Ruger MarkIII hunter. Worth the $$$

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

stevereno1

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
801
Location
GEORGIA, GO DAWGS!
It looks cool, feels good in the hand, I am thinking about buying this as my "gun of the year" I have read good things about it, but I have also read good things about the 22 hornet as a deer cartridge. I need the wisdom of actual shooters of this pistol. Thanks.
 
Bought one for my father in law as a gift. He loves it.
It is very accurate & looks great...

I prefer the Browning Buckmarks myself, but that Hunter is a beautiful hunk of steel.

Worth the $$? If you enjoy shooting it- sure as hell is.

Nothing beats a good rimfire pistol... nothing.
 
I suppose it is a matter of opinion. I love mine, and had previously had a low end MKIII that I really hated.

A friend of mine, who does not have much money to spend on his collection, shot mine once and went out and bought one. He already owned a MKII.

Its certainly the prettiest gun I have ever owned, and I shoot it much better than I have any right to given how little time I've had to practice this year.
 
Oh, and they are indestructible, easily upgradeable, super reliable, and again nice and accurate.

That said, the S&W model 41 is even better, and worth every penny of the $750-900 they cost.. It's all relative.

Buy the Hunter, you will really love it.
Moses
 
Field stripping and reassembly is still a PITA~!
Click to expand...

Yup, actualy it comes apart easily, going back together approaches a Chinese puzzle, pretty easy once you know the trick, although the magazine safety make it even more hassle than the MKII.

The Hunter is a fine pistol get it if you like it. I don't have one becasuse I'd need new mags since it won't take the MKII mags. But I do have the 22/45 Hunter and like it very much, although I replaced the V-blade on the rear sight with the square notch from my 22/45 with the Red Dot on it.

--wally.
 
My bride has two, one with a scope and one without. One, or sometimes both, see use weekly. No problems and they are accurate.

I have a MKIII. Same deal. Use it weekly. (We are range rats.)

As far as cleaning goes, I've been stripping them down about every 5k rounds. Each time I have, however, I've found no real need to do so, for my "no breakdown" cleaning procedure has been working well enough.

I use Ed's Red (= parts of K1 kerosene, odorless mineral spirits, Dexron ATF, minus the Acetone), but Hoppe's works too.

Try this for a no breakdown, after range cleaning.

1. Lock open the bolt, hold the barrel pointing straight up and squirt a few tablespoons of Ed's Red or Hoppe's against the bolt face, letting it flow down the bolt and out the back end into a catch pan of sorts. A yellow mustard bottle with the pointed spout does well here. Work the bolt in and out a few times while its wet.

2. Repeat Step No. 1 again.

3. Wet a patch with Ed's Red or Hoppe's and wipe out the chamber area, paying particular attention to the loaded chamber indicator nearest the barrel. A small screwdriver will help to scrape out the gump that gathers there.

4. Run a dry patch around the chamber and inside the grip.

5. Wipe down the outside and put it away.

All I can say is that it works and I've seen no downsides.
 
I would not say the Hunter model is worth the extra ~$150 over the 6" bull barrel model (which comes with a scope base) unless the aesthetics are important to you. The regular 6" bull barrel at $250 or so will drive tacks.
 
Back to the original question...

Steve wrote:
I have read good things about it, but I have also read good things about the 22 hornet as a deer cartridge.
Click to expand...

You're not planning on hunting deer with your Mk. III, are you? You're comparing the ubiquitous rimfire .22 Long Rifle with a centerfire rifle cartridge. That may not be apples-to-oranges, but it's certainly Hong Kong kumquats-to-Texas Rio Star grapefruit.

As far as .22 LR autos go, I'm going to second Conqueror. ALL Ruger .22 autos are worthy firearms, but the difference between models is mostly aesthetics. Between the original model, the Mk. II and Mk. III, you can look at the features and decide for yourself if the newness of a current model is worth the lawyer equipment (LCI and mag safety.) [I say yes, b/c I prefer the "combat" magzine release button to the heel latch of previous versions, and the extra safety stuff is easily removed.] Others will whine b/c the take-down procedure requires patience, reading, and practice -- boo-hoo. A standard-barrel "Mk. I" will shoot just as tight groups as a Mk. III Hunter with express sights... they just look different in the box. Stainless won't rust (as easily) but the carbon steel looks more traditional. The plastic frames of the .22/45 series DO feel and shoot differently, but not much.

Try out a few if you can, then go with the coolest looking one you can afford. Even a forgotten $150 Pawn Shop relic will bring a smile to your face on the range.
 
Yes.

Keep it moderately-to-very clean.
Put a red dot on it.
Bench rest it.
Amaze yourself.
And realize that it's physically impossible to shoot (offhand) the groups this thing is capable of. :D
 
I'd say if you want it, then it's worth it. Ruger makes a fine .22. My preference is for the Mark II, though.

Field stripping and reassembly is still a PITA~!
Click to expand...


Not hard at all, just counterintuitive. I had someone show me once and since then it's been easy. If you follow the new ruger manual EXACTLY, it's very easy. Believe me, if I say it's easy, it's easy. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top