Why not a Ruger Mark III in .357

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

crawdaddy

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2009
Messages
59
Location
North Carolina
If this has been asked before I apologize. Would it be possible for Ruger to beef everything up in all the right places and make a Mark II/ Mark III type autoloader in .357 or at least .38 special? I'm sure it would have to be a lot bigger and heavier but would it be possible. I would think there would be some kind of market out there for it. Maybe not...Just curious.
 
It would require a completely different recoil system, a wider frame, and various other major changes.
If possible, the final desgn wouldn't look much like a Ruger, and there are superb firearms on the market in those chamberings already, or autoloading equivalents in .380, 9x19(luger), 9x18(makarov), .357sig, etc etc.

Now I'm curious to know what got you onto that train of thought ... Because 22LR and .357 are both rimmed? Hardcore love for the layout/ergonomics of the Rugers? (I'm with you there, I love mine) A perverse desire for more time spent dangling hammer struts at just the right angle to get mainspring housings latched in?
 
I suppose it could be dont using the AMT Auto Mag format but instead of 44 AMP it could be 357 AMP (cut the rim off that is)
 
Ruger could build one but you wouldn't want to shoot it. Trust me.
 
My mostly uninformed speculation is that a Ruger MkIII straight blowback design beefed up for .357 would weigh around 10 pounds and have a spring that would require a winch of some sort to charge - perhaps a built-in type similar to that provided on some crossbow designs.

If the operation was fundamentally changed to gas operated to suit the .357 then it would wind up looking like a Desert Eagle.

In the case of .38 special it would wind up looking like a Hi-Point which has sufficient mass and spring to deal with 9mm+P with a non-locked breech.

There's a reason that many .22RF semi-autos look and act similar - Buckmark, Woodsman, Hi-Standard, NEOS, Ruger Mk series and I believe that reason is the .22RF which lends itself to svelte straight blowback designs.
 
My mostly uninformed speculation is that a Ruger MkIII straight blowback design beefed up for .357 would weigh around 10 pounds and have a spring that would require a winch of some sort to charge - perhaps a built-in type similar to that provided on some crossbow designs.
Click to expand...
You COULD do like the Dreyse 9x19mm auto from WWI and have a means of decoupling the recoil spring from the slide when chambering a round.

An alternative would be the LeFrancais system of using a hinged barrel to again sidestep the ridiculously powerful recoil spring.

And as always, the question remains, "Why bother?"

I think the 9x19mm and .45acp Hi-Points are silly. A more powerful blowback handgun isn't any less silly.
 
I didn't think it was really practical. It's just that I love my Mark III and I thought it would be a neat idea.

"Now I'm curious to know what got you onto that train of thought ... Because 22LR and .357 are both rimmed? Hardcore love for the layout/ergonomics of the Rugers?"

Yeah, that...mostly
 
Blowback locked auto pistols have been made and they can work, think of the Astra 400/600 chambered for the 9mm Largo/9x19mm. They are a royal pain to take down and very heavy for their purpose. Locked breech is the way to go.

The Ruger .22 autos going back to the original of 1949 are actually more like the Japanese Nambu in appearance. Perhaps Ruger could use a Nambu lockup.
 
It has already been tried and didn't work very well. It is called the Nambu pistol and was the design that Bill Ruger based his Standard & Mark I-III line of semis on.

The Nambu design was not that reliable, even when shooting the relatively weak 7mm & 8mm cartridges. It did work for .22lr because of exponentially-decrease in energy generated out of a rimfire compared to modern centerfire. I'd imagine that a Nambu chambered for .357Sig would blow the bolt out the back and into the shooter's face.
 
crawdaddy, I ended up with a Walther P-1 (commercial version of the venerable P-38) because in my hands it felt like a scaled-up Ruger mkI/II/III ... They are available as police turn-ins in good shape used, and are chambered in 9mm. Might be worth a look.
 
Or you COULD go for a classic Luger. Those have a grip with the same feel and angle of the MkII and Mk III. Price though.... :D

Personally I think that a better option would be to swap for a 22/45 and then get a 1911. Then you've got TWO classics with grip angles that feel the same.
 
The ruger is a knock off of the baby namba (sp) from the ww2 Japanese army

The Swedish or finish lathini (sp) is a similar design / ergonomic in 9MM
 
I have a picture here someplace of a Ruger Mk I converted to shoot .32 S&W Long wadcutter. In addition to the .32 barrel, .32 magazine, enlarged magazine well to take the .32 magazine, and centerfire bolt, it has a large head on the bolt to add mass to the blowback. Ok for a low powered target pistol, but not worth scaling up any more.
 
The ruger is a knock off of the baby namba (sp) from the ww2 Japanese army
Click to expand...
Close ... but not quite.
Info on the Nambu
Development of the original Ruger pistol
Basically, Bill Ruger started with a similar bolt and layout/shape ... Ruger rimfire pistols are not "copies of the Nambu" and they are not "Luger knockoffs" ... a common misconception I encounter frequently (seriously, how are people I run into at the range that ignorant about one of the most common pistols in the country? For that matter, how is a blowback-operated bolt even vaguely like the weird toggle-lock design of the Luger?)
The Ruger design borrowed from others, but is a superb piece of engineering, designed from the start to fire .22 long rifle. Discounting some bad ideas in the lawyer-designed "safety device" category in the newer models (all of which are easily removed) the design continues to offer the best .22 target pistol for the money on the market, and sells well even though old pistols from the 1950s are still making regular range trips ... apparently the market isn't quite saturated with them yet.
The Swedish or finish lathini (sp) is a similar design / ergonomic in 9MM
Click to expand...
Interesting, I think you're referring to the Lahti L-35 pistol ... I've never seen that before, now I have another rare collector's gun that I want but can't afford/don't need/would just shoot at the range.
 
Would it be possible for Ruger to beef everything up in all the right places and make a Mark II/ Mark III type autoloader in .357 or at least .38 special?
Click to expand...

They could, but they'd have to compete with the likes of the Israelis and their Desert Eagles. Those guys are a strong contender in the large caliber semi-auto market... and actually the 9mm market, too. My 9mm Baby Eagle is one of my favorite weapons.

From what I've seen of their 9mm's I think Ruger would do better to stick to rifles, revolvers, and rimfires.

-MW
 
noskilz, don't get me wrong, I love my two mkIII pistols, and getting that hammer strut just right became second nature after a while. But they remain the hardest guns I own to strip/assemble.
Of course, my 5.5" bull barrel mkIII is also the most accurate handgun I own, with the 6.875" target model being a close second (not upgraded yet) and the rest not even in the same league.
 
If Ruger made a centerfire pistol (meaning 9mm or larger) that LOOKED like the Mk1, I'd buy it.
 
What would make this gun so much better if it looked like a MK? I like the MK pistols but I don't find it to be so attractive that I want it in other calibers.
 
Because I grew up shooting a mark 1. Because Ruger builds good guns. Because I never liked the looks of the P-85-89-90 etc. Because no one is making a single stack 9mm pistol with the grip angle of a Luger, which I find very easy to shoot. And the mark 1/2 were aethetically pleasing as well as functional. And 'just because.'
 
I've got one. You can re-barrel a Glock to shoot a 9x25 Dillon round which is higher velocity than a .357mag by this much.
 
Except for the round bolt, a lot of the Ruger design is based on the Colt Woodsman.

An interesting story about the Ruger pistol has to do with another pistol that was on the market earlier, the Kruger. This was a scaled down plastic copy of the Luger and in magazine ads looked almost exactly like the Luger, though none of the "Luger" parts were functional. It fired a No. 7 (I think) shot pellet that was loaded from the muzzle, and used a toy cap for the propelling charge.

When the Ruger was first put on the market (it was called simply the Ruger .22 pistol at that time), most people did not know the name was legitimate, and associated it with the Kruger. They thought it was another fake gun trying to trade on the Luger name. The awakening began when Gen. Hatcher gave a very favorable review of the Ruger for the American Rifleman, and Sturm, Ruger was on its way.

Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

4
  • Locked
Best .22 Plinking Gun?
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
jackstinson
J
T
  • Locked
Ruger Mark II vs Mark III
Replies
15
Views
5K
Grizzly Adams
G
Dave Markowitz
  • Locked
Ruger Mark III?
Replies
13
Views
725
BrainOnSigs
B
V
  • Locked
Taurus .22 revolver vs Ruger mark III
2 3
Replies
59
Views
9K
Sig 556
S
J
  • Locked
rimfire pistol questions/suggestions
Replies
8
Views
654
machinisttx
M
Back
Top