What Ruger .22 pistol?

[Hunter125]

I have been wanting a good .22 pistol for a while now. I had thought I liked the buckmark better, but I handled it and some Rugers at a gun show last month and came away liking the Ruger better. My question is, what is the difference between a MK I, MK II, MK III, and the 22/45? Which would you choose?

 

[tlen]

It's ALL here:
http://www.guntalk-online.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=934&sid=4b8e2629a93b3d7e109bc90f01927d83
Preference is generally on grip angle and all steel or polymer frame. Polymer frame 22/45 models are generally lighter. SS models are considerable more expensive but shoot the same as blued models.
I have a MKIII678 with a red dot for 50 yd steel plates and a 22/45 RP that has 1911 style wood grips for open sight targets & plinking. Be sure to get a model that is drilled and tapped for a scope base. Red dot scopes make a .22 pistol shine. Longer barrels give more FPS and are better for silhouette and hunting and longer sight radius for open sight targets.

 

[TyGuy]

I cant speak as to the mk I II and III differences except that the I and II have tha mag release at the bottom of the mag well. The 22/45 has more of a 1911 style grip.

Theremare many barrel options for the mk IIi.

Good luck!

 

[El Mariachi]

My wife just lovvvves her MKIII 512......

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Bought my first one in 1959. They are now the "standard issue" .22 pistols in my family with all ladies plus myself shooting them. I like the old original standard version prior to tall this "Mark I, II, and III" business. They had everything you need and nothing you don't. I get into all of them from time to time and the newer ones are just that much more complex to detail strip. By the time you get to the newest ones they are a real pain.

The one improvement that pays big dividends is a Volquartsen accuracy kit (hammer, sear, trigger) which puts a great trigger on them. I usually swap the VQ trigger for a steel Clark one that I just like better. I'm OK with the fixed sights once they are zeroed. From that point on you have the best .22 plinker made with all the accuracy you can use.

My one indulgence in these is a MK 514, a recreation of the 1950s 5 1/4" heavy barrel pistol that didn't sell well but is very cool. Ruger made a few more of these in the 1990s but they are still fairly rare birds. The one I use most is a rather experienced 4 3/4" old one with a very challenged refinish. It's all I need and I practically stole it.

 

[El Mariachi]

Just for some info, that MKII pictured above is one that I found for $200.00. Had less than 300 rounds pumped thru it before hand. When I got it from the seller ha had already cleaned her pretty well---but had not yet done the dreaded 'Full Barrel' removal cleaning job, telling me that it was probably not for the feint of heart. Anyways my wife & daughter & I went ahead and shot another 1500 rounds thru her before I finally decided to really tear her down & clean her up. I was happy to find out that with a little bit of knowledge and planning (and some Youtubing) it was not even remotely as difficult to do like so many others have claimed. In fact? I actually enjoyed it----cheap therapy....

 

[ColtPythonElite]

I have a MK I and three MK II's. The major difference in those two is the MK II holds open on empty, while the MK I does not. The MK I factory mag holds nine, while the MK II holds 10...This doesn't really matter because the same mag fits both guns. The only minor cosmetic difference is the MK II has flats ground down on the sides where you grasp the bolt, while the MK I does not.

With all that said, if i wanted a real tack driver, I'd look for a 10" MK II. I have a couple. They will shoot groups as good or better than the average semi-auto .22 rifle.

 

[mgmorden]

I personally prefer the Mk series vs the 22/45. The grip looks pretty odd but I find it more comfortable personally.

Now, as to Mk1, Mk2, and Mk3 - that's a personal choice. The Mk3 is the only one still in production so that's your choice if buying new, but there are plenty of all on the used market.

My opinion:

Mk1 - Good framework, awesome gun to shoot.
Mk2 - They made some genuine improvements to the design. Extra round in the magazine, bolt hold-open on empty.
Mk3 - Lawyerized version. Nothing of value added over the Mk2.

I personally have a Standard model which is the Mk1 pattern (even though not labeled as such). I love shooting it - the only thing I don't like is that the bold doesn't hold open when empty. As a result I dry-fire the thing all the time after I run empty. Only way to avoid that is count your shots which I don't enjoy doing. If I had to buy again today, I'd buy a Mk2.

 

[wwace]

I have shot each model and the mkII's are the best choice, the newer ones are not as good

 

[robinkevin]

See this thread:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=625894&highlight=ruger+22

 

[Sonic82]

Mark II Competition (no loaded chamber indicator thingy)

 

[Fishbed77]

I haven't taken any photos of my 60th Anniversary Mark III Target, but here's a photo from the Ruger website.

It's been a suberb pistol so far (had it for about a year).

Mk3 - Lawyerized version. Nothing of value added over the Mk2.

Actually, despite all the lawyer, crap, the Mark III did add a few improvements. For example, compared to my father's Mark II, my Mark III has been FAR more reliable feeding - this can be traced to the Mark III's slightly reshaped and larger feed ramp. Also, the new mag release and tapered bolt ears improve ergonomics just a bit.

That said, all the lawyer crap is easily removed. At this point, I have removed the LCI and installed Bruce's LCI filler, and replaced the crappy magazine disconnect with a bushing from Sam Lam. Also went ahead and installed the superb Volquartsen trigger and sear while I was in there...