Ruger Markk II/III question

[Milkmaster]

I am and have been a fan of the Ruger Mark series pistols for years or at least the all metal versions. I have a Mark I and a Mark II both being standard tapered barrel fixed sight models. I have always wanted one of the bull barreled models with moveable sights. I have been skeptical of the Mark III because of the changes. Yet I hear they work just fine.

Today I was at the gun show and a guy had a pristeen looking bull barrel model Mark II with moveable sights like I described above. It looks like new. I immediately went into negotiations with him. However his price is within just a few dollars of what a brand new Mark III pistol would be and seemed to be non negotiable.

Question....if the choice was a new Mark series pistol would you choose the Mark II or the Mark III in the same pistol? Would you care about the difference? I ask since I have not owned the Mark III since its inception.

 

[Deus Machina]

I'm the owner of a 5" bull-barelled Mk3 22/45. AFAIK, the only actual changes are the mag safety and loaded chamber indicator.

I'd disable the mag safety if I knew it could be done and how (it's mostly just a pain on reassembly) and the loaded chamber indicator just needs a little extra attention during cleaning. Neither is a deal breaker.

Between a used Mk2 and a new Mk3 at the same price, I'd prefer the newer gun. Most of the gripes are only because people are upset that about the lawyer appeasement.

 

[bigfatdave]

Deus Machina, there's also the internal lock added and the moved mag release (which makes mkII mags incompatible with mkIII guns)

The mag interlock (STOP calling it a safety, please) is easily replaced with a bushing, the LCI can simply be removed. Instructions for modifications, upgrades, and downgrades can be found at Bullseye57's forum, "guntalk-online dot com".

If I already had mkII mags around, I wouldn't start buying mkIII pistols unless I liked the changes (and I don't, except for the button mag release). In my case, I started with a mkIII, so I'm staying with mkIIIs for parts/magazine sharing.

If that pistol is still there at the show when you go back, serious haggling and a fistful of cash might drop the price, and failing that, Ruger mk__ pistols don't need to be pretty to be reliable and accurate, so a dinged-up one would be fine.

 

[tlen]

Get a MKIII with "adjustable" sights that is also drilled and tapped for a scope base [provided]. IMHO the MKIII has a better mag release. The LCI and mag disconnect can be easily removed if you want to do so. I recommend the MKIII678.

http://www.guntalk-online.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=934

 

[orionengnr]

I have two MkIIs and found a local MkIII Hunter about a year ago at an unbeatable price ($350).
Grabbed it and took it to the range a time or two.
In addition to the mag incompatibility issue, my mag-loader was incompatible as well (a few minutes with a small round file cured that).
I did not appreciate the added steps in the dis/re-assembly required by the mag disconnect.
I saw no functional advantage to the MkIII. The fluted barrel, wood grips and Hi-Viz sight were pretty.

I ended up selling it to a friend who had been looking for a MkII/III. He is happy with it, especially since I sold it to him for what I paid.

Bottom line:
If you don't have anything, you will like the MkIII.
If you have MkIIs, the lack of interchangeability and the other issues may be a deal-breaker. It was for me.

 

[LightningMan]

I have a MKIII Hunter & like it, but had problems with FTE many times. Most of the time the empty would get wedged between the next round & the recoil spring/bar. Call it a stovepipe if you will, but as soon as I removed that metal blade on the loaded magazine indicator it has been nearly 100% reliable. LM

 

[DT Guy]

The MkIII LCI opens a port where before there was a solid steel receiver wall. If you should have a case head blow (as I did) you'll find the LCI doing a damaging dance with your left hand thumb, should you be a right hander with a high thumb hold.

So we've traded a useless (seriously, would any responsible gun handler trust an LCI rather than an actual chamber check?) 'safety' for a solid receiver wall; no thanks. Mine's gone, and it will certainly be the last Ruger product that enters my home.


Larry

 

[1-UP]

Meh, hard to say. The safety stuff doesn't bother me on the Mark III. Actually, truth be told, I kind of like it being there. The magazine release is in a better position without a doubt. I guess in theory it would be easier to get parts for as time marches on, but the Mark II was such a popular platform I can't imagine it being given up for dead.

The Mark II is nice. I have zero complaints about it. Kind of nice not having to mess around with the magazine when taking it apart, but I don't notice so much.

Really, the only difference that I run into shooting the two of them is the magazine release. I like the Mark III's position quite a bit more than the Mark II's. /shrug

Would I pay near-new money for a used Mark II? If they were essentially the same model/finish/barrel/etc....eeehhhhh, probably not. I'd expect at least a 10-20% discount. Even then that's more than what the Mark II went for new I imagine.

Mark II's are starting to dry up though. They're by no means rare, but price is creeping on them and you may need to watch for a few weeks to find the specimen you're after. Not as bad as trying to find a Buck Mark though (I swear folks must never sell those off).

Proud owner of a Ruger MarkIII 5.5 Bull and a Ruger Mark II Target 5.5.

 

[rfwobbly]

"Variety being the spice of life", I'd much rather have a Mk II bull barrel version or one of the discontinued long barrel versions than a 3rd 7" in my collection.

 

[XNavyflyer]

"Really, the only difference that I run into shooting the two of them is the magazine release. I like the Mark III's position quite a bit more than the Mark II's. /shrug"

Getcherself a MkII 22/45. Its the best of all worlds IMHO. They're still around...I found one last year LNIB for $219!!!

 

[wally]

but as soon as I removed that metal blade on the loaded magazine indicator it has been nearly 100% reliable

Replacing the extractor and spring with a Volquartsen "exact edge" extracter (~$11) had the same effect on mine, I may losing the loaded chamber indicator as well in hopes of getting real extraction/ejection reliability.

--wally.

 

[Milkmaster]

I went back to the gun show this afternoon and made the decsion and the deal. I ended up getting the used MK II. At least that way my mags are interchangeable so my speed loader will work with either pistol and no extra indicators to fool around with later. Upon closer inspection I cannot for the life of me find evidence the pistol has ever been fired. Neither mag has any marks indicating use nor the pistol. S/N indicates a 1997 manufacture date.

Thanks for the opinons and fellowship regarding my original question.

Here is a pic...

 

[Runningman]

I ended up getting the used MK II.

Good choice. More than a few people prefer the Mark II over the Mark III I'm one of them.

There was more than a couple changes done to the Mark III and most of them are not a step up from my experience.

 

[coondogger]

I have a Mk II and a love-hate relationship with it. I love to shoot it. I hate to clean it.
It's the only pistol I know of that requires "techniques" to field strip and reassemble.

 

[bigfatdave]

Nice!
If you enjoy speedloading, look up the "ultimate cliploader".
It has a slightly incorrect name, but it makes mag-filling a breeze ... with two mags and a helper to load the one you aren't shooting, you can load as fast as you shoot, and keep shooting/changing mags until you run out of ammo!

 

[John Wayne]

I had the same dillemma. I rented a Mk. III to see if I liked the platform. Shot very well with it, and it came down to these choices:

Mk. I Target tapered barrel - $260
Mk. II Target 5.5" bull barrel - $299
Mk. II Target 5.5" bull barrel stainless $325
Mk. III 22/45 4" $250

I ended up going with the Mk. II. Probably paid more than it was worth, but it's in good shape and has run 100%. I like the clean lines without the LCI, and the mag safety on the Mk. III makes it even more of a pain to clean. Figured it would probably hold its value the best of any model as well.

 

[ArmedBear]

I bought a used Mark II Target recently, with little regard to the price difference vs. a Mark III. I had a 6 7/8" slab bull 22/45, and I wanted the same simple operating system in another pistol. The Mark II Target has received some gunsmithing, Volquartsen parts, an aftermarket mag release and a bit of additional hand trigger work from a local guy here.

Let's just say, I'm perfectly satisfied with my purchase, and I don't really care if a Mark III would have been $50 more or less. I didn't want one.

A picture is worth 1000 words.

 

[Milkmaster]

I already have the ultimate clip loader. It has been sort of a love hate relationship with the cliploader. I like it, but sometimes it is a bit temperamental. Even then it is faster and easier on my thumbs than loading the magazines by hand.

BEAR,
I wanted the stainless model MKII as well with the metal bottom in preference to the poly model. I just haven't come across one yet that wasn't over priced.

 

[ArmedBear]

FWIW I think I did save some money by buying the used Mark II with the scope already mounted on it. I do like to save money, and I'm not rich.

My point was that the main impetus for my buying the thing when I saw it in the store was that it was exactly what I wanted.

Keep your eyes open over time, and you can find some guns that, while they're not steals, might be exactly what you want for a reasonable price, considering everything.

It took me about 6 years of having my eyes open for a 686, but when finally did I stumble on it, it was a perfect pre-lock at a steal of a price.