Ruger Mark II or III
- Thread starter dak0ta
- Start date
- Status
theotherwaldo
Member
I've shot both the MKII and MKIII a lot, I have a couple of each, and I really don't see much difference. My MKIII Hunter is one of the most accurate pistols I have ever shot. It will hold groups equal to my High Standard Victor, and uses any ammo without complaint. Moreover, you can shoot HV stuff, which you can't do with the old High Standards.
You can change out the LCI by buying an insert for about $20, or you can just remove the tab that touches the rim of the round and the whole thing is a non-issue. As for the magazine release disconnect, you can buy a bushing for about $10 that takes care of that. With those mods you get rid of all the "lawyer" stuff, not that I've seen either make much difference.
You can change out the LCI by buying an insert for about $20, or you can just remove the tab that touches the rim of the round and the whole thing is a non-issue. As for the magazine release disconnect, you can buy a bushing for about $10 that takes care of that. With those mods you get rid of all the "lawyer" stuff, not that I've seen either make much difference.
I have four MK II's, and prefer them over the MK III due to what mostly has been said previously. The LCI, and mag disconnect are unnecessary, and I prefer the heal mag release in a target gun/plinker also.
That being said, if I was in the market, and couldn't find a MK II, I would get a MK III, and replace the LCI with a blank, and remove the mag disconnect. While in there I would install a VQ trigger, sear, and extractor.
That being said, if I was in the market, and couldn't find a MK II, I would get a MK III, and replace the LCI with a blank, and remove the mag disconnect. While in there I would install a VQ trigger, sear, and extractor.
The MkIII is perfectly fine once the lawyer features have been fixed plus you get a normal mag release
If you can find a reasonable deal on a Mark II, get that.
If not, get a Mark III and get rid of the magazine disconnect.
Either one will be great, but the Mark II is slightly more great.
If not, get a Mark III and get rid of the magazine disconnect.
Either one will be great, but the Mark II is slightly more great.
DT Guy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,847
I had a III briefly, until an OOB (not sure, but seems the most likely cause) discharge blew the LCI off and into my left hand thumb (I shoot thumbs-forward.) Hurt like hell, but did no lasting damage.
Called Ruger, they sent me a new LCI (didn't seem AT ALL concerned about my thumb, BTW) and I sold it off as soon as it was back to stock trim.
Having had I's, II's and (one, briefly) III, I would never again buy a III. Ruger lawyered out a big chunk of the receiver to put in a useless 'feature' that no shooter in his right mind would ever trust, and ruined an excellent design.
Just my opinion, of course.
Larry
Called Ruger, they sent me a new LCI (didn't seem AT ALL concerned about my thumb, BTW) and I sold it off as soon as it was back to stock trim.
Having had I's, II's and (one, briefly) III, I would never again buy a III. Ruger lawyered out a big chunk of the receiver to put in a useless 'feature' that no shooter in his right mind would ever trust, and ruined an excellent design.
Just my opinion, of course.
Larry
I recently found a MkII Target model with a 5" barrel and an extra mag. What would be a good deal on that gun (in decent condition - the mag release was a little sticky is all I saw).
I love my Mark II. I don't like the Mark III. Too many unneeded whistle & bells safety features.
Good luck finding a Mark II (blue) for $250. The one's I've seen are running in the $300 + range.
CajunBass
Member
I've owned all three. For all practical purposes I can't see a dimes worth of difference. I'd buy (1) the first one I found, or (2) the one I could get the best price on.
rodinal220
Member
That certainly isn't the range the one I found is in. They're asking $375 and that's just too much IMO. I can buy a new MkIII for $290. I realize there's a transfer fee but still. I know people like MkII's and pay high prices for them but there's no way I'm even talking to them when they start that high on a MkII. I really want one with a longer barrel anyway. Those are the ones that shoot out of this world IMO. My friend has one with a 12" barrel. It shoots almost as accurate as a good rifle.
Your friend has a 10" barreled MK II. Ruger never made a 12"....I have three 10" guns. You are correct. They are rifle accurate.
The days of $250 dollar MK II prices are gone unfortunately. But there are plenty of them out there and some people have no idea what they're worth. I don't think the long barrels are any more accurate than the 5.5 in. ones I own. They just have a longer sight radius which makes it easier. I have three 5.5 in.MK IIs that will consistently hit a soda can at 75 yards all day long. I'll never sell them.
Then you are left with a hole in the receiver, or you must install a "blank" where the LCI used to be. No big deal if you don't mind the aesthetics, I guess. The mag disconnect is pretty easy to remove also. Many like the new position of the mag release, but I do prefer the heal mag release in a target gun/plinker.
If you can't find a MK II, then some work can overcome the lawyer induced modifications of the MK III, and that is exactly what I would do if I bought one.
SC_Slowhand
Member
Mark I or Mark II
I have a Mark I (1973), (center, left), a Mark II (2002)and a Ruger 22-45 Mark III.
The Mark II is a better shooter than the Mark III and the Mark I is better handling.
I picked her up last August and on her first outing the extractor and extractor plunger flew off into the grass. I called Ruger and sent her off to Prescott where they replaced the missing parts, plus the sear and sear spring. They pumped 50 rounds of CCI Mini-Mags through her and sent her back.
After that I took back to the range and she was flawless. Due to the age of the firearm I had to pay for shipping but it was money well spent.
Back in the early 60s, as a teenager I cut my teeth on Dad's Old Ruger Standard 22LR.
I have a Mark I (1973), (center, left), a Mark II (2002)and a Ruger 22-45 Mark III.
The Mark II is a better shooter than the Mark III and the Mark I is better handling.
I picked her up last August and on her first outing the extractor and extractor plunger flew off into the grass. I called Ruger and sent her off to Prescott where they replaced the missing parts, plus the sear and sear spring. They pumped 50 rounds of CCI Mini-Mags through her and sent her back.
After that I took back to the range and she was flawless. Due to the age of the firearm I had to pay for shipping but it was money well spent.
Back in the early 60s, as a teenager I cut my teeth on Dad's Old Ruger Standard 22LR.
- Status
Similar threads
