Taurus .22 revolver vs Ruger mark III

[Voland]

I've been looking at Taurus Tracker .22 revolver 4" and the Ruger Mark III 4".

This pistol will be primarily used for small game. Basically something I can throw in to a backpack for when I go out to my friends property. I would like to be low maintenance and as accurate as possible. At some point, I would probably mount a low power pistol scope on it but I would like to retain the irons.

So basically I am hear to get some opinions. All are welcome!

Thanks!
V.

 

[Carne Frio]

Ruger Mark III si, Taurus M94 22lr not so much. I own and love the Ruger 22lr and am neutral on the Taurus 22lr.

 

[mesinge2]

I had a Taurus M94. It is an accurate and reliable revolver, but like many 22 LR revolvers it had an ungodly trigger pull; also the Taurus had a rough gritty trigger as well.

I had a Taurus Tracker in 44 mag that had a very smooth and even trigger pull, and I always wondered why the Tracker was so different from the 94.

 

[Shadow 7D]

Mk 3 have a rep for fun pinking up to some serious competition custom jobs, If your looking for something like that you might want to consider a .38 or a 9mm auto, both cheaper to purchase used, better shot pattern if for snake, more power for larger critters.

For plinking, the way ammo is around here, I'm thinking of getting an air gun.

 

[bangkok]

I own a Mk III and it is a really fun gun, pretty accurate too. With the revolver you'll get tired of the slow emptying and reloading. I also hear to many horror stories about Taurus revolvers.

 

[mnrivrat]

Taurus Tracker is not the Model 94 by the way.

I own a Taurus Model 94 in .22 LR and a Taurus Tracker in .44 Magnum.

I have nothing bad to say about the Taurus guns I own, but I have seen some not so good ones come out of the factory and I have also seen some repair work from Taurus that was at best sub standard.

For your purpose I would likely go with the Ruger. It fits your wants better with ability to scope it for example, and with better accuracy. Chose the right Ruger model and the scope mounting will be a breeze.

 

[NGIB]

I have the exact Mk III in your picture except mine has CT grips. I also had a Taurus 94 .22 revolver for a time. While my Taurus didn't have any mechanical problems, the trigger was pretty bad - especially in DA.

The Mk III Hunter is a great shooter, well balanced and very accurate. The two you mention aren't even on the same page in my book. A revolver equal to the Mk III Hunter, and in the same price league, would be a S&W 617 - have one of these as well and it's great...

 

[uf-engineer]

My vote. MK3 and 4 spare mags. Its fun to shoot and very accurate.

 

[Mr. Bojangles]

I've go a Taurus .22 revolver, and I love it. Mine is accurate and I've had no problems with it. I realize Taurus doesn't have the best reputation, and maybe I was lucky and got a good one.
However, you can't go wrong with the Ruger.

 

[Voland]

Wow, sounds like its fairly close to unanimous...

Thanks everyone!
V.

 

[kludge]

Buckmark or S&W 22A... the 22A would probabbly be my choice for the throw it in the backback don't care if it gets scratched gun, and comes with the rail already on it (the low end Rugers and Buckmarks don't.

 

[m47dragon]

I have the M94 Taurus and the trigger was initially as described in other posts. It has continually improved with repeated firing and cleaning. It improved tremendously following a maintenance session in the ultrasonic bath. Very comfortable, pretty accurate for a 4" barrel, adjustable sights, very economical and very sturdy.

 

[PX15]

These Ruger rimfires have been made in one model or another for probably 50 years or more. I know I bought my first one back in 1970 or so and have probably owned 6-7 altogether..

Rugar Standards were the first pistols I gave my step-sons when they were young, and I just gave my last one away to a step-son, after having his and his Son's names ingraved on it.

I think these Rugers are fantastic rimfires and I would recommend them without reservation.

Another consideration in favor of the Ruger is the availability of the fine Crimson Trace Lasergrip for it.

I have no experience with the Taurus you mentioned.

Best Wishes, and good shootin'!

Jesse

 

[maroast]

I have the Ruger MKIII Hunter 6 5/8, and the Taurus M94 (not the tracker)....The Ruger is a DREAM to shoot and is VERY accurate....esp since I put a comp trigger & sear in the pistol. Its probably my favorite out of all the guns that I own.


The Taurus M94 is a neat little pistol....its really my beater gun. It comes with me when I go out for rides on my dual sport motorcycle....and I pretty much hunt bottles and cans with it in the woods shooting 22 CB Shorts. The double action pull is long and a bit rough, but the single action is nice and crisp. .....Sorry, but no input on the 22 Tracker.

 

[tango2echo]

1,000,000 to 1 in favor of the Ruger in my opinion.

t2e

 

[Lakeshore]

Own the Taurus 94 and Ruger MKIII, very fond of both especially in the current expensive (centerfire) ammo environment. The Ruger is rock steady and fires any cheap crappy ammo I feed it without a hiccup. I like the Taurus because I can shoot .22 short or long or .22LR subsonic in it. Negatives: The MKIII can be a challenge to field strip till you get the hang of it. The Taurus dbl. action trigger is indeed heavy but single action not bad and improves with usage.

 

[scottaschultz]

Lets confuse things a little more!

If you want a .22 revolver, get a Ruger Single Six.

My vote for semi-automatic .22 pistol that will accept a scope is the Beretta Neos. I don't seem to have any accuracy problems with mine! This has a 4.5" barrel but it also comes in 6".

Scott

​

 

[riverdog]

I have put a few bricks of ammo through my Ruger 22/45 and have found it to be one of the most accurate .22LR pistols I've shot. I have been less than impressed with .22LR revolvers.

 

[MCgunner]

For small game, the Ruger is my choice. I've not owned the Taurus, but own several others that are extremely accurate in their niche. But, my Mk 2 is accurate in the extreme. I have a scope on it (easily done with the Ruger, lots of aftermarket) and it will shoot 1" from the bench at 50 yards, more accurate than a lot of rifles including Ruger's own 10-22. The only more accurate .22 I have is a scoped 10" match barrel for a TC contender.

As to DA trigger pull, superfluous. Who cares? You're not going to be shooting at a 50 yard squirrel in the pine trees DA. The Ruger's trigger is very good and all the Taurus SA trigger pulls I have are excellent.

But, get the Ruger, many advantages for hunting, none the least of which is superb accuracy. I don't know why it took me so long to get one, but I finally did and don't regret it. For me concerning .22s, Ruger's are quality, all others are suspect. I'll make an exception for the Buckmark.

I would suggest a 2x LER for your purposes. My mount replaced the rear sight which I have stashed away, but have no intent to ever use again. The gun is awesome with the scope, very accurate and amazingly fast to acquire on multiple targets while plinking, makes the gun huge fun at the range.

 

[middy]

Neither. Ruger Single Six.

 

[JEB]

BIG +1 on the Neos.

had a mkIII first and traded it for a Neos after only three days. (1 day of jammamatic shooting, and two days to clean a reasemble the danged thing!) neos is more than ready to accept a scope without messing with the factory sights, and is plenty accurate. will be using min for squirrel next week

 

[MCgunner]

had a mkIII first and traded it for a Neos after only three days. (1 day of jammamatic shooting, and two days to clean a reasemble the danged thing!) neos is more than ready to accept a scope without messing with the factory sights, and is plenty accurate. will be using min for squirrel next week

And, from what I hear, God help you if you need factory support or warranty work. I won't touch a Beretta ever again, but that's just me.

 

[scottaschultz]

And, from what I hear, God help you if you need factory support or warranty work. I won't touch a Beretta ever again, but that's just me.

Funny, I heard the same thing about Taurus!

Scott

 

[Voland]

See, thats sort of my concern... revolvers are simple and very little goes wrong with them after years of banging around in a backpack/trunk... will I have the same luck with the mark III?

 

[bigfatdave]

better shot pattern if for snake

Why are you shooting at snakes? Leave them alone unless they pose a real and direct threat, they keep the rodent population down. Too many people have an irrational fear of snakes, and then go out and buy guns with "snake defense" in mind, not realizing that the vast majority of snakes are harmless, and the few that could actually hurt you don't want anything more than to be left alone.

Back onto the topic ...
Comparing a Ruger mkIII and a Taurus Tracker is like comparing apples to hand grenades.
If you want a plinker, get the revolver. If you want a trainer for similarly laid-out centerfire revolvers, get the revolver.
If you want a good all-around .22 autoloader, get a mkIII (or a buckmark, or a 22a, or a neos ... but I like the Ruger offering) and upgrade it at your leisure. There's a huge aftermarket for the Rugers, both in performance and ergonomics, plus the mkIII line has a scope rail included that mounts up quite securely. You might save some cash on the Ruger if you skip the Hunter model, they are mighty pretty, but unless you really like the sights on them they're not really any better than the normal barreled ones.

In the end, it sounds like you'll buy something in each category in the long run, so get whatever is happier in your hand, or whatever you shoot more accurately, and don't stress out about it.