Taurus .22 revolver vs Ruger mark III

[MCgunner]

I've shot snakes with bullets. If you wanna shoot one, it don't take shot.

Funny, I heard the same thing about Taurus!

Scott

Well, I ain't sure they're worse than Beretta. A little tip up .22 is why I won't mess with Beretta anymore. I must say, I've also heard Smith and Wesson ain't so great. But, personal experience with Ruger, great company to deal with, no hassles. What really peeves me about Taurus is they won't just send you a part. Ruger will, no questions, and will take your word for it that it broke. In my case, it was a mag release spring on a P90. Superb people to deal with. It was in the mail box two days after I called 'em.

I own 3 Tauri, but haven't dealt with customer service. I hear they're better now days on a new gun, will pay shipping both ways.

 

[bangkok]

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?

The MkIII is an incredibly robust chunk of steel! I would think you could run over it with a steamroller!

 

[searcher451]

The solution is simple: Get the one that best fits your hand and eye. To do that, you'll have to take each one out for a test-drive. Go to a range that rents guns; or invite some friends along if they own the guns in question. Take your time, run a number of rounds through them, and decide only after you know which of the two is the best fit for you.

It wouldn't hurt to rent or borrow a couple of other choices as well. You just might surprise yourself and find that, say, a Browning Buck Mark is a better fit than either of the two you've listed.

One other thing I'd do for certain: Stay well clear of any gun that uses pot metal in its construction.

 

[Dogbite]

Ruger Mark III hands down. The Mark III is legendary.

 

[tinygnat219]

Skip the Taurus unless you want a headache.

Get the Ruger. If there's one thing that Ruger builds well and hasn't really messed up it's the .22 Rimfires they offer.

 

[bigfatdave]

The solution is simple: Get the one that best fits your hand and eye. To do that, you'll have to take each one out for a test-drive. Go to a range that rents guns; or invite some friends along if they own the guns in question. Take your time, run a number of rounds through them, and decide only after you know which of the two is the best fit for you.

searcher451, I am beginning to think that nobody can do that any more, the glut of "what gun for ___" threads seem to indicate that gun lending and rental ranges are a thing of the past, and we all must order guns without ever shooting a similar one or handling one in a shop. Of course, I still am willing to open up the safe for friends to test-drive something they're interested in, so long as they pick up targets and lunch*. And there are still two operational rental ranges within driving distance ... but the rest of the country seems incapable of acquiring guns by any means other than ordering them blind. Odd, isn't it?

*(I've bought the wrong ammo for shooting a friend's gun once, I'll just supply a reasonable amount if someone wants to try one of my toys out ... in the case of a .22, that may be 2-300 rounds, for centerfire more like 30-50)

 

[Voland]

Thanks everyone! One of the ranges in Dallas that I go to does rent pistols. I intend on going up there next week and trying both but this thread was mostly for my education. I value the opinion of everyone here a lot, even the naysayers... Every post teaches me something and ultimately will help me make the right choice for me.

Thanks again!

V.

 

[bigfatdave]

Thanks everyone! One of the ranges in Dallas that I go to does rent pistols. I intend on going up there next week and trying both but this thread was mostly for my education.

Happy to help, assuming I was any help at all. My rantiness in post#31 wasn't specifically directed at you, by the way.
Shoot everything that interests you from that rental counter, some extra .22lr ammo and range fees would be cheap compared to the cost of a bought gun you don't like shooting!

 

[smallbore]

I own 2 Ruger pistols. A MkII Comp Target model (ss slab-side w/simmons scope) and recently purchased Mk III 22/45 (blue slab-side 4+ " bbl) for the backpack, plinking, hunting. I have been satisfied with both. The Single Six models are also nice, especially the interchangability of cylinders and muti-variety .22's you can use. The only down side I can see to any .22 revolver is speed in reloading. With pistols one can easily carry a sufficient # of pre-loaded mags, which is quicker than changing out cylinders or reaching for the box of ammo.

 

[Taurus_9mm]

I have a Taurus Tracker 970 and a Ruger 22/45. I can't say that I honestly like one any more than I do the other, but I do like both of them a lot. Each is accurate, well built and feels good in the hands.

www.gunnerforum.com
www.taurusarmed.net

 

[Comanche180]

gun vs gun

I have a Ruger MkII Target that I love to shoot and sometimes use for bullseye. I also have a Taurus model 94 that is fairly new to me. The Taurus is fun to shoot but is nothing like the Ruger. It has a very heavy double action trigger, although in single action it is fine and it is accurate. It is a toy. The Ruger is a tool. Reloading a revolver is not nearly as quick as a semi auto.

 

[Magichelmt]

Well I have both as well and each fits into my collection well. I prefer the 22/45 for reloading speed. I take both with me to the range when ever I go. I have not had any problems with my Tracker.

 

[herbie1]

I had a Taurus .22 Tracker 6" barrel. I got rid of it within a few months. It is the only gun I immediately regretted purchasing. The trigger was gritty and the thing spat spat smoke and other small particles back in may face every time I shot it. I think the timing or cylinder/bore alignment was off.

I traded the Taurus for a Ruger MarkIII Hunter w/6" barrel, similar to what you have pictured. It is a great gun.

The scope mount that comes with the MarkIII lets you keep your iron sights. I have a 2x scope and Warne quick detach scope rings on my MarkIII. I can easily mount and unmount the scope as I see fit. I'm not sure how you would do that with a revolver setup.

The scope mount that comes with the Ruger is a bit cheap in my opinion. I installed one of Tactical Solutions Picantinny mounts on mine. After a few fitting problems the think works great.

The MarkIII is a classic. 10-15 years from now it will still be a classic. It will probably hold resale value much better than the Taurus. If you want to hand it down to your children, or gift it to someone, it would make a much better gift than the Taurus.

BTW, everything shakes loose from this gun. I had to loctite my front sight, rear sight and the scope mount.

I also have problem with the bolt holding back on the last shot. This is not too difficult to fix (I am handy enough to fix it myself), but I haven't gotten around to it yet.

H.

P.S. My impression is that Ruger's Mark series (MK I/II/III) is regarded as one of the best (or even the best) .22's on the market (excluding specialized target guns, etc.).

P.P.S They are a PITA to reassemble.

 

[bigfatdave]

P.P.S They are a PITA to reassemble.

They get easier every time I do it. The reputation of impossible assembly is mostly perpetuated by first-time owners and the complaints they leave online ... which are searchable forever.

 

[MCgunner]

Why does reloading speed matter on a .22? You going into combat with it? Of course, being a cap and ball fan, I think any cartridge gun is cheating. I only have one magazine for my MkII and don't feel the need for another. You have to load the magazine, ya know, unless you have your wife trained to do it while you're shooting. If you do, your wife is a keeper. Maybe your name is Todd Palin?

FYI

http://www.alpharubicon.com/leo/markiipike.htm

 

[C-grunt]

I have the plain jane Mark III with a 4 inch barrel and its probably the most accurate handgun I have ever shot. The thing is scary accurate. Mine also came with a scope mount in the box that keeps the factory sights. Best 300 bucks I ever spent.

 

[Voland]

Ugh... so many guns, only so much money... I am also in need of a car pistol. Thinking glock 19 or cz 75b... but it will probably have to wait...

Thanks everyone for your feedback! I really appreciate the help. I am not going to get a chance to make it out this week but this weekend... its on!

V.

 

[stonecoldy]

I have the exact same situation as Comanche 180.
I bought the Taurus 94 this year because I had $100 in Bass Pro credit, and had been shooting more .22 LR to save my stash of centerfire pistol ammo. My daughter enjoys shooting revolvers over pistols, the son likes pistols over revolvers.
I will pick the Ruger Mark II over the Taurus for handling and accuracy. Single action is OK for the Taurus, double action is pretty rough. Feels like someone dumped sand in the action. The hammer seems to be oddly angled, requiring either a grip shift to cock the hammer for single-action, or use of the weak hand to do it.
Besides the rough action, which hopefully can be remediated, would like to see the Taurus in a 3" barrel, not fully under-lugged. I think it's heavy for caliber. Not exactly a kit gun. The Ruger I have isn't light either, but handles great! I like the balance of the Target bull barrel.

 

[soonerboomer]

had the Taurus Tracker .22
It looked cool, but honestly, it just wasn't fun. Get the Ruger.

 

[djnick101]

I've had a Ruger Mark I for about 15 years or so. I've NEVER had a problem with it, with the exception of the learning curve for taking it apart and putting it back together. YouTube has a nice video for doing that.

I have 3 Rugers. This Mark I, a New Model Blackhawk .357 revolver with 6 1/2" barrel and a P-95 9mm semi-auto. None of them have ever given me any problems.

With the Mark I it's easy to take a pop can, give it a throw and "walk" it away with the Mark I.

My recomendations would be with Ruger in whatever caliber you choose. I'm waiting until I can afford a P-90 .45 then my life will be complete. LOL

 

[hardluk1]

I have a older tuarus model 94 22lr and both a 4 1/2" 22/45 ruger and a 6" mark III The triggers on both rugers new are crap. Also cost to much to light'n and smooth. Compaired to any other 22 handguns i have the taurus is a better shooter. It has a great trigger with wolf springs in it . Also both of the rugers are much more picky about ammo than any 22 i have and cost to much to do light'n the trigger pull. I retired and old colt huntsman that is today a much better pistol than either ruger will ever be.

 

[MCgunner]

That's odd. My Mk2 eats anything I feed it that says LR on it. Even the cheap stuff shoots 1/2" groups at 25 yards.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

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?

I've owned a Mark II for more than 30 years, and it's still going strong. Automatics generally are eaiser to maintain than revolvers. They rarely fail, and you can strip them down completely, replace parts as necessary, and generally do everything yourself. But try replacing the hand or cylinder stop on a revolver.

 

[Ben86]

My main reason for wanting to get a .22 revolver instead of automatic is because I can't stand it when a gun hates the ammo that I like. From my experience most .22 autos are picky about ammo. Other than that its mainly just a coolness factor.

Because my house is 30 minutes away from the nearest hospital I shoot all snakes on my property that I can't identify as non-poisonous. I let the cats take care of most of the rats and mice. I shoot what they don't kill. Nothing survives, resistance is futile!

Besides, snakes hardly ever eat so I doubt they do much to control the population. My cats kill at least a few every night.

 

[justashooter in pa]

some states, such as penna, do not allow the use of autoloading handguns in hunting.