Newest gun: Ruger Mk III .22LR pistol, the new one with M1911 grip style and controls, threaded barrel and under-barrel rail. And for the first time in the purchase of a Ruger firearm (going back more than 30 years now), I'm disappointed. Quite disappointed. Almost 30 years ago I bought a Ruger Mark I pistol. It's still in the family, having become my son's when I bought a shiny stainless Mark II, which I still own and enjoy. With that background and basis for expectations I had very high hopes for the Mark III. But the Mark III came with a number of "features" I did not expect or want, starting with a silly magazine disconnect. Why such a silly "feature" even exists defies common sense; why Ruger chose to put it on a new model now (when others are doing away with such things) defies even imagination. Then, for reasons perhaps related to the lock changes to implement the magazine disconnector, the force required to unlock the bolt for cocking is now much greater. Yet at the same time Ruger has made much smaller the "ears" that afford grip for cocking the bolt, changing the light cocking force on the Mark II to something much, much heavier on the Mark III. So much heavier, in fact, that my arthritic hands that can easily cock the Mark I and Mark II simply cannot budge the Mark III's bolt when the hammer is down. How o how, Ruger-folk, were any of these things supposed to be an improvement? At the same time, the things that could have been improved over the Mark II (such as the somewhat creepy trigger, out of place on a pistol with target pretensions) have been left untouched. Looks like I'll be doing what many others have done with this pistol, which begins with replacing parts of the lockwork with a set of aftermarket components that both do away with the silly magazine "safety" while at the same time improving the trigger pull. But why should I be having to spend almost the price of the pistol again to improve what Ruger should have improved but didn't and fixing the problems Ruger should not have introduced but did? Dumb moves, Ruger, dumb moves. My other recent purchases include a Springfield EMP in 9mm, a tour de force of the semi-custom pistol maker's art. It's beautifully and artfully scaled variant of the steel-frame M1911 Commander to fit the 9mm and 40 S&W cartridges. The fit, finish, and quality of craftsmanship on this pistol (and every other EMP sample I've seen) is on par with $2500 - $3000 customs from Brown, Baer, and the like -- you have to see that to believe it, but it's precisely true. The result is a jewel of a small pistol that fits so well in the hand and feels so solid in action that my hand just wants to hang onto it because it feels so natural to hold and fire. A tip of the hat to Springfield for a very classy and elegant small pistol that hides well yet packs a real punch. Not cheap, but worth every penny. The only other recent acquisitions have been a couple of additions to the mix-and-match "kit" that are my various SIG P250 components. (For those unfamiliar, SIG P250 pistols and components can be mixed and re-configured on the fly to make virtually any kind of pistol -- full-size, compact, or sub-compact in 9mm, .40S&W, .357 SIG, and .45 ACP -- in various grip sizes and barrel lengths.) Through ongoing testing vs electronic reaction targets I've found that, to my surprise, the SIG P250 shoots much better for me in simulated combat conditions. Simply put, I can react, aim, and put a first (sometimes first and second) shot on target faster and more accurately with a P250 (specifically, a compact-configuration P250, 9mm or 40S&W) than with any other pistol I've used. So, after time to become incontrovertibly convinced of this, I've switched to the P250 as my standard carry and home-defense primary weapon. It does help that the P250 is also very accurate and as reliable as sunlight in the morning, which makes it easy to love
. ---