Ruger Mark 3 or 4

B

Blindstitch

New member
If you were in the market for a 22 would you buy a bare bones Mark 3 for $300 new or spend the extra and go for the easier take down Mark 4?

I'm sure both guns are great but i'm curious if cleaning ease is worth the extra dollars. I haven't seen a bare bones Mark 4 so I don't know the asking price on them.

0000000218992.jpg


Here's my reference place.
http://www.fleetfarm.com/detail/ruger-model-22-45-mark-iii-rimfire-semi-auto-pistol/0000000218992

I did see a Mark 3 competition at Cabelas for $500 and really like it.
14287_1.jpg


The goal is target shooting and maybe small game.
 
MK III all the way. The MK IV is a step change from all he previous MKs and will only make all the previous MKs rise in value. If the only reason for the MKIV is easier take down, that's not enough for me.
 
MK III all the way. The MK IV is a step change from all he previous MKs and will only make all the previous MKs rise in value.
Click to expand...



How is the Mk IV any more of a step change than say the Mk III? Around me Mk IIs are somewhat sought after, but I can't see this release raising the values of Mk IIIs.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, I would rather have a used Mark II. They pop up from time to time at my local gun stores and don't have all of Ruger's new 'safety' crap on them.
 
I have the Mark II Competition. It's not hard to field strip and clean once you learn how. Get a Volquartsen trigger and you're good to go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
All have trade-offs

Blindstitch
There are a lot of IF's flying around and you are showing a 22/45 which is a poor comparison to a Competition model. Understand that I am a Ruger MK-family fan and as I have often stated, there are trade-offs between all of them. I still have what some call the MK-I and it gives me great performance. .... :)

OKAY;
If money was not an issue, I would certainly get the MK-IV Hunter. As far as ease of cleaning, there is an advantage but does not have to be an issue. About three months ago, I held my first Hunter and Standard, in the IV's and personally, I liked them. However, I doubt that I will ever get one as I'm quite happy with my MK-II. ....... :)

If, money was as issue, I'd look for a good used MK-II Target. I don't care for "any" generation of 22/45's. ;)

Good Luck and;
Be Safe !!!
 
A push button down take down is what would consider a step change, YMMV.
Click to expand...

What I'm asking is what did the Mk III really add to the already existing Mk II? The only real benefit I see is the difference in magazine release location. That's not exactly revolutionary. And you also got a LCI and a magazine disconnect that many folks aren't particularly fond of (they removed the LCI for the Mk IV). To me both the Mk III and Mk IV were step changes.
 
Which MK to get

The chamber load indicator in the MK III has historically caused feeding problems resulting in many owners having this item removed.

As Mark owners know, take down is a PITA and a model (IV) that avoids this issue would be a plus.

Personally, I shoot an MK I in competition with a Volquartsen barrel and have never experienced a FTF or FTE.

For warned is for armed!
 
Makes for fantastic forum discussion but I truly believe that while all four Mk's are quality guns, the Mark II is the pinnacle of the design and this is not a close race.

I would pay more money for a used MkII in decent shape than any box-fresh, brand new, never touched MkIII or MkIV or even a museum quality NOS MkI or pre-MkI. I stand firmly by that statement all day long.

And that is the only way I can possibly answer the question.

New MkIII or new MkIV? The answer is used MkII, every single time.
 
Pahoo,
There are a lot of IF's flying around
Click to expand...

Thought I only used two if's.

Here's what's happening. My wife has a Ruger Sr22 and loves it but the sights are horrible and she's thinking a more target based gun is in order.

I shoot that gun just fine and like it.

In order to help her get better and myself get more guns I took her around and she likes the Ruger line. She held a variety of Mark 3/4 and lite.
Well she hates the lite. Like the bare bones 22/45, Liked the Mark 3 with the luger style barrel ($300 used), didn't like the sights on the hunter but liked everything else, the competition was fine but she's a lefty so the target grip would have to go.

So I'm not sure if she's just liking the price tag or the gun. She did comment she likes how thin the 22/45 is but personally the checkering cuts my palm. She does like to clean her own guns so she liked the Mark 4 for that.

But if she goes cheap I might just want to buy the hunter or competition model for myself. And by she I mean I'll probably end up having to buy it for her.
 
MkIV if you can afford it, if not find a MkII. As a last resort, get a MkIII.

With a MkII you'll probably want to take it down once a year, .... maybe. I shot mine monthly for a decade before I ever did a takedown on it. Liquid solvents and a pull string work wonders.
 
TunnelRat said:
Around me Mk IIs are somewhat sought after, but I can't see this release raising the values of Mk IIIs.
Click to expand...
+1. IMHO the MkIII is likely to become the 7th-gen Civic or E46 3-series of the Ruger world – the unwanted in-betweens, inferior knockoffs of their predecessors with superfluous crap added, lacking the genuinely positive new features of the later generations. :rolleyes:
TheDevilThatYouKnow said:
With a MkII you'll probably want to take it down once a year, .... maybe. I shot mine monthly for a decade before I ever did a takedown on it.
Click to expand...
~70% of what needs to be cleaned on a MkII can be reached with Q-tips or a Bore Snake with the bolt locked back.

Most of the remainder can be accessed by pulling the bolt only, which is simpler than separating the barreled receiver from the frame.
 
The MK IV is a step change from all he previous MKs and will only make all the previous MKs rise in value.
Click to expand...

Funny.
And FWIW all the current MK III's will be replaced with MK IV's.
 
Bit of a tough question for me. I guess it comes down to rather or not the simplified take down is worth the extra dough to me. After dealing with my brothers MKII, I am thinking it might be. Regardless of what anyone says, the take down on the II's and III's is an exercise in patience.
 
I own both. But if they had been available I'd have bought a Mark IV and never purchased a Mark III. That cleaning ease definitely makes it worth it.
 
I think one fact worth noting is that a lot of the folks that have no issues disassembling a Mk III have done it a number of times. It's a learning process. However that doesn't really help people new to the pistol and there are no shortages of internet threads where people are asking for help with the process and I imagine Ruger got a fair number of calls as well. The disassembly process of the Mk IV is much friendlier to new owners and takes away what was often a major complaint people would hear about the pistol. To me it makes sense both from a customer service and marketing standpoint to make the changes in the Mk IV.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I cant say how the later ones are but the originals work well.
This one has been around for over 50 yrs and shoot everything.
e98d5bc3420b90d26c72660b8327a247.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I have several Standards, Mark Is, a Mark II, and several Mark IIIs.

I have shot countless thousands of rounds out of my several Mark IIIs and the LCI has never been an issue. It is simply not true that the LCI causes feeding issues. Guys remove them because they are made that the Almighty Government in some states requires them. That's all.

Once you master the reassembly of a Mark pistol it is not a big deal. But for people new to the gun, it can be a bear (it was for me one famous night until I figured it out). So I applaud the Mark IV for simplifying the take-down. Alas, Ruger will not be offering it in California so I will never own one.

One of my Mark Is ...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top