Ruger MK III Target - stainless vs alloy
- Thread starter SDShooter
- Start date
- Status
GambJoe
Member
I have the stainless bull barrel and its fun to shoot and very accurate. I keep it oiled like any other gun, inside and out. Stainless does corode allot slower than carbon. That and good looks got me to buy it. One disclaimer it is a pain in the A** to reassemble after cleaning.
I debated nearly the same.
It came down to, I walked into a shop, they had the 5.5" bull barrel in blue, and it's a nice blue finish.. so I walked out the door with it.
Stainless IS softer than most carbon steels, so may loose some luster quicker than a blued barrel.
But really it's a range toy for me. Pull it out of the rug, shoot, put back into the rug, take home and clean / wipe down.
I also dropped a red dot sight on top. That in itself is just fun to shoot with.
It came down to, I walked into a shop, they had the 5.5" bull barrel in blue, and it's a nice blue finish.. so I walked out the door with it.
Stainless IS softer than most carbon steels, so may loose some luster quicker than a blued barrel.
But really it's a range toy for me. Pull it out of the rug, shoot, put back into the rug, take home and clean / wipe down.
I also dropped a red dot sight on top. That in itself is just fun to shoot with.
bigfatdave
Member
"alloy"
Both stainless AND carbon steel are alloys, are you referring to the blued carbon steel version when you say "alloy"? Most people being non-specific with the term "alloy" are talking about various lightweight Aluminum framed guns.
As far as advantage, I don't think it makes a mechanical difference in most guns, and even less in something so lightly mechanically stressed as a .22lr pistol.
I wouldn't (didn't) pay the extra for stainless, but I don't dig stainless in the first place so maybe I'm biased.
Both stainless AND carbon steel are alloys, are you referring to the blued carbon steel version when you say "alloy"? Most people being non-specific with the term "alloy" are talking about various lightweight Aluminum framed guns.
As far as advantage, I don't think it makes a mechanical difference in most guns, and even less in something so lightly mechanically stressed as a .22lr pistol.
I wouldn't (didn't) pay the extra for stainless, but I don't dig stainless in the first place so maybe I'm biased.
ColtPythonElite
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2011
- Messages
- 10,474
I have one of each.
I have a 1965 MK I Target that is blue. The finish blue on it is still nearly as nice as when new because it has had obvious care. You just have to keep them protected with oil or wax to ward off rust. Johnson's paste wax will do a good job protecting the gun and really make the blue shine.
I have a 1994 MK II Target in stainless....Right now, I am in the middle of polishing it to a mirror finish. I've done the top half and am about finished with the bottom half. It will look like chrome when I get done.
I have a 1965 MK I Target that is blue. The finish blue on it is still nearly as nice as when new because it has had obvious care. You just have to keep them protected with oil or wax to ward off rust. Johnson's paste wax will do a good job protecting the gun and really make the blue shine.
I have a 1994 MK II Target in stainless....Right now, I am in the middle of polishing it to a mirror finish. I've done the top half and am about finished with the bottom half. It will look like chrome when I get done.
Last edited:
The Lone Haranguer
Member
I associate "alloy" with aluminum alloy. To my knowledge the Ruger .22s are either all steel or have polymer lower frames (22/45).Sorry, I was comparing the blued "alloy steel" model to the "stainless steel" model. I'm still kinda new at this. The one for sale at the range has the "bull" barrel, but now I notice a model with a longer, "tapered" barrel. I'm not sure which one I like better. They only have one in stock. Apparently, the tragedy in Tucson has caused some overraction, and some folks are worried that handgun sales will soon be outlawed.
- Status
