Ruger Mark Pistol Firing Pins

[SGW Gunsmith]

In another thread the subject of Ruger Mark pistol firing pins was mentioned. For many, many years, and at least up until the introduction of the Ruger Mark IV, Ruger used the very same steel, "stamped out" firing pins. I can't say that I ever found any fault with that usage, other than some neglect by the factory to remove the off-side sharp edge caused by the stamping die. But, that's a simple malady to correct.
For some reason there are several aftermarket firing pins offered by a handful of folks who must believe they've come up with that 'better mousetrap'. Here's what I've found:

I've weighed and measured all of the firing pins that I think have been produced by aftermarket folks, if only to see for myself "what makes their's better".
The **NEW** style firing pin introduced along with the Ruger Mark IV pistols had a very short span of use:

That front 'lightening' hole was just a tad bit too close to the firing pin stop pin. After slamming into that pin multiple times, it just could not take the abuse.
I took one of those firing pins from my inventory and fashioned a plug for that front hole, which provided enough support to prevent breakage and that pin is still functioning in a Ruger Mark II pistol.

Ruger no longer offers those two-hole firing pins, and for some reason, known only to them, they've gone to furnishing a titanium firing pin, laser profiled:

A lighter firing pin is supposed to equate with and provide faster lock-time. I wonder if that's really necessary in a .22 rimfire handgun. Maybe the milliseconds saved will help bullseye scores for some. I haven't had very good luck with titanium firing pins though. Seems after getting smacked with a hard hammer time and time again, and the rear end of those type firing pins begin to get brittle and crumble. I much prefer a steel firing pin.

 

[243winxb]

Mk1- The new Ruger made firing pin from Brownells worked . The aftermarket one from Gunpartscorp.com was to short and was useless junk.
https://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1171789

My old original pin oal is 1.875" with good protrusion.

 

[1KPerDay]

Interesting, thank you. I assume MKIV pins will work in MK1-III bolts? I've tried several pins and even filed a sharper point on one in an attempt to resolve my weird hangfire/SQUIB issues with my well-used MKIII 22/45 but it didn't help. I believe I've arrived at a conclusion that makes sense but it means I've worn out the barrel face near the chamber rim relief and it's absorbing the impact and causing misfires. which means I can't use that upper anymore if I want reliable function.

I wish you lived locally; I'd love for you to take a look at it. Have you ever removed/installed ruger pistol barrels onto receivers? And/or "re-faced" the rear of the barrel and adjusted the feed ramp to suit (if necessary)?

 

[AlexanderA]

I replaced my Mark IV firing pin with the original style. The 2-hole, narrower design just seemed unnecessarily weak to me.

A lighter firing pin is supposed to equate with and provide faster lock-time

That's the same rationale as for the Volquartsen skeletonized hammer. You gain faster lock time but at the expense of a weaker primer strike (the mass of the hammer and firing pin is related to the force transmitted to the priming). Therefore, for reliability, it might be better to opt for the heavier components.

 

[BBBBill]

I much prefer a steel firing pin.

Me, too. Pretty easy to clean up the standard old style factory piece if it needs any love.

 

[SGW Gunsmith]

Interesting, thank you. I assume MKIV pins will work in MK1-III bolts? I've tried several pins and even filed a sharper point on one in an attempt to resolve my weird hangfire/SQUIB issues with my well-used MKIII 22/45 but it didn't help. I believe I've arrived at a conclusion that makes sense but it means I've worn out the barrel face near the chamber rim relief and it's absorbing the impact and causing misfires. which means I can't use that upper anymore if I want reliable function.

I wish you lived locally; I'd love for you to take a look at it. Have you ever removed/installed ruger pistol barrels onto receivers? And/or "re-faced" the rear of the barrel and adjusted the feed ramp to suit (if necessary)?

During the initial production run of the Ruger Mark IV pistols, I put in an order for 10 of the original type firing pins. Now, I don't know if this was in error or not, but they sent me 10 of the Mark IV type firing pins, so, I wrongly assumed that these type firing pins would now be the norm.
So, to answer your question, yes, I've installed the first style Mark IV firing pins in various Mark pistol versions and they worked just fine. My last order from Ruger for firing pins arrived with the now, replacement for those "two-holers", and is made from titanium. My preference these days is for the Volquartsen Ruger Mark firing pins. A bit more pricey, but very well shaped with laser profiling.

 

[SGW Gunsmith]

I replaced my Mark IV firing pin with the original style. The 2-hole, narrower design just seemed unnecessarily weak to me.



That's the same rationale as for the Volquartsen skeletonized hammer. You gain faster lock time but at the expense of a weaker primer strike (the mass of the hammer and firing pin is related to the force transmitted to the priming). Therefore, for reliability, it might be better to opt for the heavier components.

Actually, I haven't found that internet "myth" to have any legs. As long as the original factory hammer spring is kept in use, there are no light strikes involved with the VC hammer. What I did find though, is some of the hammer strut rivet heads in the VC hammer were a bit thicker than the factory rivet heads are. This then caused the rivet head to drag on the inside face of the safety plate, and that's what caused more light hits from the hammer, at least until the rivet head was filed thinner.
I purposely butchered the snot out of a Ruger Mark hammer to make it even lighter than the VC "speed lock" hammer:

After testing this much lighter hammer (next to the Mark II hammer from VC) and, using the factory mainspring housing hammer spring, I received absolutely no light hits, and this hammer was tried in each version of the Mark pistol, Mark I Target through to the Mark III Target versions and a couple of 22/45 guns.

 

[edwardware]

A lighter firing pin is supposed to equate with and provide faster lock-time. I wonder if that's really necessary in a .22 rimfire handgun.

I can't imagine a human, freehand, aiming precisely enough, and processing sight picture into trigger actuation fast/smooth enough, for a milli-second reduction in lock time to matter.

I know for a certainty that sufficient pin energy to robustly light the priming compound does matter.

 

[SGW Gunsmith]

I can't imagine a human, freehand, aiming precisely enough, and processing sight picture into trigger actuation fast/smooth enough, for a milli-second reduction in lock time to matter.

I know for a certainty that sufficient pin energy to robustly light the priming compound does matter.

I agree, and most of the time that's usually enough. At least until we run into a .22 rimfire round that is so broke, it can't pay attention. This Remington Thunderbolt round was spanked pretty harshly, four times, before I could get some noise out of it:

 

[Blue68f100]

Has to hunt for the/some primer compound . I normally only try twice before I trash the round and move on. I will not buy Rem 22LR ammo. I've had more trouble with it leading a barrel it's not worth the risk.

 

[Drail]

Remington .22 ammo? Oh please........

 

[Spoton]

Sorry to rehash an older thread but I need to ask. What date did they start supplying the MK IV with titanium fire pins versus the steel pin? If you have a factory titanium pin is it worth buying the TANDEMKROSS "Fire Starter" Titanium firing pin? Or advise on another......?

 

[SGW Gunsmith]

Sorry to rehash an older thread but I need to ask. What date did they start supplying the MK IV with titanium fire pins versus the steel pin? If you have a factory titanium pin is it worth buying the TANDEMKROSS "Fire Starter" Titanium firing pin? Or advise on another......?

I've tried, and experimented with using, every firing pin, both factory and then aftermarket, provided involving those for the Ruger Mark pistols. Here is the weight and thickness I've measured concerning each firing pin that I tried:
See all the pictures above in Post #1
Every Ruger Mark pistol firing pin from 1949 until the introduction of the Ruger Mark IV pistol version were stamped from sheet steel. For some reason, only known to the designers of the Ruger Mark IV, they went with a completely different firing pin design for the initial run of Mark IV pistols. Several of those with that design failed due to the placement of a weight reducing (?) hole placed too close and then crashing into the hardened firing pin stop pin:

This Mark IV "new style" firing pin didn't last too long during its initial usage:

So now, The latest firing pins for the Ruger Mark IV pistols have been made from titanium, much like those as sold by Ron Power Custom and then resold under a different name by TandemKross for a bit higher price.
I've experimented with "plugging" that front hole on the initial "two hole" firing pins that came with the first run of Ruger Mark pistols, and that process has worked to keep those firing pins running just fine. I have a few of those firing pins with the two-holes from an order for parts I received from Ruger for customers who were replacing damaged Mark IV, first run, firing pins, so at first my thoughts were that these would be the new wave, but Ruger no longer provides that style and has gone with the titanium style like in the picture above.
Titanium, used for firing pins also has some questionable features concerning durability. When titanium parts get smacked repeatedly they tend to get brittle and begin to crumble away in the area being hit by a harder entity, so we'll see how the new Ruger style firing pins hold up. My recommendation? Get an aftermarket A-2 steel firing pin and any worries will be gone when using one of those.

 

[Armorer 101]

Over the yeas Bill Ruger made a lot of decisions based on pennies per part, not function. Probably the most famous was the change from the adjustable steel Micro rear sights to the aluminum based rear sights.

 

[SGW Gunsmith]

I can't reference Mr. Ruger's mindset, but like most manufacturers that I've dealt with over the years, they refrain from making many of their internal parts and add-ons, like sights, springs, screws, injection moulded plastic grips and any other parts that others are more equipped and better proficient in handling.
Heck, some folks don't even know that Ruger has many of their pistol magazines made in Italy, by Mec-Gar, using Ruger's proprietary equipment and tooling. Those made in Italy are even stamped as such. A few of their magazines are made here in the US, by Pro-Mag, IIRC.

 

[BBBBill]

...A few of their magazines are made here in the US, by Pro-Mag, IIRC.