Ruger Mark I, II, III differences question

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

drbeans

Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2010
Messages
47
Location
New Mexico
Hey all,

So I am shopping for a Ruger Mark III pistol. I have always liked these pistols and have been told they are great. At the local gun store, they have a Mark I, a Mark II, and a new Mark III. The Mark I is significantly cheaper than the other two. I have always assumed the different "Marks" are just generation differences. So is there any significant difference between the generations? The Mark I is like $250, the new Mark III is closer to $500. All other things being equal (Target vs Hunter vs Standard), are these pretty much the same pistol?

Thanks
 
The primary difference in a MK I and MK II is the bolt stays open on the last shot with the II. It does not with the I. A minor cosmetic difference is the MK I does not have the "flats" ground down on the rear of the receiver where you pull back the bolt like the II and III do. The stock mag for the MK I only holds 9 rounds. However, it uses the same mag as the MK II. You just have to move the follower to the opposite side.

I have a stainless MK II Target. I also have a 1965 Mk I Target in blue. My buddy just bought a MK III Target. The fit and finish is much better on my MK I, especially the finish. The MK I has a nice classic blue. The MK III's have a very black finish.

Also, the MK III has a push button mag release on the side of the frame for thumb operation. The earlier guns have a lever you push back on the bottom of the frame....Either works just fine.

Personally, I'd rather have a nice MK I or MK II over a MK III. I don't care for the loaded chamber indicator and don't need the mainspring lock. I also believe the front sight on the MK III is plastic, unlike the heavy metal one on the earlier guns.
 
Last edited:
I own a Mark III and absolutely love it. Only mod I have made is the Cocobolo (sp?) Grips. I like them on the stainless esp. I paid $460 for mine two years ago. Stainless, fluted shorter barrel. Recently went to a gun show and prices are the same... at least round here. One hurdle that you will need to clear will be the disassembly and re-assembly. Not for the faint of heart. There are plenty of youtube illustratons to help and it is not hard once you figure it out. You will need to devote a bit of your time to get the knack of the re-assembly. Don't let this deter you from the purchase... just a heads up. Enjoy!!
 
I've got the mark II with 6" skinny barrel...blued, and black plastic grips. I like it except for the trigger. I don't think any rugers have very good triggers. IMO the long skinny barrel is the only way to go.

No matter what you do with it, it isn't going to be as good as a colt woodsman.
 
Remo, thats an interesting comment. I have been considering an alternative. I dont like the Buckmark. They may be great pistols, but I cant get over the gold trigger. I believe they stopped making the woodsman in the early 70's (is this true?)Would that make finding one difficult? I am looking for an accurate target and plinking pistol.
 
I'm unaware of any MKIII's with plastic sights.

One weird feature of the MKIII that nobody talks about is a notch on the mag that is engaged by part of the trigger group during post-travel. This pulls the front of the mag up a little bit during cycling, I guess. I think it's there to improve feed reliability.

It's a PITA, but the mag disconnect can be bypassed. That's the biggest drawback to the MKIII, IMO. If you are going to buy just one, it's not a big deal. If you want a bunch of them in different configurations, that would be a major pain to deal with.

As for the chamber indicator, yes, it's useless. It's in such a dumb place, I've never once, to this day, noticed it while shooting. I still don't know what it looks like while a round is chambered.
 
Last edited:
According to wiki, they were made until 1977. There were a couple other models that were almost the same thing as a woodsman. One was a colt challenger. I don't remember the other one. One of those variations may have been made later than the woodsman.

Yes, they are hard to find...in a local gunshop that is. You can find them on the internet though.

I've tried everything but a smith&wesson semi auto 22. Nothing is as good as the colt woodsman. The smith&wesson K frame revolver in 22rimfire (goes by various names, model 17, k-22, etc) is as good as the colt woodsman but if you don't want a revolver, then scratch that one.

Finding a woodsman with the 6" barrel will be a little harder. They came in different barrel lengths. I don't know anything about variations between years of production for colts. But without checking on it, I'd probably say the pre 1970 colts are going to be a little bit better quality.
 
Thanks... I learned something

Jolly Roger, thaks for the link... I learned something..

Naybor, good info as well. You and I had the same experiance with theses Rugers.... Our Wives took em!!! I now have three in the house..

Two Mark II's and a really old Standard, late 50's, early 60's... was a shop gun, it's finish is so worn it is white.... In about 1980 we figured it have over 500,000 rounds through it.. and it has never... ever failed to fire or function... Still sees some regular use with the younguns... (they like the lighter BBL)

and what is this about....PLASTIC SIGHTS...........::what: ... It's HERESY....:cuss:
 
MK3

Hi all. The reason I own a Ruger MK3 is the Hunter model. I remember the day I saw a pic on the cover of ST with that cool fluted barrel. I had that , I gots ta have it warm fuzzy feeling. Its accurate and for out of the box, I think it has good trigger. - Glassfixer
 
Remo, thats an interesting comment. I have been considering an alternative. I dont like the Buckmark. They may be great pistols, but I cant get over the gold trigger. I believe they stopped making the woodsman in the early 70's (is this true?)Would that make finding one difficult? I am looking for an accurate target and plinking pistol.

The Colt Woodsman was produced 1915 to 1977 in 3 different frame styles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Differences between Mark II and Mark IIIs?
Replies
2
Views
355
FPrice
F
T
  • Locked
Ruger Mark II vs Mark III
Replies
15
Views
5K
Grizzly Adams
G
Milkmaster
  • Locked
Ruger Markk II/III question
Replies
18
Views
776
ArmedBear
A
A
  • Locked
Question about Ruger Mark III
Replies
6
Views
821
El Tejon
E
V
  • Locked
Ruger Mark II vs Mark III - Real differences?
Replies
6
Views
1K
armored_pig
A
Back
Top