Ruger "Mark" series .22s

@ Sevens

When I said no such thing as a "bad" ruger MK, I meant the different generations and variations. Not that every single MK ever made was perfect. Every gunmaker, no matter how good their reputation, puts out at least a few lemons every now and then. Id be willing to bet if your buddy would just send the gun back to ruger like you said, they would make it right. If its as bad as you say, I wouldnt have wasted my time putting more than 500 rounds through it. After a hundred rounds or so each from a few different brands it should be obvious something needs to be fixed, cause that surely isnt the norm for that gun.
 
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.
Click to expand...

The official name (as stamped on the gun) of the two pistols is "Mk III" or "22/45 Mk III".
 
I will be honest, a Ruger Mk pistol is still my favorite handgun I own. I have a MkII Competition (SS slab-side) and love it. I recently sold my other MkII (SS Bull Barrel) and had to start shooting this one. I had this one sitting in the safe unfired for almost 15 years.. Just keep your eyes open. I had seen one in a local pawn shop for $275 (blued Bull Barrel). It sold within a week.
 
I thought I saw some one build a mk2/mk3 hybrid once. mk2 upper and internals with the mk3 lower for the mag release. That's the only gun I've ever seen that I would like as much as a mk2.
 
When I said no such thing as a "bad" ruger MK, I meant the different generations and variations. Not that every single MK ever made was perfect. Every gunmaker, no matter how good their reputation, puts out at least a few lemons every now and then. Id be willing to bet if your buddy would just send the gun back to ruger like you said, they would make it right. If its as bad as you say, I wouldnt have wasted my time putting more than 500 rounds through it. After a hundred rounds or so each from a few different brands it should be obvious something needs to be fixed, cause that surely isnt the norm for that gun.
Click to expand...
You are correct, of course, but I'd submit that while many or most folks that own Mark III pistols have had good experiences...

I think if you were able to put a lot of time and energy in to comprehensive research (which would be difficult, I'm sure) you might find that:

--of the folks that have owned Mark II and Mark III pistols, it's not a close race and the Mark III is clearly a step back

--of the folks that have had problems with either series, there's a lot more problems in the Mark III series. Minor issues, lemons, annoyances, all the little things that Mark II guns DON'T seem to have, all the little things that are absent from Mark II guns that have built their reputation.

It could simply be that since the Mark II has been unavailable since 2004, the bulk of the chatter in forums has been about the gun that available now--the Mark III. I'm not blind to that possibility.

Perhaps its a difficult theory to prove...but my theory is absolutely that on the whole, the Mark III guns are a solid step below the Mark II's.
 
Perhaps its a difficult theory to prove...but my theory is absolutely that on the whole, the Mark III guns are a solid step below the Mark II's.
Click to expand...

I have been under the impression that aside from the LCI and mag disconnect, there are virtually no differences. In fact, I do recall reading that the feed ramp was improved to help with reliability in the MKIII's. Am I missing other differences?

On the whole, I have heard of very few complaints about the MKIII.
 
Sevens- that could very well be the case. Im ideally hoping to find a used MK II stainless w/ a 4.5-6" barrel, (which may be more than I want to spend) but if not a standard auto or MK III at a good deal wont be passed up.
 
AH.74 said:
I have been under the impression that aside from the LCI and mag disconnect, there are virtually no differences. In fact, I do recall reading that the feed ramp was improved to help with reliability in the MKIII's. Am I missing other differences?

On the whole, I have heard of very few complaints about the MKIII.
Click to expand...

This is correct. Other than what you have said, there are no major differences. I removed the Magazine Disconnects on all my Mark III pistols because I want the magazine to drop freely, and I dont want something keeping my pistol from operating if I lose, or damage, the magazine. Its a 15 minute job to remove. The LCI has never caused me any problems with thousands of rounds downrange. With the removal of the magazine disconnect, the Mark III is the equal of the Mark II.

You are always going to have people argue that one Mark is better than the other. You will never be able to change those opinions over the internet. If you were to grind off all the markings, and identifying features of a Mark II and III, and shoot them side by side, I guarantee that you would have a very hard time identifying which was which. Years later, when you were still shooting, and trying to decide, you will simply give up out of frustration, because there is really no difference.

I have a special love for both of these... the Mark II was the first gun I ever bought, new in 1987, and the 22/45 is the most accurate handgun I have ever owned, or shot. I dont mean that its kinda accurate... its a one ragged hole gun, over and over, at 25 yards.

markII003Small.jpg


2245003fixedCustom.jpg
 
Last edited:
The LCI has never caused me any problems with thousands of rounds downrange. With the removal of the magazine disconnect, the Mark III is the equal of the Mark II.
Click to expand...


I think that with removal of the mag disconnect AND removal of the LCI the MK III can get close to the MK II, but just because you've not had problems with the LCI, many, many others have. Including AD's, and the pistol malfunctioning especially when getting a bit dirty.

The other issue with the MK III is the placement of the mag release. There was nothing wrong with the heal release on the MK I, and MK II. These are target, and plinking pistols with no reason for "tactical" magazine changes. The placement of the mag release to the frame, while maybe a nice marketing move, does nothing to improve the pistol.

The MK III incorporates needless changes which alter the pistol for the worse to meet ridiculous requirements from states like California. That is the only reason it was done by Ruger. They should have produced both MK II's, and III's side by side and sold the MK II in free states, and the MK III eleswhere.
 
The other issue with the MK III is the placement of the mag release. There was nothing wrong with the heal release on the MK I, and MK II. These are target, and plinking pistols with no reason for "tactical" magazine changes. The placement of the mag release to the frame, while maybe a nice marketing move, does nothing to improve the pistol.
Click to expand...

If you happen to dislike the heel release, which many people including myself do, the frame release represents a major improvement.

I agree the other "features" are not needed but that isn't one of them. You really seem to be going out of your way to bash the MKIII's. You don't like them, we get it. But they're not bad guns and certainly not a discernible step down from the MKII's aside from the LCI and mag disconnect. Remove them as many have and you have essentially the same gun.
 
Well, I can't get on board with either of the two posts above mine.

The magazine release is absolutely an improvement and unless your vocation is a European police officer in the 1970s, a heel mag release is an antiquated and entirely un-modern design. Changing that was perhaps the biggest draw to the 22/45 series pistols when they were first released under the Mark II banner.

I can certainly deal with my heel mag release, and it's not a deal breaker. After all, I am used to it. It's perfect in functioning, it's just slow and methodical to use. If you elected to use your heel-release equipped Mark II in some manner of a speed competition, it would be an impediment no matter how skilled you may be at it's use. To argue otherwise is to be dishonest to the discussion.

If anything, you can make the argument that it really sucked that all the non 22/45 Mark II owners could no longer use their collection of magazines for the new Mark III pistols, but otherwise? The magazine release on the Mark III is an improvement.

The other thing that simply hasn't been mentioned enough is also quite difficult to argue against, if we'd all just be honest: removing the LCI is certainly easy enough, but please let's not skip over or gloss over the fact that it leaves a gaping, nonsensical and horrendous looking oblong HOLE in the side of the pistol.

You could formulate an argument about grit, dirt, lube, or what have you... but a simple and common denominator is that it's a damn eyesore. Certainly, aesthetics are quite subject to opinion -- but the bottom line is that the pistol looked a particular way for FIFTY-FIVE years... and then they machined a rectangular HOLE in the port side of it. :eek:
 
The other thing that simply hasn't been mentioned enough is also quite difficult to argue against, if we'd all just be honest: removing the LCI is certainly easy enough, but please let's not skip over or gloss over the fact that it leaves a gaping, nonsensical and horrendous looking oblong HOLE in the side of the pistol.
Click to expand...

When I and others have mentioned removing the LCI, it is to replace it with the filler piece made by Bruce Patza. They are inexpensive, well-made, close the gap, and look ok also in addition to being completely compatible with normal operation- they don't cause any issues IOW. I would never leave that slot open- if there wasn't the option of this piece, I would have left it as is.
 
That sounds like a "best option" scenario and were I in your position -- sounds like something I might do, too.

However... we really *ARE* discussing the differences between Mark II's and III's here, as Ruger has changed them. Can we agree that Ruger cut an ugly, oblong HOLE in the side of our favorite pistols and to correct that, you've got to contact Mr. Patza to attempt to rectify what they've done? :confused:
 
Absolutely. Just like the mag disconnect is removed with a bushing replacement, which shouldn't be necessary.

I said in another thread concerning the LC9 that I believe Ruger dropped the ball in not offering models without the safety mechanisms for those in states that don't require them, such as Kahr does with some of its models. The LC9 was immediately crossed off my list because of them, whereas if it had been like a larger version of the LCP, which I have, it would have been a much stronger candidate for me to consider as a purchase.
 
Again, the mag release change on the MK III was unnecessary on a .22 target/plinking pistol. The heel mag release is secure, and makes sure the mags are fully seated. I really like my MK II era 22/45, but have to take the time to make sure the mags are fully inserted, and I hear an almost inaudable little click or I will have failures to strip the second round from the magazine. It always causes me a little concern as I carry the 22/45 as a woods gun sometimes, so I take the extra time to make sure it is fully inserted. I shouldn't have to do that.

The MK III is too much of a compromise when used MK II's and new Buckmarks are available.
 
Again, the mag release change on the MK III was unnecessary on a .22 target/plinking pistol. The heel mag release is secure, and makes sure the mags are fully seated. I really like my MK II era 22/45, but have to take the time to make sure the mags are fully inserted, and I hear an almost inaudable little click or I will have failures to strip the second round from the magazine. It always causes me a little concern as I carry the 22/45 as a woods gun sometimes, so I take the extra time to make sure it is fully inserted. I shouldn't have to do that.

The MK III is too much of a compromise when used MK II's and new Buckmarks are available.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight- it was an unnecessary change, yet you sometimes have problems with your old style one? It's secure, except when it's not?

I never have that problem- put them in, give it a tap, good to go.

And it's a target/plinking pistol, yet you sometimes carry it as a woods gun. Maybe other people have other uses for their MKIII's as well- ever think of that?

Stop bashing the MKIII. It is the SAME GUN as the MKII except for the safety features.
 
No, you misunderstood what I said. I do NOT have problems with the heel mag release, yet do have problems with the newer style 22/45 mag release which was then installed in the MK III, and MK III era 22/45. So, I prefer the MK II heel style mag release much better than my 22/45's or MK III's.

The other MK III changes like the LCI, and mag disconnect are the worst modifications. However, many tout the mag release position an improvement onn the steel framed MK III. I don't. See?
 
No worries mate. That being said, there are easy mods available to essentially turn the MK III into a MK II sans the mag release which is the least objectionable for me, and like you many more like it than not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top