Ruger MK III upper on MK II lower ????

[kemper]

Good Afternoon,

I have a chance to buy a new stainless MK III heavy barreled upper for what I consider to be a really good price ($40), and was planning on putting it on one of my MK II pistol lowers. My LGS says it should fit and function properly
I wanted to hear what you guys had to say about it ??????

Will a MK III upper fit and function on a MK II lower ?

 

[ColtPythonElite]

It will fit fine.

 

[rcmodel]

Remember that the Ruger upper is the serial numbered part.

It will need to be transferred just like a complete handgun according to your local, state, and Federal Law.

rc

 

[bigfatdave]

Should fit

If you have trouble with the mechanics of getting it fit on there, hit up guntalk-online.com and consult with Dr Bullseye and/or the troubleshooting guides

 

[kemper]

Remember that the Ruger upper is the serial numbered part.

It will need to be transferred just like a complete handgun according to your local, state, and Federal Law.

rc

It is a private party sale so it won't matter here in Arkansas

 

[Bullseye57]

Not necessary to contact me on Guntalk-online, because I post here too. The OP has hit up a few of the other forums with this same question seeking advice.


I'll just add this about that... As long as you stay within the model you should be fine with seating different generation receivers on the frames. If you do not maintain the models, i.e. try to seat a 22/45 receiver on a metal frame, you will experience a misfit due to the factory peen on the underside of a 22/45 receiver to fit it tightly to the plastic frame. Of course, there may be some minor fitting issues between any receiver and frame. So you will have to evaluate the fit individually between particular frames and receivers.

Hope this helps.

R,
Bullseye

 

[kemper]

Not necessary to contact me on Guntalk-online, because I post here too. The OP has hit up a few of the other forums with this same question seeking advice.


I'll just add this about that... As long as you stay within the model you should be fine with seating different generation receivers on the frames. If you do not maintain the models, i.e. try to seat a 22/45 receiver on a metal frame, you will experience a misfit due to the factory peen on the underside of a 22/45 receiver to fit it tightly to the plastic frame. Of course, there may be some minor fitting issues between any receiver and frame. So you will have to evaluate the fit individually between particular frames and receivers.

Hope this helps.

R,
Bullseye

Thanks Bullseye and to the rest of you.

I was doing some research last night on this topic and came across a few threads
that mentioned the LCI (loaded chamber indicator) on the MK III upper would have to
be removed or a notch cut into the bolt of the MK II to allow for the LCI to fit.

Is that correct ?

 

[Fishbed77]

Remember that the Ruger upper is the serial numbered part.

Wouldn't it be great if Ruger would change this.

 

[bigfatdave]

Yes, the mkIII (3) upper has the LCI that will not fir the mkII (2) BOLT

The reverse is (as far as I know) not true, a mk3 bolt simply has a useless cutout if used with a mk2 upper

Simply removing the LCI is not a big deal, the two mk3 frankenguns in the household had that feature removed a long time and many, MANY thousand rounds ago

Get a small strong magnet, find the LCI pin on the underside of the upper, stick magnet to pin, wiggle LCI & pull magnet, everything comes out. A bonk on a phonebook to loosen things up may be helpful. (I'm going from memory here, it has been a long time since I deleted that CA lawyer silliness from our two guns)

People complain that theres a hole in the side of the gun after you do that ... I'll point out that theres a bigger hole in the other side that flings hot brass, so who cares? A damp cloth held over the LCI slot for 20 rounds of dirty ammo only picked up a few small bits of grunge, and now I don't have to clean the silly little LCI internals.
(if you don't clean the LCI parts, it interferes with feeding, it is not a very good design)

 

[Jim K]

"Quote:
Remember that the Ruger upper is the serial numbered part."

"Wouldn't it be great if Ruger would change this."

Ruger did it that way originally because the stamped grip frame would have been crushed by the numbering machine. Today, they might be able to use a different way of putting on the numbers, but there appears little reason to change.

(FWIW, BATFE considers the receiver of the Luger to be the gun also, because it can be fired without the grip frame, unlike the Ruger.)

Jim

 

[weisse52]

Several companies make parts to fill in when you remove the LCI indicator on the MKIII. I have used products from Tandemkross and have been very happy with the fit. Just gives a more polished appearance.

http://www.tandemkross.com/Mark-III-AND-2245-LCI-Replacement-Insert--Stainless-Steel_p_62.html

 

[GLOOB]

^I think the point of removing the part and leaving a hole is so that anyone familiar with the gun won't inadvertently think that the gun has a working LCI. Otherwise, you could just put the plastic piece back in, after removing the steel part that contacts the cartridge rim.

Not that many people bother looking at it. I, for one, have never even noticed the LCI on my MkIII. When I want to check if a gun is loaded, I am checking the chamber. The Mark III LCI is on the wrong side of the gun to even be remotely helpful.