety in the III, because it is there, there are a couple of extra things to be aware of when breaking it down, such as having to keep the trigger depressed a certain times which, if I recall, is not required with the II.
Many like the 5 1/2" II.
I really like my III Hunter, tho'.
cavman
I have the Mark III Hunter 6 7/8". It, like the others ( II and III for sure, can't say for sure about the I) can be dry fired; which as you may already know, is unusual for .22 rimfires.
I have read many espousing the Mark II.
I think that many like the II because it does not have the safety additions that have been added to the III, such as the inability of the Mark III to fire unless the magazine is in. Also regarding the magazine-in-safety in the III, because it is there, there are a couple of extra things to be aware of when breaking it down, such as having to keep the trigger depressed a certain times which, if I recall, is not required with the II.
Many like the 5 1/2" II.
I really like my III Hunter, tho'.
cavman
I have read many espousing the Mark II.
I think that many like the II because it does not have the safety additions that have been added to the III, such as the inability of the Mark III to fire unless the magazine is in. Also regarding the magazine-in-safety in the III, because it is there, there are a couple of extra things to be aware of when breaking it down, such as having to keep the trigger depressed a certain times which, if I recall, is not required with the II.
Many like the 5 1/2" II.
I really like my III Hunter, tho'.
cavman
The Mark I is only available on the used market. It was the original Ruger .22 pistol.
The Mark II is being phased out by Ruger, but you can probably still find new ones on the shelves. This is probably the gun to buy IMO.
The Mark III is an "updated" Mark II. It has a built-in lock that deactivates the gun, a magazine safety, and a chamber-loaded indicator on the side of the receiver. I'm not terribly thrilled with these "features". There's not a whole lot of difference otherwise.
There were a lot of Mark II variants made. Different barrel lengths, different finishes, different barrel profiles, different grips, different sights, with and without provision for scope mounting, etc. Because of the many different variables, it's hard to say which variant has the best balance. I like the 5" bull barrel model, myself, but there are longer barrels with lighter profiles that probably balance very similarly.
The Mark II is being phased out by Ruger, but you can probably still find new ones on the shelves. This is probably the gun to buy IMO.
The Mark III is an "updated" Mark II. It has a built-in lock that deactivates the gun, a magazine safety, and a chamber-loaded indicator on the side of the receiver. I'm not terribly thrilled with these "features". There's not a whole lot of difference otherwise.
There were a lot of Mark II variants made. Different barrel lengths, different finishes, different barrel profiles, different grips, different sights, with and without provision for scope mounting, etc. Because of the many different variables, it's hard to say which variant has the best balance. I like the 5" bull barrel model, myself, but there are longer barrels with lighter profiles that probably balance very similarly.
10-Ring
Member
I've had a MkII 4 ever. I've shot many others over the years and I've developed a preference for the 5" heavy barrels - slabside or bull.
CajunBass
Member
Around here the Gander Mountain stores have the Mk II for as low as $219.00, so I agree that is the one to buy. Most of those are 4" fixed sight guns, which make great plinkers and fun guns.
I've got (or my wife and I have) a Mk II and Mk III (22/45). As others have said the biggest difference is the keylock safety, a magazine disconnect, and a loaded chamber indicator on the MK III. To me those are non issues. Others feel differently about them. The Mk III is harder to take down for cleaning, but as long as you follow the directions TO THE LETTER you'll be ok. Frankly, I just don't break them down that often, and they just keep on shooting. Both are extreamly reliable, you'll have more problems with ammo than with the gun.
Both of ours are 4" barrels. The Mk II is the standard tapered barrel, and the Mk III is a 4" bull barrel. Both shoot a lot better than I can. Mostly I just like the look of a 4" barrel.
You won't go wrong with either one IMHO. Someone will come along before too long and tell you about another brand, and they'll be right. Browning, Smith & Wesson, and a few others make good guns too.
I've got (or my wife and I have) a Mk II and Mk III (22/45). As others have said the biggest difference is the keylock safety, a magazine disconnect, and a loaded chamber indicator on the MK III. To me those are non issues. Others feel differently about them. The Mk III is harder to take down for cleaning, but as long as you follow the directions TO THE LETTER you'll be ok. Frankly, I just don't break them down that often, and they just keep on shooting. Both are extreamly reliable, you'll have more problems with ammo than with the gun.
Both of ours are 4" barrels. The Mk II is the standard tapered barrel, and the Mk III is a 4" bull barrel. Both shoot a lot better than I can. Mostly I just like the look of a 4" barrel.
You won't go wrong with either one IMHO. Someone will come along before too long and tell you about another brand, and they'll be right. Browning, Smith & Wesson, and a few others make good guns too.
Sistema1927
Member
You can't go wrong with any of them.
Mine is a 1958 vintage "Standard" model, 4" barrel and fixed sights.
Mine is a 1958 vintage "Standard" model, 4" barrel and fixed sights.
JackOfAllTradesMasterAtNone
Member
I have had four MKII's in my day. I currently own and shoot Bullseye with two. The 6 7/8" Slab side SS Government Target model is not your average plinker. But with the target grips, is pretty well balanced. I also have a 4 3/8" Bull Barrel SS Target model. It is much better balanced, and still comes with adjustable rear sight. The bargain model is the Standard MKII with 4 3/8" tapered barrel. Still an accurate plinker, it does lack adjustable sights. And to me, they are required. You have to get the Government model to get scope mount options I think. Else, other than the 'new features of the MKIII', they're all equivelant internally. They'll all accept aftermarket triggers, springs and grips. I'll admit though, the Browning Buckmark Camper model has a better trigger out of the box. And it's still available with 5" barrel. It's also extremely well balanced. But if you're a Ruger fan like me, the MKII is a great choice. For functionality and resale value, the Bull Barrel Target Model with adjustable sights is the one to get. And the price difference between Blue or Stainless is neglegable in my book.
If they offered a 22/45 MKII in a polymer bottom, with the adjustable sight, stainless reciever, and 5" Bull barrel, then that'd be the cat's meow.
-Steve
If they offered a 22/45 MKII in a polymer bottom, with the adjustable sight, stainless reciever, and 5" Bull barrel, then that'd be the cat's meow.
-Steve
Carl N. Brown
Member
Barrel length and balance is a very personal preference:
you will just have to try them out and see.
changes in the Ruger .22 pistols as I have noticed
Mark I: Original
Vague resemblamce to Luger grip angle
Nine shot magazine
Magazine catch at bottom of grip "P38 position"
Thumb safety can be used as bolt-hold-open catch.
Thumb safety will not go up if uncocked; therefore = cocking indicator.
Mark II Revised
Ten shot magazine
Thumb safety does NOT serve as bolt-open catch.
Seperate bolt-open catch activated by empty mag or by user's thumb.
22/45 Revised
Polymer frame matching .45 1911 Colt-Browning grip angle
Magazine catch moved near trigger guard "1911 position"
Magazine with extended floorplate, new catch position.
Mark III Latest
Similar in style to Mark I and Mark II
Loaded Chamber indicator
Magazine disconnect safety
Magazine catch moved near trigger guard "1911 or Luger position"
Magazine with 22/45 catch position, Mark III style floorplate.
General
Magzines NOT interchangeable between models.
Barrels and sights available in a wide variety
of weights and lengths, fixed or adjustable sights.
Mark I and II are tricky to REassemble; 22/45 easier;
don't know about Mark III
[B}Personal[/b}
I own a Mark II 6" tapered barrel fixed sughts and
my son owns a 22/45 5.5" bull barrel adjustable sights.
Our favorite guns out of two dozen handguns we have
owned so far. These get more field time than any others.
Personally, I dislike magazine safeties for two reasons:
First you should learn to remove magazine then clear chamber;
the idea that you can "forget" a round in the chamber with a
magazine safety is not safe in my not so humble opinion:
you should learn to remove magazine then clear chamber.
Second, if you lose the magazine in the woods, you still
have a singleshot gun for foraging food or protection.
I am divided in opinion about the loaded chamber indicator.
I am a firm believer in Keep It Sweet and Simple, and too
much complication is not KISSy.
The Mark I II and 22.45 very KISSy.
Mark III is hey, let's add features. (Just my opinion).
you will just have to try them out and see.
changes in the Ruger .22 pistols as I have noticed
Mark I: Original
Vague resemblamce to Luger grip angle
Nine shot magazine
Magazine catch at bottom of grip "P38 position"
Thumb safety can be used as bolt-hold-open catch.
Thumb safety will not go up if uncocked; therefore = cocking indicator.
Mark II Revised
Ten shot magazine
Thumb safety does NOT serve as bolt-open catch.
Seperate bolt-open catch activated by empty mag or by user's thumb.
22/45 Revised
Polymer frame matching .45 1911 Colt-Browning grip angle
Magazine catch moved near trigger guard "1911 position"
Magazine with extended floorplate, new catch position.
Mark III Latest
Similar in style to Mark I and Mark II
Loaded Chamber indicator
Magazine disconnect safety
Magazine catch moved near trigger guard "1911 or Luger position"
Magazine with 22/45 catch position, Mark III style floorplate.
General
Magzines NOT interchangeable between models.
Barrels and sights available in a wide variety
of weights and lengths, fixed or adjustable sights.
Mark I and II are tricky to REassemble; 22/45 easier;
don't know about Mark III
[B}Personal[/b}
I own a Mark II 6" tapered barrel fixed sughts and
my son owns a 22/45 5.5" bull barrel adjustable sights.
Our favorite guns out of two dozen handguns we have
owned so far. These get more field time than any others.
Personally, I dislike magazine safeties for two reasons:
First you should learn to remove magazine then clear chamber;
the idea that you can "forget" a round in the chamber with a
magazine safety is not safe in my not so humble opinion:
you should learn to remove magazine then clear chamber.
Second, if you lose the magazine in the woods, you still
have a singleshot gun for foraging food or protection.
I am divided in opinion about the loaded chamber indicator.
I am a firm believer in Keep It Sweet and Simple, and too
much complication is not KISSy.
The Mark I II and 22.45 very KISSy.
Mark III is hey, let's add features. (Just my opinion).
My buddy has a MKI. Disadvantages: 9 shot mag. and doesn't lock back on last shot. I wouldn't bother looking for one.
My buddy and I both have MKII's. His is a blue target model, 5.5" bull barrel. I have a stainless target model, 5.5" bull barrel and a standard blue tapered barrel model. These are all steel frame models.
I would recommend the MKII steel frame target model. I have not shot the 22/45 target model, but I don't like the balance feel with the polymer frame.
I would also like to have a government model slab side w/6 7/8" barrel, but the only ones I see have right handed target grips and I shoot left handed. I'm too cheap to buy a second set of grips.
There may be a MKIII hunter in my future, but I'm going to wait until they show up on the used market.
My buddy and I both have MKII's. His is a blue target model, 5.5" bull barrel. I have a stainless target model, 5.5" bull barrel and a standard blue tapered barrel model. These are all steel frame models.
I would recommend the MKII steel frame target model. I have not shot the 22/45 target model, but I don't like the balance feel with the polymer frame.
I would also like to have a government model slab side w/6 7/8" barrel, but the only ones I see have right handed target grips and I shoot left handed. I'm too cheap to buy a second set of grips.
There may be a MKIII hunter in my future, but I'm going to wait until they show up on the used market.
Started out with a 6" Standard "Mark I" (misnamed, actually) in 1959. Foolishly sold it, but have had about 5 around the house and in the family since. I lean to the 4 3/4" standard (slim) barrel and fixed sights as the handiest, lightest, and they are certainly no slouch for accuracy. The one thing that does help is a trigger job. Did one on a beater 4 3/4" that turned out great and it is just about my most accurate .22 pistol. Fouled another one up trying to duplicate that feat and had to spring for a Volquartsen hammer & sear and Clark steel trigger for the same results.
Once you get the fixed sights zeroed where you want them you're done.
Picked up a 5 1/4" medium-heavy barrel target model a few years ago when they briefly reintroduced them. Always wanted one when I was a kid and this time around I got one. However I still prefer the light barrel and it mostly lives in the dark in the safe. Have shot other people's bull barrel models off and on and just don't see the point in all that weight up front unless you're a hard-bitten bullseye shooter.
Personally I think the originals were just fine; the Mk IIs are okay; and the Mk IIIs are designed by lawyers for lawyers.
Once you get the fixed sights zeroed where you want them you're done.
Picked up a 5 1/4" medium-heavy barrel target model a few years ago when they briefly reintroduced them. Always wanted one when I was a kid and this time around I got one. However I still prefer the light barrel and it mostly lives in the dark in the safe. Have shot other people's bull barrel models off and on and just don't see the point in all that weight up front unless you're a hard-bitten bullseye shooter.
Personally I think the originals were just fine; the Mk IIs are okay; and the Mk IIIs are designed by lawyers for lawyers.
Carl N. Brown
Member
you got it right
41mag
Member
I have two MKII's.
A 6.875 SS slabside & a 10.5in blued bull.
I find that the 10 incher is easier to hit w/@ longer ranges(duh!) but the 6.875 inch gun is a lot faster to put on target.
Personally,I don't care for the looks or balance of the shorter(or tapered) tube pistols.YMMV.
My 6.875 is the Government Target model & came w/the laminated thumbrest stocks.The 10 incher came w/the slim,factory plastic jobs.I swapped those out for a set w/a thumbrest & noticed a noticeable improvement in feel & accuracy.
One other thing?My own shooting enjoyment increased dramatically when I aquired extra mags.Loading & shooting a string of ten mags is more fun than shoot 10,load 10,shoot 10,& etc.
Try a few different ones & see what suits you best.
A 6.875 SS slabside & a 10.5in blued bull.
I find that the 10 incher is easier to hit w/@ longer ranges(duh!
) but the 6.875 inch gun is a lot faster to put on target.Personally,I don't care for the looks or balance of the shorter(or tapered) tube pistols.YMMV.
My 6.875 is the Government Target model & came w/the laminated thumbrest stocks.The 10 incher came w/the slim,factory plastic jobs.I swapped those out for a set w/a thumbrest & noticed a noticeable improvement in feel & accuracy.
One other thing?My own shooting enjoyment increased dramatically when I aquired extra mags.Loading & shooting a string of ten mags is more fun than shoot 10,load 10,shoot 10,& etc.
Try a few different ones & see what suits you best.
saltydog452
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
- Messages
- 1,707
I don't have any experience with the Mk2s or 3.
My Mk1 was intended as a Bulls Eye target pistol. I only loaded 5 rounds in the magazine. The lack of an automatic slide slide lock when empty as a bit aggravating at first.
I used it primarily as a back-up should my High Standard lay down on me in a match. That never happened.
Jim Clark did a trigger job on my Mk1 in the mid 70s. As part of the trigger job, he replaced the OEM aluminum trigger with a steel trigger and used slightly oversize pins to help take up the slack.
Mr. Clark set some National records at Camp Perry with a Ruger Mk1. Some may still stand..I don't know for sure. If I remember correctly, it was 200-20X with a few more rounds fired as a tie breaker for the Nat'l Record.
The Ruger has never had a mechanical malfunction. It is, perhaps, the most reliable semi-automatic that I have owned.
If I could only have one semi-automatic pistol, it would most likely be this Ruger Mk1.
salty.
My Mk1 was intended as a Bulls Eye target pistol. I only loaded 5 rounds in the magazine. The lack of an automatic slide slide lock when empty as a bit aggravating at first.
I used it primarily as a back-up should my High Standard lay down on me in a match. That never happened.
Jim Clark did a trigger job on my Mk1 in the mid 70s. As part of the trigger job, he replaced the OEM aluminum trigger with a steel trigger and used slightly oversize pins to help take up the slack.
Mr. Clark set some National records at Camp Perry with a Ruger Mk1. Some may still stand..I don't know for sure. If I remember correctly, it was 200-20X with a few more rounds fired as a tie breaker for the Nat'l Record.
The Ruger has never had a mechanical malfunction. It is, perhaps, the most reliable semi-automatic that I have owned.
If I could only have one semi-automatic pistol, it would most likely be this Ruger Mk1.
salty.
- Status
