Ruger Mark III Hunter vs. Mark IV Hunter?

Miles2014

New member
Hi all,

I've got the Mark III Hunter which I really enjoy shooting (aside from the takedown). Aside from the disassembly, is there any other material/functional difference between the two? Any reason to trade off the III and get the IV?

Though S?
Thanks
 
I have a Mark III and other than the easier disassembly, I know of no reason to buy a Mark IV. It only takes me a couple of minutes to take it apart anyway so I have no reason at all to "upgrade". I bought my Mark III with plans on it being the last rimfire handgun I would ever need. I thought the same thing when I bought my Marlin Model 60 rifle and again when I bought my Henry lever action and yet again when I bought a Mossberg Blaze 47.
 
After watching a couple of videos on YouTube on how to disassemble and reassemble my Mark II it became so easy I can do it in 5 minutes. Before I figured it out I thought of buying a Mark IV but it seems to be a waste of money for what you get.

I have all the VQ upgrades to my 22/45 including a comp. Can't see any more investment to it. Now I just buy lots of ammo.
 
The take down of the Mark III isn't all that bad once you get rid of the idiotic mag disconnect. The Mark IV is still easier.
 
Even with the mag disconnect, the Mk III's can be detail stripped in under a minute, and reassembled in in less than another....... all you have to do is practice a little.
 
If you are happy with your MKIII you should keep it. They are fine guns, and I am not aware of any improvements in the MKIV besides the take down.

Also, prices on the MKIII are low right now, and prices on the MKIV are high, so I would definitely not make the trade any time soon. Recently, I have seen old stock MKIII pistols at substantial discount as retailers try to clear out old stock. And the MKIV pistols are selling near MSRP due to short supply. So it only makes sense to trade now if you really want the MKIV. I expect prices will take a year or so to settle out.

My suggestion would be to keep the MKIII, and then consider in a year or so whether to also buy a MKIV.
 
Good advice, straightshooterjake,

That's what I plan to do...as you mention, they do seem to be identical guns (for the most part) aside from breaking it down.

Thanks again.
 
Your money, your call

Any reason to trade off the III and get the IV?
Other than wanting a new pistol, I personally see no reason to replace your MK-III with the MK-IV. :confused:
With spray solvents and lubricants there's little need to field strip most guns in the first place.
Valid point and a complete stripping and cleaning is rare but I do whenever the pistol requires. ...... :rolleyes:
Also, prices on the MKIII are low right now, and prices on the MKIV are high, so I would definitely not make the trade any time soon.
Our local shows are not indicating this as both are priced fairly equal. ... :)

I never tell a man, what to do with his money or wife; However ...... :rolleyes:

Be Safe !!!
 
I had thought of getting a Mk iii Hunter (long barrel) to complete my collection; which would give me two Mk iii short barrels (Target and TALO Hunter) and three long barrels (Mk ii Government Target, Mark iii Competition Target and {a new} Hunter). It seemed to give me the best of the available Ruger .22lr pistols.

I know the arguments of field stripping the Mk iii's and the unneeded parts on the Mk iii's. I ignore the unneeded parts and learned to field strip the older models, so Mk IV doesn't offer a lot of appeal.

In fact, I thought about the economics of another .22le pistol, even a discounted Mk iii Hunter. I try to get to the range a couple of times a week; being retired, it's easier to do. But, even with a couple of trips a week, it's difficult to shoot all my .22lr pistols as much as I'd like. Didn't pay a lot of attention, just bought a pistol I wanted over time as they became available; now have 7 .22lr pistols.

If I were starting over, I'd wait a year; then collect the Mk IV models that appealed to me.
 
Back
Top