Ruger 22 Automatic - An American Classic

[SGW Gunsmith]

Sir: Your Mark I has a very interesting trigger involved with it. Being that you bought that pistol from a local entity, you probably didn't get all the history involved with it? Your pistol does not have the original trigger, it has a Clark Customs trigger in it, which is a GOOD thing. Yes, sir those are 'optional' original target grips, but the steel Clark Trigger is aftermarket and only installed by Jim Clark during that period. Very nice specimen.

 

[SGW Gunsmith]

Sadly the MK's II, III & IV are someone's attempt to sell more pistols. They do not improve on the MK I's in any way, shape or form.
My only problem isn't with the pistol, it's with my eyes. So...
View attachment 817391

You couldn't be any further off from the truth than what you've posted. Each version of the Ruger Mark pistols from the A 54 grip frame, to the A 100 grip frame, to the Ruger Mark II, then III and now the Ruger Mark IV, have included improvements, or there wouldn't have ever been a progression in the model numbers. If you haven't been able to experience what those improvements actually are, then yes, your eyes do indeed have some issues.

 

[AlexanderA]

Sir: Your Mark I has a very interesting trigger involved with it. Being that you bought that pistol from a local entity, you probably didn't get all the history involved with it? Your pistol does not have the original trigger, it has a Clark Customs trigger in it, which is a GOOD thing. Yes, sir those are 'optional' original target grips, but the steel Clark Trigger is aftermarket and only installed by Jim Clark during that period. Very nice specimen.

The Clark trigger evolved over time. My Mark II, III, and IV all have Clark triggers, which I installed myself. (My Mark I didn't need one, since the trigger pull was nearly perfect right out of the box.) I guess at some point Clark changed his policy and started selling his triggers as loose parts. Anyway, the bottom of the trigger became more tapered as time went on, and the location of the overtravel adjustment screw went from the top to the middle of the trigger.

Note: to install a Clark trigger in a CNC-machined Mark IV frame (as opposed to the stamped-and-welded frames of the earlier Marks), you have to square off the front corners of the trigger opening in the frame. This is a simple job using a needle file.

 

[SwampWolf]

Sadly the MK's II, III & IV are someone's attempt to sell more pistols. They do not improve on the MK I's in any way, shape or form.

Whether you appreciate or "need" the advantage or not, the MKII is easier to field-strip and clean. Also, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, the MKI did not have a slide-stop on the last shot on the nine instead of ten-shot magazine as found on the MKII and all later Mark series pistols. My favorite Mark model is the II version-it has everything I want and nothing I don't need in a .22 auto pistol.

 

[Varminterror]

Mark IV, Mark II, Mark I, Mark III, in that order. All of them need trigger/sear replacement or work done, which is easily accomplished. The Mark II was a marked improvement over the Mark I. The Mark III was not an improvement over the Mark II, despite the modernized mag release position. The Mark IV is an improvement over the Mark II - takedown, no LCI, modern mag release position... The Mark IV is what the Mark III should have been. Until the IV, like most folks, the II was my favorite.

But I do enjoy all of them - and I'll say how many I have had is probably shameful.

 

[bannockburn]

Varminterror

The Mark II was a marked improvement over the Mark I. The Mark III was not an improvement over the Mark II, despite the modernized mag release position. The Mark IV is an improvement over the Mark II - takedown, no LCI, modern mag release position... The Mark IV is what the Mark III should have been.

A very concise and accurate history of the Ruger .22 pistol! I also agree with your assessment that the Mk.IV is what the Mk.III should have been. As it is the Mk.II is still my favorite, only because I have had so many of them over the years!

 

[lg&m]

I have a MK2 22/45 . Great gun. Shoots better than I do. No matter what I am shooting it likely go with me.

 

[AlexanderA]

With each iteration of the Marks, Ruger has been giving more and more business to the aftermarket parts suppliers. Whole enterprises (such as Volquartsen or Tandemkoss) have been built on correcting Ruger's shortcomings. For example, there was no need for the magazine disconnect mechanism in the Marks III and IV except to address the liability concerns of the lawyers and the quirks of state law in certain states. The magazine disconnect is the cause of much of the gun's trigger pull problem. And then you have strange added features, such as the nub on the trigger that engages a notch on the magazine, for which there is no rational explanation. And why did the Mark IV need a little spring-loaded "magazine kicker" at the base of the grip? To overcome stickiness from the magazine disconnect? So you have an engineering "solution" to correct another engineering "solution" and it becomes the antithesis of the KISS (keep it simple, stupid) principle.

 

[SwampRat92]

I own a MKIII and will soon be purchasing a MKIV after seeing how easy the takedown is.

 

[Texas10mm]

Mark IV, Mark II, Mark I, Mark III, in that order. All of them need trigger/sear replacement or work done, which is easily accomplished. The Mark II was a marked improvement over the Mark I. The Mark III was not an improvement over the Mark II, despite the modernized mag release position. The Mark IV is an improvement over the Mark II - takedown, no LCI, modern mag release position... The Mark IV is what the Mark III should have been. Until the IV, like most folks, the II was my favorite.

But I do enjoy all of them - and I'll say how many I have had is probably shameful.

They don't "NEED" it. They work just fine out of the box, at least all 12 of mine have.

 

[AlexanderA]

They don't "NEED" it. They work just fine out of the box, at least all 12 of mine have.

It's a target pistol. A 5- or 6-pound trigger pull is unacceptable in a target pistol, regardless if it "works." Sure it works, but it doesn't work for its intended purpose. People aren't spending a lot of money on trigger upgrades just for giggles. (That said, my Mark I was fine out of the box. The problem is that the "improvements" in the later Marks were not an unmixed blessing.)

 

[Varminterror]

why did the Mark IV need a little spring-loaded "magazine kicker" at the base of the grip?

Even with the mag disconnect removed, it’s pretty nice to have the mags drop free. That’s been a disadvantage in using Ruger’s in action shooting, regardless of iteration. I’ve spent lots of time tweaking magwells and mags to make Mark I, II, and III’s drop free every time, but with the IV, it’s automatic. I’d tend to agree, it’s silly to need a mechanism for it, but without a major overhaul of their mags and grip frame, it’s an easier answer.

They don't "NEED" it. They work just fine out of the box, at least all 12 of mine have.

I’m glad you like yours. If you’re satisfied with terrible factory triggers and they meet your needs, that’s great. None of the 70+ Ruger Mark Series pistols I have owned had a sufficiently good trigger feel for my needs and expectations from the pistols.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

I feel disassembly isn't terribly difficult, reassembly on the other hand can be downright frustrating. Once you do the first one you never forget.

I didn't "forget", I remember every time I get the urge to take mine apart then just spritz with some spray lube and shoot it some more.

 

[bannockburn]

Shanghai McCoy

I didn't "forget", I remember every time I get the urge to take mine apart then just spritz with some spray lube and shoot it some more.

Sounds like my typical Mk.II cleaning routine!

 

[Armored farmer]

I think late 80s or early 90s MKII. Never had it apart. Hoppes and 135psi air compressor.

 

[lg&m]

I'm not saying taking my MK2 apart is fun but it's not overly difficult. I clean mine when it starts to jam or about every 400-500 rounds. Mine likes every brand I have tried except Aguila. Don't remember the exact line. Not saying it's bad ammo just my pistol doesn't like it. It will shoot it fine but has trouble feeding it.

 

[Texas10mm]

It's a target pistol. A 5- or 6-pound trigger pull is unacceptable in a target pistol, regardless if it "works." Sure it works, but it doesn't work for its intended purpose. People aren't spending a lot of money on trigger upgrades just for giggles. (That said, my Mark I was fine out of the box. The problem is that the "improvements" in the later Marks were not an unmixed blessing.)

YOU use them as target pistols. Many people just use them as a plinker. If you want a .22 target pistol with a decent trigger out of the box then perhaps a S&W 41 would be what you should be looking at. Of course you can purchase 2-3 Rugers for the price of that S&W 41.

 

[AlexanderA]

If you want a .22 target pistol with a decent trigger out of the box then perhaps a S&W 41 would be what you should be looking at.

A Ruger Mark IV, even with all the trigger modifications, is still cheaper than a S&W.

 

[SwampWolf]

Way cheaper.

 

[czhen]

Here's my mark II 678 I picked up a few months ago for $225.

Don't you feel like you spend all your luck the day you bought it.

 

[SGW Gunsmith]

With each iteration of the Marks, Ruger has been giving more and more business to the aftermarket parts suppliers. Whole enterprises (such as Volquartsen or Tandemkoss) have been built on correcting Ruger's shortcomings. For example, there was no need for the magazine disconnect mechanism in the Marks III and IV except to address the liability concerns of the lawyers and the quirks of state law in certain states. The magazine disconnect is the cause of much of the gun's trigger pull problem. And then you have strange added features, such as the nub on the trigger that engages a notch on the magazine, for which there is no rational explanation. And why did the Mark IV need a little spring-loaded "magazine kicker" at the base of the grip? To overcome stickiness from the magazine disconnect? So you have an engineering "solution" to correct another engineering "solution" and it becomes the antithesis of the KISS (keep it simple, stupid) principle.

Much of what you've posted is 'spot-on'. When the Ruger Mark III was first introduced many new owners were not so thrilled with the magazine disco feature. It created a routine involving having the magazine in/magazine out, just to disassemble the pistol for periodic cleaning. A replacement hammer bushing was devised to thwart the magazine disco, and that caused a flurry of redesigns that eventually caused the elimination of that routine:



The very original hammer bushing left a LOT to be desired, and the first versions originator was unwilling to make any for sale, but gave the OK for anyone else to make what they wanted. He later denied his statement, but it was too late, others kept his original post and improvements were made. I was involved with some of the initial ideas involving these hammer bushings with a fella in Canada who had the means to make these bushings in a very professional manner. Copiers, like TandemKross had some of these bushings made by an outsourced entity, which they admitted to, but, not knowing much about these pistols, they had a whole bunch of bushings made out of aluminum, which doesn't play well with steel parts.
Sam Lam is making these hammer bushings from 0-1 tool steel which is a much better and longer wearing material. So, the others changed their foolish ways and went with stainless steel. One thing where they went wrong. All of the bushings they had made from an out-sourced supplier were one size. The Ruger hammers that these bushings are supposed to work with are NOT one hammer bushing bore size. Ruger provides tolerances for that diameter that the marketeer copy cats just don't understand.
So, that's why, here at Sarona Gun Works LLC advise that when replacing the magazine disco parts in Ruger Mark III hammers, that a "specific" fit of bushing to hammer be done by technicians here for little cost to the purchaser. The simple means of mating a bushing to your hammer will result in a much more consistent trigger pull as an unmatched bushing fit will not provide.

 

[AlexanderA]

Or, you can just replace the whole Mark III / IV hammer / magazine disconnect complex with a Mark II hammer.

 

[SGW Gunsmith]

Or, you can just replace the whole Mark III / IV hammer / magazine disconnect complex with a Mark II hammer.

Well, there's a bit more to it than what you describe. The Mark II hammer does not play with the Mark IV sear at all, so a different sear needs to be installed. Because of how the Mark IV hammer is machined, a spacer needs to fill a gap now on the left side of the hammer to prevent side to side drifting of the hammer. The factory disconnect for the Mark IV will need to be replaced because that will no longer work with a replacement sear. The Mark IV fire control system is quite different from the Ruger Mark III parts, also, but the Ruger Mark II hammer will work with those pistols along with the Mark II hammer bushing to eliminate the magazine disco parts. A much better alternative to replace the magazine disco parts in the Ruger Mark III is to replace those parts with a properly fitted hammer bushing, which is a much cheaper modification that works very well if the RIGHT bushing is used.
So, there are a few more parts, rather than just replacing the hammer, that will need to be considered when shedding the magazine disco and getting a lighter weight trigger pull for the Ruger Mark IV.

 

[SGW Gunsmith]

With each iteration of the Marks, Ruger has been giving more and more business to the aftermarket parts suppliers. Whole enterprises (such as Volquartsen or Tandemkoss) have been built on correcting Ruger's shortcomings. For example, there was no need for the magazine disconnect mechanism in the Marks III and IV except to address the liability concerns of the lawyers and the quirks of state law in certain states. The magazine disconnect is the cause of much of the gun's trigger pull problem. And then you have strange added features, such as the nub on the trigger that engages a notch on the magazine, for which there is no rational explanation. And why did the Mark IV need a little spring-loaded "magazine kicker" at the base of the grip? To overcome stickiness from the magazine disconnect? So you have an engineering "solution" to correct another engineering "solution" and it becomes the antithesis of the KISS (keep it simple, stupid) principle.

So then, why would Ruger go through the time and trouble to add that "nub" on the trigger and make sure that it aligns with a "notch" in the magazines for these pistols? It sorta works like the "bolt forward assist" on AR 15 rifles. SORTA!
Due to the magazine disconnect parts in the initial Ruger Mark III pistols, magazines, sometimes would not fully engage with the magazine latch, and even fall out of the grip frame during firing. The "nub" on the back of the trigger, when the trigger is pulled will engage that notch and help with seating the magazine more solidly with the magazine latch. Once the magazine disconnect parts are removed, the "nub" really serves no purpose.

 

[AlexanderA]

Yup. I have Mark II hammers, Volquartsen sears, and Clark triggers in both my Mark III and Mark IV guns. (I saved the original parts in case the next owner of the guns is interested in them. The bag of discarded parts is getting bigger with each iteration of the Ruger.)