Ruger Mk IV: Any Good?

[jeepnik]

As the bright fellow who made the comment about a solution in search of a problem (actually I quoted an even brighter fellow named Cooper), I've noted something over the years.

Firearms manufacturers used to bring out new firearms at a very slow pace. Then again at that time autos didn't change much from year to year. Maybe a small change in grill or taillights but that was it. Today auto makers have new models with all the new gee whiz stuff practically every year. Seems that firearms manufacturers are headed the same way. New models with no really significant improvement over the previous ones. And some times a step backwards.

The Ruger of which we are speaking isn't really an improvement over the original MKI. But when Ruger released it, I'd bet a lot of earlier MK owners ran right out and bought one. Did they really need it? Probably not, but Many folks have to have the latest and greatest whether it is or not. This situation is great for the manufacturers but not necessarily for the consumer.

None of my newer designed firearms can do what my older ones will do one darned bit better. Heck, a man armed with an Colt 1873 and who knows how to use it is much better off than one with the latest and greatest that he hasn't learned as well.

 

[AlexanderA]

and ruger makes good on all their guns.

Well, here's the deal. Ruger makes good on their guns in their original factory condition. If you make modifications (which, IMO, are necessary for most of the Mark pistols), then you're on your own. I would imagine that Ruger frowns on the removal of the magazine disconnector, for example.

I think of buying a Ruger Mark pistol as buying the basic part of a kit -- with the remaining aftermarket parts to be installed as soon as possible. Maybe this is not what Ruger wants, but it sure does wonders for the aftermarket parts makers.

 

[jeepnik]

Well, here's the deal. Ruger makes good on their guns in their original factory condition. If you make modifications (which, IMO, are necessary for most of the Mark pistols), then you're on your own. I would imagine that Ruger frowns on the removal of the magazine disconnector, for example.

I think of buying a Ruger Mark pistol as buying the basic part of a kit -- with the remaining aftermarket parts to be installed as soon as possible. Maybe this is not what Ruger wants, but it sure does wonders for the aftermarket parts makers.

No manufacturer is going to perform warranty work on a modified firearm. Whether right or wrong, it is likely driven by liability (too many damned lawyers and more being minted almost daily). Some firearms manufacturers will work on a firearm, but they return it to factory specs. If that means removing the gee whiz trigger or whatever and reinstalling factory parts that's what they do. And, you may not necessarily get you aftermarket parts back.

This refusal to work on modified firearms isn't unique to that industry. Many four wheelers modify their vehicles, some to amazing amounts. You can't blame a maker if the drive shaft or u joints fail on your lifted, huge tired, and re-geared differentaled vehicle. And you have no real reason to expect them to do so.

 

[AlexanderA]

Ruger has designed this gun in such a way (perhaps listening too much to its lawyers) that it practically cries out for aftermarket "improvements." After all, that's what keeps outfits like Volquartsen and Tandemkross in business. It's understandable that Ruger won't repair a gun with a Volquartsen accurizing kit installed (except perhaps to return it to its original factory condition), but then Volquartsen won't repair it either. You are stuck with hiring a gunsmith, or learning how to do your own gunsmithing.

 

[murf]

Well, here's the deal. Ruger makes good on their guns in their original factory condition. If you make modifications (which, IMO, are necessary for most of the Mark pistols), then you're on your own. I would imagine that Ruger frowns on the removal of the magazine disconnector, for example.

I think of buying a Ruger Mark pistol as buying the basic part of a kit -- with the remaining aftermarket parts to be installed as soon as possible. Maybe this is not what Ruger wants, but it sure does wonders for the aftermarket parts makers.

you are not "on your own". they just put the gun back into the original configuration and keep you after-market parts. been there, done that! put the weapon back to stock before you send it in... easy.

murf

 

[Panzerschwein]

you are not "on your own". they just put the gun back into the original configuration and keep you after-market parts. been there, done that! put the weapon back to stock before you send it in... easy.

murf

Yep mine is 100% stock. Still no word on when it'll get back but I'll let you guys know when I find out.

 

[Walkalong]

However, once you learn the angle of the dangle of the hammer strut and it's relationship to the mainspring, you have it licked.

Yep, once you learn to hold your mouth right when dropping that little rascal back in, you're good to go. Sure is tough the first time without guidance.

 

[AlexanderA]

I've never liked the front sight blades on the Mark series of pistols. The early ones had a notorious "holster-ripper" undercut blade. More recently (on the Marks III and IV), Ruger removed the undercut (and made the sight smaller) but the blade still snags on holsters.

There used to be an aftermarket "Sport Site" to address this problem. That's no longer made. The alternative now is to use the ramp sight from a Ruger Single Six revolver. It mounts with the original screw. You have to do a little careful grinding on the bottom of the sight (with a Dremel tool or similar) so that it matches the barrel profile. (Actually that's not even necessary unless you're a perfectionist.)