Ruger Mark IV models -- advice?

O

OhioGuy

New member
I like the 22/45 version of the Mark IV. So I'm trying to pick one that I can mount a red dot to.

I have a couple options -- what would everyone recommend? Is there really an advantage to the Lite version, other than looking cool? I know it's lighter, but that seems to me to increase felt recoil (minimal in a .22lr but still there).

On Bud's, I can get the following:

- Standard MkIV for $294 -- still needs a top rail for about $20 I think
- MkIV tactical for $394 -- threaded barrel, already has top and bottom rails
- MkIV lite for $420-$500 (depending on color) -- looks to be a lightweight version of the tactical, minus the bottom rail (That I probably won't use anyway)

I like the looks of the Lite models a lot -- are the worth $100+ more than the base model?

I don't know if I'd ever run a suppressor or not. What else can I use a threaded barrel for?
 
Is a 22/45 Lite worth $100 more? Perhaps if you have the stamp and intend to put a suppressor on it. I can see the value of suppressing a .22 to be more neighborly.

If you don’t follow regulations precisely regarding NFA modifications, you can end up in court or worse on felony charges. Simply bolting a tennis ball can on the end of your barrel might land you in deep trouble. If you decide to go the NFA route, having a barrel threaded will be the least of your many expenses.

You haven’t said what the purpose for your pistol is. You may not even have worked that out for yourself yet. It’s okay! Let me help you avoid the mistake every marketing department in the world strives to help you make: just buy something! A good pistol is a heirloom, and I think the Ruger Mark series can all be considered heirlooms (although personally, I feel the Lite versions look silly, like putting mag wheels and a spoiler on a Prius. Sorry. It’s at least not as ridiculous looking as the “tactical”.)

Mounting a dot sight:
Any Mark 3 or 4 should be easy to mount a dot. (Chime in if I have this wrong.)
The long rail on the Lite looks silly. It’s there to look “tactical” and sell guns. My Ultradot is held on with one dovetail ring and has been rock solid for years. Recoil on a .22 isn’t a factor. Ultradot is old school bullseye approved but the new dots are much shorter in length, nearly as thin as my old scope ring! As an aside, if I was building up a new .22 pistol I would look in to the Sig Romeo and even buy and try a few in the super cheap air gun units because There is nothing wrong with cheap if it works.

I recommend
A. Taking the time to go to a gun shop to see and handle and compare for yourself. Remember to add FFL transfer fees to the cost of any online purchase. Most places ne’er me add another $10 fee on top of the ffl transfer because pistol... so add $60 to all your prices.
B. Consider resale value. Spending a little more money up front can get you a higher grade gun you will enjoy for many years and, if you chose wisely, will have a much greater resale value than the budget version. If you buy wisely, of course.

Is the weight savings worth it?
1. Do you plan to do long hikes with it? Yes.
Unless you have your CCarry permit, holstering with a dot sight is an issue.
The front site of my old .22/45 was even worse than how the new ones look. Mine ripped the living crap out of its holster and then the pocket of my field jacket! Not cool.
2. Are you adding a suppressor? Yes, to maintain balance.
3. Do you really love the look of the aluminum Swiss cheese shroud? Sure, why not.
4. Do you have arthritis or a condition such that you have less strength? Yep.
5. Any plans to shoot in a club bullseye league? Light weight is a disadvantage in the “rapid fire” event.

Final thoughts:
$500. I’d be in no hurry to buy new.

I would have any Ruger .22 pistol with pride (except the tactical or old 22/45) as new trigger units are now common.

I would be proud to have a S&W Victory or most any Buckmark.

I am starting to see old Colt Woodsman and Hi Standards for sale. Used to be those were priced like they were solid gold.

In the end, remember... it’s best to think about what you really use it for, not what you wish you would use it for.
 
Seeing how many manufacturers have included threaded barrels on their factory produced guns, is there any documented cases of gunowners getting in trouble over that threaded barrel?
 
stinkeypete said:
You haven’t said what the purpose for your pistol is. You may not even have worked that out for yourself yet. It’s okay! Let me help you avoid the mistake every marketing department in the world strives to help you make: just buy something! A good pistol is a heirloom, and I think the Ruger Mark series can all be considered heirlooms (although personally, I feel the Lite versions look silly, like putting mag wheels and a spoiler on a Prius. Sorry. It’s at least not as ridiculous looking as the “tactical”.)
Click to expand...

Ha! I like your description. I can't see the Lite in the same way ever again :D

I want to do some target shooting, plinking when I can, and hopefully find some .22 rimfire events to shoot at. I'll probably put a Vortex Venom on it. I'm guessing the heavier barrel of the regular 22/45 will be more controllable in rapid fire than the lighter weight version. I have no particular desire to suppress the gun. I saw that a lot of people will add an aftermarket compensator to the front to add weight...kind of defeats the purpose of paying extra for a lighter gun when the cheaper one would already do nicely.

I have an LGS nearby that charges a flat $20 for FFL transfers. Meaning I can get the 22/45 from Bud's at a total cost of about $320.
 
I can give personal experiences on a 22/45 vs 22/45 Lite. It’s worth the cost, if you like the 22/45 frame. Ultimately I sold both, mostly due to the frames. I prefer the target style frame and them not being polymer. The other aspect was that the Lite consistently grouped larger than my other Rugers.

The standard model is nose heavy, I found it annoyingly so. The heavy barrel plus the polymer frame creates a forward weight balance. The Lite doesn’t have that issue.

My Lite was fully built with VQ and TK parts. Ran like a sewing machine. The best addition though was the TK Game Changer Pro compensator. It works incredibly well on the Lite model. It wanted to be run fast and hard.

Edit: The Lite plus a good comp is still lighter than the heavy barrel. The comp helps control the movement considerably, but it’s not a bullseye fun.
 
I work at a range as an Instructor/RSO. In the last three years I have seen very few that shoot the lite version well. I think they are actually too light and weight can be your friend when target shooting. I would go with the lowest cost version you can find and use that $100 for a Volquartsen trigger.
 
Cl6M3Gvh.jpg


I like the Mark IV Lite. It depends on what you are going to do with your gun. For me, I shoot a lot of Steel Challenge Matches. The Mark IV Lite tracks better between targets which helps in my speed shooting.

I also have a compensator on the gun. This helps a little in recoil but is mostly because the sound makes it easier for the timers to pick up the shots.
 
I have a 22/45 Lite and Mrs. McGee has a 22/45 Target. Honestly, I love them both, just for different reasons. I got the Lite because I knew I wanted to suppress it. Now that I have the suppressor, I suspect that I'm going to want to thread the barrel on Mrs. McGee's Target, too. With all of that said, if you take the suppressor out of the equation, I actually shoot Mrs. McGee's Target model better than I do my own Lite.

Does the "standard" model you reference come with the bull barrel? If so, and if you don't know whether you'll suppress it yet, I'd go with the standard. Especially if you can get that top rail for the red dot that you mentioned for $20.
 
I have a Lite version that I got primarily for the ability to suppress, and got the "matching" can for it, the entire rig is fun to shoot and can shoot better than I can shoot handguns. The suppressor works well on other RF rifles as well which was my main intent. The pistol is fun, which was my intent as well.
 
Spats McGee said:
I have a 22/45 Lite and Mrs. McGee has a 22/45 Target. Honestly, I love them both, just for different reasons. I got the Lite because I knew I wanted to suppress it. Now that I have the suppressor, I suspect that I'm going to want to thread the barrel on Mrs. McGee's Target, too. With all of that said, if you take the suppressor out of the equation, I actually shoot Mrs. McGee's Target model better than I do my own Lite.

Does the "standard" model you reference come with the bull barrel? If so, and if you don't know whether you'll suppress it yet, I'd go with the standard. Especially if you can get that top rail for the red dot that you mentioned for $20.
Click to expand...
I got to handle both in a store, and definitely did notice that the target model is quite front-heavy as someone here had said earlier. I liked the feel and balance of the Lite model better. Doesn't mean I'd shoot it better, of course. Looks like many people run the Tandemkross compensator on the Lite and say it works really well to reduce the muzzle rise.

I had a S&W Victory a few years ago and liked it pretty well, but mine seemed prone to not fully going into battery no matter how much I cleaned and oiled it, and I never did like the fiberoptic sights that came on it. I was too lazy and cheap to switch them out for anything else, and that was long before I'd discovered the magic of red dots.
 
I'm new to the Ruger game, but in the examples you are considering, is the price premium worth the difference? You're looking at $100 difference from one model to the next. I picked up a Mark III 22/45 target model yesterday. It has the bull barrel, and yes, it seems a little top heavy, but not so much I would fork over another $100 to change it. If I were you, I would go with the base and fork over an extra $20 for the rail, but that's just me. An optic is going to add top-end weight and that is something to consider. Price plays a major roll in my choices. I need to see solid reasons for a price premium. Is there a target model for the Mark IV 22/45? That model in the MarkIII included a rail.
 
I have the Mark IV 22/45 lite (burnt bronze). Good looking gun, but:

I believe Gnystrom - still struggling to dial this one in, and don't shoot it anywhere near as good as all my 9mms. I have a heavier 1911 .22 that's really easy to shoot accurately.

I put a small, light, red dot on it, but it just seemed to make everything unbalanced and gawky. Gave up after 2 range sessions and just use the base sights now. My accuracy has improved considerably since I dropped the red dot. (Still not good enough.) I may try a laser.

On a positive note, it's easy to clean.
 
Cirdan said:
I have the Mark IV 22/45 lite (burnt bronze). Good looking gun, but:

I believe Gnystrom - still struggling to dial this one in, and don't shoot it anywhere near as good as all my 9mms. I have a heavier 1911 .22 that's really easy to shoot accurately.

I put a small, light, red dot on it, but it just seemed to make everything unbalanced and gawky. Gave up after 2 range sessions and just use the base sights now. My accuracy has improved considerably since I dropped the red dot. (Still not good enough.) I may try a laser.

On a positive note, it's easy to clean.
Click to expand...
Which red dot did you have? How big was the dot?

I’ve yet to see a 22/45 Lite that groups like a target model. If bullseye is the goal there are better options than a 22/45 Lite. It’s a much better design for steel.
 
Cirdan said:
I have the Mark IV 22/45 lite (burnt bronze). Good looking gun, but:

I believe Gnystrom - still struggling to dial this one in, and don't shoot it anywhere near as good as all my 9mms. I have a heavier 1911 .22 that's really easy to shoot accurately.

I put a small, light, red dot on it, but it just seemed to make everything unbalanced and gawky. Gave up after 2 range sessions and just use the base sights now. My accuracy has improved considerably since I dropped the red dot. (Still not good enough.) I may try a laser.

On a positive note, it's easy to clean.
Click to expand...
So it sounds to me like this:

If you're bullseye shooting, the heavier standard barrel will be a better choice.

If you're "runnin' and gunnin'" and shooting A-zones on IDPA targets, the Lite might be more fun?

That's probably a drastic oversimplification, but it seems that the Lite was not intended to be a dedicated bullseye shooter.
 
OhioGuy said:
So it sounds to me like this:

If you're bullseye shooting, the heavier standard barrel will be a better choice.

If you're "runnin' and gunnin'" and shooting A-zones on IDPA targets, the Lite might be more fun?

That's probably a drastic oversimplification, but it seems that the Lite was not intended to be a dedicated bullseye shooter.
Click to expand...

It is simplistic, but that’s been my view of the 22/45s as well.

If bullseye is what you want to do, I feel the 22/45 as a platform isn’t the best starting point. The heavier framed options are better for that to me.
 
OhioGuy said:
So it sounds to me like this:

If you're bullseye shooting, the heavier standard barrel will be a better choice.

If you're "runnin' and gunnin'" and shooting A-zones on IDPA targets, the Lite might be more fun?

That's probably a drastic oversimplification, but it seems that the Lite was not intended to be a dedicated bullseye shooter.
Click to expand...
I would agree with this. With my massive sample size of 2 (my 22/45 Lite and Mrs. McGee's 22/45 Target), which I have shot side by side, I can say that I can routinely make smaller groups with her Target model. If I were shooting for bullseyes, I'd look real hard at the Target or Competition models. I might even stick to the regular Mark IVs and skip the 22/45 if I wanted a heavier frame.
 
I've had a chance to handle multiple models and I like something about all of them.

The standard Target model is nicely balanced and has a good heft to it, although I prefer the 1911 grip of the 22/45.

The standard 22/45 is front heavy and not nearly as well balanced as the Target.

The 22/45 Lite is nifty but *really* light.

I think of all of them, I may like the 22/45 Tactical best. It's better balanced with its shorter barrel, but has more heft than the Lite. It already has the top rail for an optic, and I can remove the lower rail since it's goofy looking and I really don't need a flashlight or bayonet on a .22 :)

So has anyone here shot the Tactical model? Seems like a good compromise to me.
 
OhioGuy said:
I've had a chance to handle multiple models and I like something about all of them. . . . . I think of all of them, I may like the 22/45 Tactical best . . . .

So has anyone here shot the Tactical model? Seems like a good compromise to me.
Click to expand...
I have never shot one, but if you go with that model, I suspect you're going to love it.
 
I think you have hit it perfectly. There is nothing wrong with the Lite version it just serves a different purpose. Back in the day when I was Bullseye shooting we added weights to our Hammerli, High Standard, and Pardini handguns.
This combo works well for me when instructing someone who wants a red dot.
Vortex Venom.
20190321_090446.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top