Ruger "Mark" series .22s

Well Im definitely gonna check out all the local used stuff. If I can find a good used MK for less than the new 22/45, ill go that route.
 
The 22/45 has a more traditional American grip angle.
If you're used to Glocks you'll probably prefer the regular mk1/2/3, but they do have a much steeper grip angle than most other pistols.

Something else to think about.
 
I just bought a mk.III 22/45.

A couple of points:

The mag disconnect is kind of a pain. It makes it harder to get the mags properly seated and prevents them from dropping free. I plan on removing it.

The target barrel plus the polymer frame does make it a bit front heavy. I prefer the 1911 style grip angle but the all metal "luger" style grip while heavier overall is more balanced IMO. I haven't held a "lite" version but I imagine it would be better balanced and lighter overall.

The loaded chamber indicator, in addition to being ugly, makes cleaning the chamber a bit of a pain. I haven't experienced it causing and feeding or ejecting issues but I have only run a couple hundred rounds through it.

There are 2 versions of the 22/45, one with molded grips and one that has removable grips. I would try and get the one with removable grips, unfortunately there where none available at the time. I have seen some kits to add grip panels to the molded one but you have to drill into the existing frame. I did not mind the feel of the molded grips so I just got that one.

I got it for $270 at a LGS new.
 
I own 3. 1 MKII Hunter stainless that I paid 250 otd. The other 2 are MKIII 22/45 which used also cost me 250 otd and my very first gun which cost me around 300 new at the time.

You should just get them used and in good condition. They way they are build, you would have a hard time breaking them.

You will find them used from 200 to 300 in good to great condition.
 
The Mark III 22/45 is a reliable, inexpensive gun. I've fired at least 5,000 rounds through mine. Tack driver. The Mark III is better and feels more substantial, but more expensive. Of the two, I'd get a Mark III,stainless, with 5.5" bull barrel.
 
Hey Cajunbrass, that 2nd picture down is the one I have - NRA - commemorative or something like that. Found it used NIB and never fired. Great gun.

I think someone thought it would be really valuable someday, but truth is that there are so many of these, I think only some of the first ones ever might be worth something. Otherwise just have fun and shoot them.
 
Hey Cajunbrass, that 2nd picture down is the one I have - NRA - commemorative or something like that. Found it used NIB and never fired. Great gun.

I think someone thought it would be really valuable someday, but truth is that there are so many of these, I think only some of the first ones ever might be worth something. Otherwise just have fun and shoot them.
Click to expand...

That's it. William B. Ruger NRA commerative MK II. I got it for my wife for Valentines Day, several years ago. In absolutly pristine, unfired condition, they MIGHT bring a slight premium over a regular MK II, but I really doubt it. They later made a version with nice Cocobolo grips that looked even better.

Funny story. I paid $219.00 for that one, NIB at a Gander Mountain here in Fredericksburg. They had a stack of them, blowing them out for that price.

About six months later, I look in the used gun cabinet, and there is one of them. Someone had rubbed soap or something like it into the roll marks so they stood out white. Looked nice actually. It was tagged at $599.00. :eek: :confused:

I asked the clerk about it and he started telling me it was a special model, with special serial numbers, bla, bla, bla....With a grin and a wink, I told him I had one just like it I bought from this very store six months ago for about $200.00. He laughed and said "Yea, I knew you knew what it was. To tell you the truth one of the managers here bought it and paid WAY too much for it, and now he's determined to sell it for this price. We're going to lose our shirts on it."
 
Cajunbass, I need to visit your hometown someday and go gun shopping. Seems like you have found quite a few deals except for that $600 one at gander mtn. Everybody in northwest NC is high as a kite on their gun prices, and there are apparently enough rich idiots around here to keep them in business. Im hoping to find somebody in the local classifieds in need of some quick cash that wants to sell their ruger MK. Thats my best chance of a good deal around here.
 
Cajunbass, I need to visit your hometown someday and go gun shopping.
Click to expand...

Well, you need to understand that MK II, at $219.00 was several years ago. Probably six or eight. And even that was a "blow-out sale" price. I believe a NIB MK III Standard is about $329.00 these days. The other two I mentioned, those are recent prices, but they don't turn up every day. You just have to look often and be ready to strike when they do.
 
I picked up a MKI for 190otd at a pawn shop 2 years ago. Granted, internally, nothing is stock now. I personally prefered the MKI over the newer versions due to "lack of features". I was wanting a auto for a truck gun and just didn't want all those extras.
 
Had a MK III 22/45 that I really liked but it was stolen. The one thing I didn't like was the trigger. Because of that I replaced it with a Buck Mark Camper. It has a much better trigger than the Ruger had and I am more accurate with it. I truly believe the Ruger/Browning debate is as close to Ford/Chevy as you can get. I do not have plans to do any customizing to the Buck Mark. If I were going to customize a .22 pistol I would buy a Ruger.
 
We always seem to be so quick to use the derogatory term "LAWYER" or "LAWYERED" etc etc. Now it's not that I want to rush to the defense of lawyers :p heck, they knew before they picked their life's work that generally speaking...people think less of them than used car salesmen.

It's just that lawyers deserve NO MENTION when it comes to these idiotic gadgets. Sure, in the grand scheme --- lawyers are involved, no doubt. But this is political and more to the point...this is MUCH more about streamlined manufacturing and cost savings.

Mark III pistols have had this crap added because it costs Ruger EXTRA money to either make CA and MA approved separate models...and/or, it would cost Ruger too much in sales to simply NOT sell their guns in those places.

The pistols have been CALIFORNIA'D, not lawyered.

The other thing I wanna say: I'm sure a lot of us pick a stance on something and refuse to EVER waiver from it for the rest of time and space. Simply put, we couldn't ever be convinced otherwise, no matter how the argument is presented.

Well, here's mine. The Mark II non-poly pistols are BY FAR the best of any of them. I'd pay more money for a clean used Mark II than I would ever even consider paying for -ANY- Mark III and I'd take a clean Mark II over an equal condition Mark I at half the price.

God could come to Earth and stare me down at three feet and not change my mind on this subject. :eek: But of course... YMMV! ;)
 
Mark III pistols have had this crap added because it costs Ruger EXTRA money to either make CA and MA approved separate models...and/or, it would cost Ruger too much in sales to simply NOT sell their guns in those places.

The pistols have been CALIFORNIA'D, not lawyered.
Click to expand...

This is exactly why I was so disappointed when the LC9 came out- I was interested in one but it was immediately crossed off the list because of them, specifically the manual safety. I love my little LCP and would have seriously considered the LC9 if it was more like a larger version, instead of what was put out.

At least a company like Kahr, for example, makes different versions of their guns with the CA necessities, that people who don't need them may opt not to have.

Ruger dropped the ball in not doing the same with their new guns, IMHO.

Back on-topic, I got an MKIII because I preferred the newer-style mag release and took out the mag disconnect and LCI. It's an excellent gun made even better with the mods.
 
I've got a Mark II 22/45 and I love it. Its very accurate and very easy to shoot with the 1911 grip angle.

I'm not a fan of the Mark III's, with all that lawyered up safety crap on them.

I'd look for a good used Mark II.
 
When people say they have a Mark III 22/45, I still sometimes wonder what gun they have. Maybe they are talking about a newer 22/45? The Mark III and 22/45 are very different guns when it comes to ergonomics.

The Mark III:
-Feel a lot better to me. Fits my hand better and points better.
-Are a lot heavier than the 22/45
-Have a different grip angle than the 22/45
-The bottom plate of the magazine is even different than the 22/45. You can't use a Mark III magazine in a 22/45 without switching this.

I prefer the Mark III by a lot.
 
By a MK III 22/45 they mean a 22/45 that was made in the MK III era. Although there are some differences there are alot more similarities. As the starter of this thread Ive heard alot of good knowledgeable advice and comparison, even though there are alot of different opinions. What Ive gathered so far is this: If you can find a nice used MK II you might have the best of the best by just a hair, but there is no wrong choice when it comes to the MK series. From the first standard auto all the way up to the new MK III's and 22/45's, you cant go wrong. Seems to me there are many personal preferences but no such thing as a "bad" ruger MK.
 
Seems to me there are many personal preferences but no such thing as a "bad" ruger MK.
Click to expand...
A guy at work became a pretty good friend of mine and a range buddy when I discovered that he owned a handgun and was a bit of a shooter. But a couple years ago when he owned only one handgun, he was looking to expand his world to others.

I very heavily suggested that he needed a rimfire handgun. I told him that one of the ones I had was likely the finest firearm I owned...on the simple basis of how well it's worked for how long, it's function, accuracy, build quality, and pure enjoyment I get from it. My KMK-512, a stainless, 5 1/2" bull barrel Mark II target.

It made sense to him that a rimfire was a great idea. So much trigger time for a low investment cost and ammo for a fraction of the cost of center fire. His primary gun was a 1911 and he's got small hands, so the idea of the 22/45 seemed to make the most sense to him.

I suggested he put real effort in to finding a clean, used Mark II, for reasons I've already stated. Instead, he bought a brand new, box fresh 22/45 Mark III.

He's struggled through over two THOUSAND rounds and neither one of us has -EVER- seen the pistol make it through a 10 round magazine. He's tried no less than six different brands of ammo. It stops in many ways, but it's favorite failure is a simple stove pipe. You can set your watch by this pistol -- it will not fire 10 rounds without a stoppage.

He hasn't yet contacted Ruger. I've bugged him about it. He will eventually, I'd imagine. In the mean time, he bought a GSG 1911-22 and put well over 2,000 rounds through that pistol and when run with 36gr bulk plated Federal Champion (the Wal-Mart special), it gives a failure rate of less than one per bulk box. My GSG is the same way...I don't even get 1 failure in 525, mine does even better.

I've got more than a half dozen rimfire semi-auto pistols and though my GSG is one thoroughly amazing handgun...I simply don't own a firearm that's as, well, perfect as my KMK-512, Mark II.

His brand new, straight out of the box 22/45 Mark III is the textbook definition of a lemon. I have very little doubt that a trip to Ruger (which would likely be an ultra-fast turn-around) would have that pistol running up to Ruger standards. However... that pistol and my pistol are light years apart.

It's absolutely a "bad" Ruger MK.
 
The MK III, 22/45 is simply a variation of the MK III. It has the same LCI, magazine safety, key lock, and "American style" magazine release as the standard MK III. The only differences are the frame material, and the grip.

Same goes for a MK II, 22/45. Just a variation of the MK II.
 
Not to split hairs, and you are absolutely correct in that it is a variation on the NEARLY-same upper, but it's worth mentioning that this variation uses a totally different material for the receiver of the pistol. And a different grip angle. With a different magazine, the both of which must somehow result in a dissimilar feed angle given the differences.

Sure, Ruger and the Fed Gubbmint call the upper portion with the serial number as the "receiver" but it's the lower that has all the trigger and sear guts in it.

The 22/45 is accurately described as a variation on the Mark II and III pistols...but in it's actual working form, it's very different. More so, than it might seem.

I think if you told a salesman that you needed a Mark II and he slid a 22/45 over the counter... he'd think he was right, but I'd -KNOW- he's all wrong! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top