I've owned a Mark II since 1998, pain in the butt to take it apart. I don't plan on tearing it down again unless I need to make repairs. Clean it with a bore snake and q-tips and air. I replaced the recoil spring and firing pin a few years ago, this seems to have eliminated some misfires. Keep bolt face and rear bbl face clean and she works well with good ammo.
Ruger Mark 3 or 4
- Thread starter Blindstitch
- Start date
I might assume that you mean it isn't true that the LCI always causes feeding issues? Because you are dead wrong if you suggest that it never does, this has been endlessly proven to be true, and I have witnessed it firsthand myself.
Glad that yours hasn't caused you grief, that's how all of them SHOULD BE and sadly, are not. Demonstrated fact and not a rare event.
It's worth the money !!! ...... IF??
Might add that the IV's have a different frame construction that I also find to be a plus. ......
Again, if I didn't already own an MK-I and II, I'd buy this one, in a heart beat. ...
Be Safe !!!
I was also under this impression as well but at the last GS the III's and new IV's were selling for the same price.
Personally, I have never had a problem but that darn thing, is a dirt catcher and if not cleaned, it will start giving you, a problem. It's really not needed and another example of trying to make a fix on what isn't broke. .....
Might add that the IV's have a different frame construction that I also find to be a plus. ......
Again, if I didn't already own an MK-I and II, I'd buy this one, in a heart beat. ...
Be Safe !!!
Ruger will not be offering it in California...
Because the GOVERNMENT of California will not ALLOW it to be sold there, the way Ruger makes the gun.
As I understand it, CA is not accepting ANY new semi autos onto their approved roster unless they have microstamping technology.
And Ruger (among others) is simply saying, "we're not doing that". (with the implied "just to make you happy")
Sad for the good folks of CA, but in a democratic society, numbers rules, whether they be fools or not. I know which one I think they are, based on their actions...
I've got a similar problem in my state, however, to date, the idiocy isn't quite as advanced...
If you're in the market for a barebones Mark III or Mark IV Target you really can't go wrong with either. I have both and like both. For the extra $100 the Mark IV Target gives you the easier breakdown/assembly and the alloy frame is about 10oz lighter. You also can get the lightweight Mark III 22/45 which has the polymer frame and 1911 like grip. The LITE version of this has an alloy upper and is about 20 oz lighter than a steel frame.
I'd look at them all if possible, one will scream out at you "buy me!"
I'd look at them all if possible, one will scream out at you "buy me!"
spacemanspiff
New member
After looking at Rugers website, I gotta say the Mk4 is on my 'buy-list'.
redlightrich
New member
The Mk III or IV will both do the trick. You can find a good deal on used Mk III's now, but contrary to what the poster said about the LCI not being a problem, it can be. Do yourself a favor and factor in the 20 dollars to remove the LCI. You will thank yourself for doing it. When they get dirty, and difficult to clean thoroughly, the feeding issues begin.
marine6680
New member
From my brief time looking over a MkIV...
The MkIV is better made on the whole over the MkIII. The MkIII is stamped and welded, and you can tell "price point" was important, so its not the cleanest job, especially the inside.
Takedown is a pain, even with some experience, its not fun. Though, my 22/45 (actually the fiance's) is easier to maintain.
The mag disconnect is easy and cheap to remove. You only need to buy and install a $10 bushing.
The LCI can be removed and it costs nothing, unless you just have to have the slot filled in.
I have no doubt that the older barrels are superior to current factory barrels. Seeing as the upper receiver is serialized, changing barrels is not as simple as swapping a part, so having a better factory barrel is good.
But this could be relative, as my MkIII Target (well, fiance's) has a very good barrel, I find it plenty accurate. Maybe a competition shooter with higher skill would find deficiency, but I have no complaints.
I have unfortunately had issues with Ruger's stainless barrels. All that I have had, hate lead bullets, and can only shoot copper washed. The barrels lead up quickly, and after only a few magazines there would be keyholing. I believe it is because the barrels have all had at least some chattering of the rifling cutting tool. Fortunately the problem would lessen over time, but I have not seen it go away entirely yet... may need more rounds through them.
If I was looking for a new in box Ruger Mk pistol right now... It would be a MkIV.
Not only for the easier takedown, but the controls are laid out better too.
The MkIV is better made on the whole over the MkIII. The MkIII is stamped and welded, and you can tell "price point" was important, so its not the cleanest job, especially the inside.
Takedown is a pain, even with some experience, its not fun. Though, my 22/45 (actually the fiance's) is easier to maintain.
The mag disconnect is easy and cheap to remove. You only need to buy and install a $10 bushing.
The LCI can be removed and it costs nothing, unless you just have to have the slot filled in.
I have no doubt that the older barrels are superior to current factory barrels. Seeing as the upper receiver is serialized, changing barrels is not as simple as swapping a part, so having a better factory barrel is good.
But this could be relative, as my MkIII Target (well, fiance's) has a very good barrel, I find it plenty accurate. Maybe a competition shooter with higher skill would find deficiency, but I have no complaints.
I have unfortunately had issues with Ruger's stainless barrels. All that I have had, hate lead bullets, and can only shoot copper washed. The barrels lead up quickly, and after only a few magazines there would be keyholing. I believe it is because the barrels have all had at least some chattering of the rifling cutting tool. Fortunately the problem would lessen over time, but I have not seen it go away entirely yet... may need more rounds through them.
If I was looking for a new in box Ruger Mk pistol right now... It would be a MkIV.
Not only for the easier takedown, but the controls are laid out better too.
Each different model offers advantages and disadvantages depending on the shooter. But overall it really doesn't matter what model as long as it fits your needs and shooting style.
I have owned many different models and versions except for the 22/45 which I don't like the grip angle on. If I want to shoot a 1911 in a 22 I will take my Ace.
I really like the grip on all of the MK's as they were originally designed. Internet BS says Bill took the design off of the Luger. I don't know anything about that and my guess is that Bill would get upset if someone accused him of stealing it from the Luger, but I like it.
I have not held or shot one of the new IV's. If I were in the market for another 22 Ruger that's the one I would buy just for the differences. They might be great or poor but I like the idea of a simple disassembly.
The earliest version I would get is a MKII just for the bolt lock on the last round which the original standard didn't have.
The one thing I don't like on the newer MK's is the load indicator flag. I think its unnecessary and takes away from the beauty of the gun just like the Gettysburg address they put on the barrel.
The following is some good reading material on what each model has.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Standard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_MK_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_MK_III
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_MK_IV
I have owned many different models and versions except for the 22/45 which I don't like the grip angle on. If I want to shoot a 1911 in a 22 I will take my Ace.
I really like the grip on all of the MK's as they were originally designed. Internet BS says Bill took the design off of the Luger. I don't know anything about that and my guess is that Bill would get upset if someone accused him of stealing it from the Luger, but I like it.
I have not held or shot one of the new IV's. If I were in the market for another 22 Ruger that's the one I would buy just for the differences. They might be great or poor but I like the idea of a simple disassembly.
The earliest version I would get is a MKII just for the bolt lock on the last round which the original standard didn't have.
The one thing I don't like on the newer MK's is the load indicator flag. I think its unnecessary and takes away from the beauty of the gun just like the Gettysburg address they put on the barrel.
The following is some good reading material on what each model has.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Standard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_MK_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_MK_III
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_MK_IV
Jeez Ozzieman, never in my life until your post have I ever heard it suggested that Bill Ruger "stole" any design from a Luger. It has been said many times that he liked the extreme grip angle of the Luger and used it for his pistol.
What Bill Ruger stole with this pistol was serious market share from the Colt Woodsman. Colt's first "reduced price" Woodsman variant was named the Challenger, to directly compete with the rising sales of Ruger's fantastic pistol.
What Bill Ruger stole with this pistol was serious market share from the Colt Woodsman. Colt's first "reduced price" Woodsman variant was named the Challenger, to directly compete with the rising sales of Ruger's fantastic pistol.
I like the Mk IV design changes. Big time. The take down is a big deal. Removing the Loaded Indicator is a plus, should have been done a long time ago on the Mk III. I may buy a Mk IV "just because" and I sure dont need one. I am giving it a year for Ruger to get feedback on any problems and get this design all squared away. It is a significant up grade and I ave the luxury of patience.
The magazine cut off remains the only bad feature. If Mk II are better, I guess that is a quality thing and better trigger without the cut-off. The cutoff can be fixed, while there is no fix for the take down. Tearing down a Mk IV to replace internal cutoff parts will be an easy task. A lot Mk guns been sold-off in the past just because of the take down. A LOT of shooter hate that.
Not only is the take down mentally 'difficult' for us normal people, it may require the use of mallet and just darn frustrating juggling things around.
The Mark II, maybe a fine gun, (excepting the take down) I never heard anyone refer to the Mark III as a the pinnacle of anything.
Edit: I just realize, the OP should go watch a few you tube video and make up his own mind. Thumb or hammer his choice. Why waste time debating. YOUTUBE.COM
And, get a real gun with a metal frame, not a plastic piece of junk. Steel or aluminum. The aluminum is a new option with the MkIV which is light and far better than plastic. Ok polymer, big diff. I will stay with steel.
The magazine cut off remains the only bad feature. If Mk II are better, I guess that is a quality thing and better trigger without the cut-off. The cutoff can be fixed, while there is no fix for the take down. Tearing down a Mk IV to replace internal cutoff parts will be an easy task. A lot Mk guns been sold-off in the past just because of the take down. A LOT of shooter hate that.
Not only is the take down mentally 'difficult' for us normal people, it may require the use of mallet and just darn frustrating juggling things around.
The Mark II, maybe a fine gun, (excepting the take down) I never heard anyone refer to the Mark III as a the pinnacle of anything.
Edit: I just realize, the OP should go watch a few you tube video and make up his own mind. Thumb or hammer his choice. Why waste time debating. YOUTUBE.COM
And, get a real gun with a metal frame, not a plastic piece of junk. Steel or aluminum. The aluminum is a new option with the MkIV which is light and far better than plastic. Ok polymer, big diff. I will stay with steel.
Last edited:
I like to add, I think the Ruger Mk's are an excellent design. Genius or luck I have no idea, but I like the solid rigid tube frame. I say luck, because ease of manufacturing may have motivated the design. I think Mk's are a better design, (except the take down) over Hi-Standard, Browning, Colt or even the legendary Smith Wesson. I believe what makes the smith a great gun is execution rather than design. Precise fit, superb trigger and quality barrel trump design all day. But, I give Ruger its due and with the Mk IV the only significant (un fixable) design objection is gone. it is up to Ruger, to execute on this.
I handled a Model 41 and it does not have the feel (ergonomic grip angle) of the Ruger. Nice trigger out of the box. Very expensive. The natural pointing is important to me. I think a point glossed over when folks compare guns is individual feel of the gun. Personal and something that in general cannot be fixed. Triggers can be tuned or replaced. A $6-700 price difference can be applied to tune up and personalize a gun that feels right.
I handled a Model 41 and it does not have the feel (ergonomic grip angle) of the Ruger. Nice trigger out of the box. Very expensive. The natural pointing is important to me. I think a point glossed over when folks compare guns is individual feel of the gun. Personal and something that in general cannot be fixed. Triggers can be tuned or replaced. A $6-700 price difference can be applied to tune up and personalize a gun that feels right.
I have a Mk I target with tapered barrel and I dont see the big deal with the Mk II. What is that but a very minor improvement in some of the controls: safety and mag release.
They dont make either one any more. History.
I dont see a tapered 7" ( 6 7/8) inch barrel with adjustable sights on the horizon either. That is or was a very nice balanced weapon. They dont make it, end of story.
They dont make either one any more. History.
I dont see a tapered 7" ( 6 7/8) inch barrel with adjustable sights on the horizon either. That is or was a very nice balanced weapon. They dont make it, end of story.