Ruger MKII or MKIII?

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PrimaryB

Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
110
Stopped by my local pusher's house of fun and saw what I have been looking for. Actually 2 models of which one was a Ruger MKII and a Ruger MKIII Slabside w/bullbarrel. I was on the clock and business before pleasure was the setting Friday. I did a search here and found results of each but no comparisons or any info that fits my situation so I have questions.

The proverbial question obviously is, if your in my shoes which would you purchase? MKII price was 260.00 new and MKIII was 380.00 new but that is before my state gets their juice. Also that doesn't include haggling price.

I've read about the difficulties of disassembling and I'm wondering if one or the other is easier to strip down. My guess is they are both inherently the same.

I've also read in my search efforts that these guns prefer a more robust load. But then I also read that it is harmful to the slide/action. Any comments? Have a good 4th gentleman and ladies.

PB

Any info good or bad is appreciated.
 
I had a II and III 22/45. The newer version has too many 'extras' tacked on, plus it had bad feeding issues.

I know it's a different gun, but I'd go with the II personally.
 
The MKIII has a different placement on the magazine release, has some 'safety' gizmos like visible flag for round in chamber, no fire without magazine, etc. Otherwise pretty much the same gun with the same take down that requires a modicum of coordination and smarts on the part of the user.

For me, there is really nothing of note on the MKIII in general to make it worth attention over the MKII--quite the opposite. I had a MK512 (5 1/2 inch bull barrel) that I traded off because of expenses incurred for repair under California law and would prefer to replace it with one of the same.
 
Go with the MK II. If anything the MKIII is harder to put back together, but the guns just have their trick to getting it done (the trick is to follow the instructions to the letter or understand what you're trying to do). The "safety" features on the MKIII are unecessary, inconvenient, and ugly.

I've never heard any complaints as to the longevity of the guns. Either should go for millions of rounds without major work.

There are kits that allow you to use allen wrenches to take the gun down. They're available online and at many gun shows where vendors install the kits for you. Don't remember the price.

To me, the best of both worlds is a MKII with a magazine thumb release kit (Wilson Speed-Jector) installed. Unfortunately, nobody currently makes the kits.
 
I have the MkII slabside and it has been an excellent pistol. Just keep the instructions handy and you should be okay at reassembly. Can't vouch for the MkIII.
 
For the price i would go with the MK II over
the MK III.i also don't think the MK III has
any advantage over the MK II.
 
Get the Mk II. There are still a ton of parts available and Ruger mags.

The Mk III added a mag disconnect safety, which makes it even harder to strip the gun, and a loaded chamber indicator. I don't see either one as an improvement, personally. They also moved the mag release from the butt to behind the trigger guard. This means that Mk II and MK III mags are NOT interchangable. There are plenty of Mk II mags around though, so it shouldn't be a problem.
 
Go with the one that "feels" best. If both are slabsides and the MKII is new or in good shape, price would be the decider for me. I have two MKIII's and both function and shoot very well. I can see no difference when I fire MKII's.

The new "safey" features don't affect the function of the MKIII's. I tend to ignore them since I believe the only loaded chamber indicator is visual inspection of the chamber and that the gun will fire a live round with, or without, the magazine until I've verified the empty chamber. The MKIII's are no more difficult to field strip and reassemble than the MKII's. They do take a few seconds longer because you have to insert and remove the magazine. That's important only if you are in a speed disassembly competition. If not, the few seconds required to do this are insignificant.

Go with the one you like. You won't be disappointed.
 
Thanks for the replies. Very generous of all of you. The Ruger MK Series caught my attention because a brother of a friend of mine has a MKII that shoots like a laser. Never saw a MKIII until I stopped by the gun shop.

The MKIII Slabside felt really good in my hands. Not just grip but also balance considering the bull barrel. Maybe my perception of balance comes from shooting big bore handguns and this happens to be lighter than anything I own.

I'm leaning more towards the MKIII. I think most peeps here and I'm in agreement that the additional safeties are a nuisance but I can overlook them considering I'm limited in my options and the price seems right. I've been looking for one for sometime now.

One of my core beliefs is I'd rather purchase over the top and not be capable of utilizing the object's full potential than to come up short and find myself wanting more. But in this case I'm not sure the MKIII has anything over the MKII. Any comments? Shooting the MKII has left a wonderful impression on me.:banghead:

PB
 
I doubt you'll see any difference in competence of the MKII or MKIII if they are otherwise the same style. Again the safety features are the major change.

I always kid new shooters with these Rugers that they are only permitted one .22 inch hole in the target at 7 yards because the guns are quite accurate.
 
I shoot a MkIII and love it. I haven't had any issues with the additional safety feature and once you learn the assembly it's easy.
 
My 22/45 (Mark II) feeds perfectly, shoots perfectly. It's got a 6 7/8" slabside bull barrel, and I would recommend that configuration to anyone.

For me, I'd get the Mark II. It's simpler. I like that. Easier to clean, fewer parts to break, etc.

However, if I were going to teach more new shooters with it, I'd get the Mark III. Those features really do make some sense for training purposes, especially the LCI. The magazine disconnect I can do without, especially if I have the LCI anyway. I'd be inclined to remove it.
 
I faced a similar choice in '05, just as the Mk III was released. I looked over the new features -- and bought a Mk II as fast as I could!

The lawyers are winning. Too many redundant "safety" devices are appearing on new models. This isn't just a Ruger thing. I have two S&W revolvers with those useless locks on 'em. :barf:

The older model Mk II just has fewer parts and a few less ways for Murphy to pop up and ruin a day. ;)
 
MKIII is my vote..Should be around $260 new. Great guns mags on them are expensive cheapest I could find for any ruger was $18 for factory mags, and they are flimsy. Safety features for a target pistol that may be used to train new shooters is not a bad idea, afterall its not a defense pistol.
 
If I remember right on Rimfirecentral there are tutorials on how to turn your Mark III into a Mark II for just a few bucks and some of your time in removing the safety features.

On that note I own a Mark III in 22/45 and have no complaints about any of the safety features, they do not get in your way or inhibit the performance of the gun. You really don't have to tear them down often, just keep the bolt and outer metal oiled and you are good to go for many thousands of rounds.
 
MKIII.

Purchase a VQ sear and a MKII bushing and hammer. Take out the old parts and the mag disconnect link and store for safekeeping. Then take out the trigger and file down the mag disco bump. Cut 1/2 coil off the trigger spring. Polish and reassemble. If you get ambitious you can drill the trigger and tap it for a pretravel screw.

What you will end up with is a MKII pistol with a loaded cartridge indicator, lawyer scrolls on the barrel, and a mag drop button.

You will like the mag drop button.
 
Mkii

I recently made the same decision. Two 6 7/8" Government Competition models. One a MkII the other a III.

I went with the two for a couple of reasons. $50 less money, and less intrusion from the "safeties". I do miss a thumb mag release like my other pistols.
 
Just remember....

...that LOOKING at it will be a major portion of your time with it.

;)

roogernbladeqn4.jpg


:)
 
Mark 2 - if nothing else, the price is better. the extra features are not an improvement on the M3, in my opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
Hogue and MKIII
Replies
2
Views
337
katastrof0
K
A
  • Locked
Ruger MKII/MKIII
Replies
12
Views
1K
Alex45ACP
A
T
  • Locked
Ruger MKI vs. MKII vs. MKIII Grip Interchangability?
Replies
2
Views
695
actionflies
A
G
  • Locked
Ruger MKIII magazine selection
Replies
18
Views
1K
RyanM
R
Z
  • Locked
Help Inspecting a Ruger MK II and MK III
Replies
6
Views
909
JohnKSa
JohnKSa
Back
Top