Ruger MKIII or MKIII 22/45?

[Stover954rr]

Hi Guys,
I am going to purchase a new .22 pistol. I really like the rugers, but am a little stuck. The reason is I like the grip and price on the 22/45, however I have heard rumors that they are not as reliable/ not as good of a pistol as the regular MKIII's I am looking at the target or hunter models. Does anyone have any input on this?
Thanks,
~Stover

 

[Animal Mother]

AFAIK, I haven't read of any significant reliability issues with the 22/45 over the Ruger MKIII. I've owned both, and I prefer the grip angle and feel of the MKIII. I don't have problem with polymer pistols, as I own a few, but the polymer frame of the 22/45 doesn't feel as nice to me as the metal frame of the MKIII. Also, the mags of the MKIII don't have that big piece of plastic stuck on the bottom that the 22/45 series has. But really it is all personal preference. Go with the 22/45 if you want, they are great pistols. I settled on a Lipsey's MKIII Deluxe model, it is a blued slabside with cocobolo grips. It looks really nice and as accurate as my '69 S&W 17-3, which is saying something. Lipsey has some special runs of the 22/45 that you might want to look into.

 

[Japle]

In my experience, 22/45s are as reliable as any Ruger .22 autopistol. Even when they're tricked out with quality aftermarket parts, they work with boring effeciency.

Here's mine. I've used it in many Steel matches and thousands of practice rounds in the last few years and the only problems I've had are 3 or 4 rounds with no priming compound.

 

[Bonesinium]

If you like the grip angle and feel of the 22/45, then get that.

 

[Pilot]

I have three Ruger MK II's and a Ruger 22/45 (Mark II generation) and they are all very accurate and very, very reliable. My 22/45 has a four inch bull barrel which is handy, and with the polymer frame a little lighter so I tend to carry that sometimes as a woods gun.