MK IV durability question and NP3ing an old Colt

M

Metric

New member
I have been waiting for a Ruger MK IV "standard" (tapered barrel) to be released in stainless, as a kind of indestructible, worry-free .22 pistol. However, it occurs to me that I don't actually know if the design is as rugged as the earlier MK pistols. To those of you who are more familiar, will the single-button take-down mechanism hold up over a century of heavy blasting, or can you imagine the mechanism working loose (in a way that, say, a MK II wouldn't) after decades and many tens of thousands of rounds?

Another "what would you do?" type of question: One of my very favorite pistol designs is the pre-WWII sport model Colt Woodsman. IMO, it is almost perfectly scaled to the .22 cartridge. I have one that is in good condition, but the original bluing is almost gone in some high-wear places on the frontstrap of the grip and the muzzle. It has the occasional small scratch and minor signs of freckling that occurred some time since the 1930's.

My problem is that I feel like I'm shooting a museum piece each time I take it out, and I certainly would not feel comfortable camping with the thing. I have been thinking about sending it to Robar for NP3. I realize that all collector value will vanish in a puff of smoke, but the hope would be that it becomes a much more practical gun with a modern, corrosion-free finish. Something I could imagine using for fun on a camping trip, as the craftsmen at Colt intended (though they are all now dead). The pistol itself in current condition would probably go for ~$1000 on GB (I have the original box), and at that level I'm thinking the NP3 isn't such a crime. What do you think?
 
I tend to think of refinishing a gun as something that you do when you decide to stop shooting it; why have a worn, refinished gun rather than a worn, original one?

But, for a gun that will be out in the woods, might not get cleaned right away after a rain storm or a dip in the river, something rust-resistant and durable would be good.

I'd retire the Colt, and get something plastic and stainless to take into the woods, but that's me.
 
+1 to Model12Win on the Ruger but...

I'm a Ruger fan and think any of the .22LR Mark guns are superb but I've recently shot an S&W Victory and found it to be a VERY solid .22LR. I would not trade my favorite Ruger Mark for one but I'm thinking it might be fun to buy one to keep it company.
 
If the Ruger breaks after decades of hard use just buy a new one or replace whatever breaks. You'll soend 10 times as much on the ammo as you will the gun anyways.

I wouldn't refinish the Colt. The average Woodsman runs about $500 to $600. $1,000 is closer to the price of a Match Target model. If you want to take the Woodsman camping just oil it before leaving and keep it in a decent holster and then wipe again once home. It literally takes 30 seconds to wipe he gun down with an oily rag.
 
I would retire the Colt, just as is. While the various models of the Woodsman have given good service across the years, they are not really very strong pistols and are collectible enough that taking a chance of destroying one in woods use is not worth it.

Jim
 
I'd agree with others. Retire the Colt and pick up something else. By the time you've shot tens of thousands of rounds in 22LR the cost of a new 22 pistol won't really seem too bad.
 
I wouldn't refinish the Colt. I wouldn't retire it either. Oil it, take it camping, keep an oil cloth in your pack, wipe it down repeat.

Worse case, retire it and buy something to camp with. Refinishing it is the worse thing you could do to it.
 
I own MK I,II,III & IV and while that does not make me an expert it does allow for some sidexside comparisons.

The Mk IV claim to fame is easy push putton take down. That is NOT a stronger gun not is an easier gun. I believe a stronger gun is one you break down will a mallet and is 100% rock solid. Now if you take the gun down every time you shoot I think the IV will stand up better. In my opinion. If you just remove the bolt after shooting (like any rifle) then I trust the older design to stand up better or tighter.

The III & IV have a magazine disconnect, which in my view is an unnecessary complication. I removed mine. If you keep it that is a strike against the III and IV. It also complicates (full internal) take down and other maintenance on both guns.

The III has a delicate plastic loaded chamber indicator that accumulates debris and also potentially complicates feeding. I can confirm the way they accumulate the fouling. I removed mine and never saw any problem in function.

The Mk IV is the worse trigger running 5.5 punds. The Mk III trigger are next worse at 4.5 pounds. The I & II targets have 3 pound triggers. The triggers can be upgraded to excellent with a Volquartsen kit (or others).

My assessment, is the Mk II is the best design of all four. That is rugged and out of the box ready to shoot. I have a Government Target II which came with a test target, a 2 pound trigger and a special match chamber. Ruger will never build a pistol like that again. It was a special government contract and might be considered a pre-lawyer gun.

The Ruger is considered the strongest design of any rimfire pistol with a solid cylinder upper receiver with a round bolt. again, my opinion. it looks stronger than hi-standard colt or smith. I prefer hi-standard but not for strong. For accurate and trigger. The S&W 41 is in another class as are the better Hi Standard, but IMHO Ruger is strongest.

I have a friend who is waiting for a Mk IV stainless with a tapered barrel and adjustable sights. Basically a standard model with adjustable sights. Lipsey did a Mk III. If they do that, I will get one too.
 
Bear's oil is a good detractant of moistures. Use it to coat that Colt's automatic rimfire to sway the affectations of rust. I would carry the piece and use it as the good Colonel intended.

But if looking for a modern, a Ruger's or Smith and Wesson's Victory model pistol would suit you well. You really can't go too much wrong here friend.
 
Another comment. Add the cost of the NP3 coating to the value lost on the woodsman after and you have enough to purchase a nice Ruger with change in your pocket. And take pride in respecting the fine old gun. If you think that little of the colt sell it and buy TWO new handguns.

There are so many appropriate stainless rimfires - single six, smith kit gun or Ruger Mark in stainless.

You dont need to retire the colt. Just shoot it at home or the club or day walks. You knwo the other 99% of the shooting you do, just not in a canoe or out for a week in the rain and mud. Assuming you really camp, as in backpack on a trail and not rent a cabin deal. BTW, I like cabins, just saying.
 
Shoot that old Colt, don't worry about taking it to the field just maintain it afterwards. Refinish while it is still functioning fine and not rusted would be a shame. I shoot all of my firearms-- old and new--when I go someone else will be able to shoot them not hang pretty objects on the wall.
 
He is not asking about shooting it, he shoots it now. he is asking about leaving it holstered wet and muddy for a week at a time.
 
Thank you for the perspectives and opinions. I will probably get the MK IV when the version I want comes out. I took another look over the weekend, and it looks pretty multi-decade solid, but I will probably have to do something about the trigger.

With the Colt, I am still on the fence. I do shoot the gun occasionally, but I tend not to run it hard. It is still a great and reliable shooter, and I am not planning to retire it -- if I don't shoot it, someone else definitely will. I would just like to feel comfortable taking the thing camping over a weekend in a possibly wet tent (without having to lock it away in a water-proof box).

I am thinking that NP3 may actually enhance the value of the Colt in the short term. It's a well-known finish, the collector value of the Colt is not sky-high, and people would probably appreciate a modern finish for the same reasons I do. In the extremely long run, it is possible the collector value of the Colt would escalate, causing the NP3 to be a mistake. But that seems a questionable and very long-term consideration -- the gun is already nearly 80 years old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top