Ruger "Mark" series .22s

S

steveNChunter

New member
I've decided to start looking for a .22 handgun to use as a trail gun/small game/plinker and such. Im mostly a rifle kinda guy so this has been a learning experience for me.

Ive pretty well narrowed it down to the ruger "mark" series. I really like the mark III .22/45, and they can be had new for a little over $300. But before I go buy a new gun, I want to look around at the used stuff and get a general consensus of which of the "mark" series might be the one to look for between the standard automatic (a.k.a. mark I), Mark II, mark III, and any certain variations.

Keep in mind Im not looking for fancy or expensive, just a straight shooting reliable ruger. I dont wanna go much past that $300 mark so I know that takes several of the fancier ones out of the picture, but thats ok.

So, what should I be looking for?
 
For me the MK II was the high water mark of the Ruger MK series. It does not have the loaded chamber indicator, nor magazine disconnect that the MK III has, which at times can at the least me a nuisance, and at the most be problematic to function. The good news is that you can remove the LCI, and mag disconnect with a few aftermarket parts, and a little of your or a gunsmith's time. The alternative is just finding a nice used MK II.
 
For me the MK II was the high water mark of the Ruger MK series. It does not have the loaded chamber indicator, nor magazine disconnect that the MK III has, which at times can at the least me a nuisance, and at the most be problematic to function. The good news is that you can remove the LCI, and mag disconnect with a few aftermarket parts, and a little of your or a gunsmith's time. The alternative is just finding a nice used MK II.
Click to expand...

I have the Mark III. Can you explain why you would want to change the loaded chamber indicator and magazine disconnect? I'm not sure I understand the advantage of modifying the pistol.

I have only shot about 1,000 rounds through it as it is a new pistol. My only other experience with a .22 pistol was a Colt Woodsman Match Target - so, I have no other comparison for understanding what difference the changes would make in the Mark III.
 
Hard to improve on perfection

For me the MK II was the high water mark of the Ruger MK series.
Click to expand...
I have owned all three generations and can see why you would feel this way. As for me, I just see trade-offs and all have good and not so good features. .. :rolleyes:

Keep in mind Im not looking for fancy or expensive, just a straight shooting reliable ruger.
Click to expand...
Then the MK-I Standard should suit you just fine; that is if you can find one. Within each generation, there are variables. I like Goverment model that is no longer made. Just look for the best deal in the entire family.
My least favorite, are the 22/45's .... ;)

Be Safe !!!
 
I have 3 Mark series 2 MarkII's & a MarkIII all are 22/45 and they all work great. Never had a problem with the loaded chamber indicator or the mag disconnect. I won't ever give them up for anything else. My MK3 is the lite and is a great woods/packing gun.
 
Yea I agree its not as pretty and the one with synthetic molded-in grips is downright ugly. But I already have a really nice .22 pistol that doesnt see the light of day very much. Its a colt woodsman that my great grandfather bought new in the 50's. It still looks like a new gun and it will probably still look new when Im an old man. I cant bring myself to carry that gun. Thats why Im looking for a ruger MK and "fanciness" isnt an issue.
 
My wife and I both have Mark IIIs and enjoy them. I have a Target model with a Tactical Solutions upper and my wife has the Hunter. We put Volquartsen triggers in both. They are fun, reliable, and very accurate. We've had no problems with either pistol. In addition, I shoot competitively and use my Mark III to warm up prior to matches before switching to either my 9mm or .45 ACP match pistols.
 
See post #2. He hit the nail on the head.

I have owned two MkIIs (one blue, one stainless) and a Stainless MkIII Hunter. All were bought used.

The two MkIIs cost me $250 and $300 respectively. The MkIII was too good to pass up at $350. However, I didn't like the sights (specifically, the rear sight) or the trigger (although that may have improved with time) but all the "lawyer crap" was a deal breaker. Sold it to a friend for what I paid, and we are both happy.

Can you explain why you would want to change the loaded chamber indicator and magazine disconnect?
Click to expand...
Adding more parts that do not directly contribute to the function, reliability or performance of a mechanical device is almost never a good idea. Adding parts to mollify lawyers...likewise but even more so.

The LCI, the mag safety and the Mickey Mouse wind-'em up safety key are perfect examples.

There was nothing wrong with the MkII, as is evidenced by the fact that they hold their resale value quite well. As far as I am concerned, the only functional improvement of the MkIII is that they moved the mag release to a 1911-ish position. If Ruger had stopped there, I might still own the MkIII.
 
I have the Mark III. Can you explain why you would want to change the loaded chamber indicator and magazine disconnect? I'm not sure I understand the advantage of modifying the pistol.
Click to expand...

The LCI can contribute to malfunctions (failures to extract, IIRC) because of the way it rubs against the cartridge casing. But, in fairness, it's unlikely to be an issue unless the pistol is already very dirty.

The mag disconnect prevent magazines from dropping free on their own because of how the disconnector "switch" (for lack of a better term) drags against the magazine.

I don't have any specific objections to either one (in a target pistol, at least), in fact they're probably a very good thing to have if you're using the gun to train new shooters. I tool them both out of my MkIII simply because they don't offer any benefit to me.
 
I just picked up my Mark II Target locally for $275. Range was closing, and in a rush my very FIRST magazine grouped into a 2" Shoot-N-C at 7 yards. I'm very pleased with this find.

seek
 
I have two Mark II,s and a Browning Buckmark, but the Browning I can't even remember having out. I love the Rugars so much.

Even at two, I almost bought the new lightweight one - kind of gold aluminum looking barrel. Why would I want a third one, I don't know but they are great solid guns and ever so accurate.

The fancier ones (I have an nra engraved one etc..) could be a little over your budget, but I would just look around for a s.s. one. And you don't need the extra long barrel, my 4" tapered is just as accurate as the longer bull in s.s.
 
I have a Mark II Stainless Target, and 3, Mark III 22/45s, a Target, a Threaded Barrel, and the LITE. I have removed the Mag disconnects from all 3 22/45s, and done the Slingshot mod. I like the 22/45s best because of the grip angle, and the weight savings. My Mark II Target weighs 42 oz. My LITE weighs 22 oz. The Mark III Target is in the middle at 33 oz. The heavier pistols are good for accuracy, but for plinking and general woods bumming, the LITE really shines. Its a few dollars above your $300 threshold, but worth it, I paid $359 for mine. That 20 oz savings over the all metal Mark II/III really makes a difference. The LITE is still exceptionally accurate. There are a couple others I will recommend, The Ruger SR22P(17 oz), and the Bersa Thunder 22(19 oz). Both of those are 10 shot, DA/SA, exposed hammer, and with very good sights. I have both, and feel they are equals. They both lose a little accuracy from the Mark pistols, but for plinkers, are just as fun, maybe even more fun than the Marks. They are accurate enough for small game hunting, and pop can ventilating.
 
Bought this yesterday $369 I loved how lite it was. Can't wait to shoot it, but this is my 4th Ruger. Great guns.

DSC05376-1.jpg
 
I like the Mark II's - have a Mark II Target. These things are tanks, will last multiple lifetimes, are accurate, and reliable if you keep them clean. I would have liked to have seen some refinements to the Mark II to smooth out the gripframe to upper receiver/barrel connection, keeping it all stainless and less the extra safety doo-dads of the Mark III.
 
I've owned all three (four if you count the 22/45 as different) and I can't really tell a dimes worth of difference in them. I'd look for the one I could find the best price on, but I wouldn't cross the aisle at a gun show to buy one over the other otherwise.

I ALWAYS look used first. I picked up a 1960 standard auto (AKA MK 1) the day after Christmas, with the box and manual for less than $200.00 out the door.

100_0475.jpg


My wife has a MK II that she's put thousands of rounds through. Any problems were fixed with a drop or two of oil.

Cajunshoots051.jpg


I don't have pictures of them anymore, but I have owned both a MK III standard, and a MK III, 22/45. Same as my wife's, the only trouble I ever had with them was when they got REALLY dirty. A drop or two of oil fixed them short run. A good flushing with Gunscrubber (poly safe) took care of it long term.

You will hear people say they are hard to dis/reassemble. They're not hard. They do require you to follow the directions, TO THE LETTER. Especially important with the MK III. Like reading the Bible, every word is important.

Or do like I do. Just flush them out with Gunscrubber (the poly safe version is safe for all) wipe them off, put a drop of oil here and there, and leave it alone otherwise.
 
My NIB, unfired MK II 50th Anniversary edition. Bought in new 1999.

IMAG0079.jpg


DSC_2735.jpg


I do shoot my other three MK II's, however. :D Great pistols.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top