Ruger "Mark" series .22s
- Thread starter steveNChunter
- Start date
Well then you are way ahead of the game, and have a great pistol. Good deal!
Sorry. Some time I get worked up when companies do things to pistols for reasons such as these. There is nothing wrong with the MK III that can't be corrected as you have already done, and many like it just the way it is from the factory. At least they still make them.
Sorry. Some time I get worked up when companies do things to pistols for reasons such as these. There is nothing wrong with the MK III that can't be corrected as you have already done, and many like it just the way it is from the factory. At least they still make them.
No filler piece needed
I too think the Mk. 2 is superior. I do like the new mag release tho. One does not have to buy a filler piece for the Mk. 3 to eliminate the LCI.
Field strip the pistol. Look from the bottom of the receiver and you will see a small hole with a pin in it. Tap the receiver a couple of times to allow the pin to come down. Remove the pin. Remove the LCI. You will find a small tab that projects in to the chamber that operates the LCI. Remove that little tab. Reassemble.
You have now disabled the LCI. No gaping hole in side of receiver. I could not get through a full mag until I got rid of the LCI.
Now it works more like my old Mk. 2 I still need to get rid of the mag disconnect.
I too think the Mk. 2 is superior. I do like the new mag release tho. One does not have to buy a filler piece for the Mk. 3 to eliminate the LCI.
Field strip the pistol. Look from the bottom of the receiver and you will see a small hole with a pin in it. Tap the receiver a couple of times to allow the pin to come down. Remove the pin. Remove the LCI. You will find a small tab that projects in to the chamber that operates the LCI. Remove that little tab. Reassemble.
You have now disabled the LCI. No gaping hole in side of receiver. I could not get through a full mag until I got rid of the LCI.
Now it works more like my old Mk. 2 I still need to get rid of the mag disconnect.
silvermane_1
New member
i don't mind the LCI or mag release on the MK. III, i however would like to remove locking mechanism below the safety.
How is the fit and finish on the MK III compared to the MK II's. I have heard some mixed reviews but have no personal experience. Finish seems fine on my friends 22/45 but he is having some reliability issues whichhe thinks is part of the mag disconnect not working properly. He sent it back to Ruger once, and it was not fixed, and the gun came back with many scratches on the receiver so he is hesitant to send it back again.
I have to admit, the MK III Hunter models seems intriguing to me.
I have to admit, the MK III Hunter models seems intriguing to me.
HK_Flo- that's the guy, Bruce Patza. He has an excellent reputation and his work is of high quality.
Ricklin- doing it that way leaves the LCI in place unfixed. There are also remaining spaces around the LCI in the gap- it's not as complete a fill as the piece provided by Bruce. This piece is fixed and will not move, and is also made of steel as opposed to polymer.
Pilot- I have a standard model, and the fit and finish is very good. The bluing is excellent.
Ricklin- doing it that way leaves the LCI in place unfixed. There are also remaining spaces around the LCI in the gap- it's not as complete a fill as the piece provided by Bruce. This piece is fixed and will not move, and is also made of steel as opposed to polymer.
Pilot- I have a standard model, and the fit and finish is very good. The bluing is excellent.
It is fixed
Removing the tab eliminates the function of the LCI. Yes the LCI is still there. What is not there is that tab which is what causes the malfunctions.
All I can report is my experience. I brought my new in the box Mk. III to the range and experienced multiple FTF FTE and stovepipes. I researched on the various Ruger forums. Found the LCI was a common issue and how to disable it. I could not get through 1 full mag without a malfunction.
I removed that tab and the pistol now works like my Mk. II IE: perfect. Many others on the Ruger forums reported the same experience. Note: The metal tab is separate from the polymer piece it is mounted in. Just remove the small metal tab, and reassemble.
I do not want or need a LCI. I would not mind it's presence if it worked. It does not.
YMMV but that's my experience.
Removing the tab eliminates the function of the LCI. Yes the LCI is still there. What is not there is that tab which is what causes the malfunctions.
All I can report is my experience. I brought my new in the box Mk. III to the range and experienced multiple FTF FTE and stovepipes. I researched on the various Ruger forums. Found the LCI was a common issue and how to disable it. I could not get through 1 full mag without a malfunction.
I removed that tab and the pistol now works like my Mk. II IE: perfect. Many others on the Ruger forums reported the same experience. Note: The metal tab is separate from the polymer piece it is mounted in. Just remove the small metal tab, and reassemble.
I do not want or need a LCI. I would not mind it's presence if it worked. It does not.
YMMV but that's my experience.
That hands-on, real-world genuine experience you just added supports my assertion 100% that as built, shipped, and delivered from Ruger: Mark II is a better gun than Mark III. And that Mark III was a step down.
Isolated incident? Rare experience?
But with a quick, easy internet search & fix for a common known problem?
With a known, suggested fix?
Plenty of ways to skin a cat. And I'm not saying that discussion threads don't have a life of their own (they do, no problem with that) HOWEVER, If we look at the original post of the thread, posted by the OP:
Isolated incident? Rare experience?
But with a quick, easy internet search & fix for a common known problem?
With a known, suggested fix? Plenty of ways to skin a cat. And I'm not saying that discussion threads don't have a life of their own (they do, no problem with that) HOWEVER, If we look at the original post of the thread, posted by the OP:
I'll say Mark II was the high water "mark."
I agree 100%
I regret selling my Mk. II Government target. I had a bad experience with it (nothing to do with the pistol) and had to let it go. Only down side it was too darn heavy for anything but a range toy.
The Mk. II was indeed the high water mark. Nothing like having to "fix" a brand new in the box pistol. When I had the failures with my brand new Mk. III I was going to send it in to Ruger, until I read that others had done that only to have the same problems. I want my Ruger to eat most anything I feed it.
Next up is getting rid of the mag. disconnect but that is not a big deal. I am fairly happy with my Mk. III since I did the mod I described.
I also just bought a Keltec P11. I had to "fix" it too. Did not mind that so much given it was a 200 dollar pistol. I expect better from Ruger.
I regret selling my Mk. II Government target. I had a bad experience with it (nothing to do with the pistol) and had to let it go. Only down side it was too darn heavy for anything but a range toy.
The Mk. II was indeed the high water mark. Nothing like having to "fix" a brand new in the box pistol. When I had the failures with my brand new Mk. III I was going to send it in to Ruger, until I read that others had done that only to have the same problems. I want my Ruger to eat most anything I feed it.
Next up is getting rid of the mag. disconnect but that is not a big deal. I am fairly happy with my Mk. III since I did the mod I described.
I also just bought a Keltec P11. I had to "fix" it too. Did not mind that so much given it was a 200 dollar pistol. I expect better from Ruger.
Ricklin said:
I agree with the weight comment. You dont want to carry a brick around the woods all day. You guys want to argue the high water mark? The 22/45 LITE is incredible. It weights half what the all steel Mark pistols weight, and has a threaded barrel. Of course, its saddled with those damn safety features that all the Mark IIIs have. I dumped the mag disco outta my LITE and have never looked back. Better than a Mark II? You betcha. There is no Mark II that compares.
I have been considering throwing a Tacsol lightweight upperl on one of my MK II's to kind of make my own "Lite" version without having to have the lawyer changes of the MK III, but I don't see them anywhere. Since the barreled upper is considered the receiver (bad move by Ruger IMHO) it is a hassle to get one because it must be transfered by an FFL. Plus they're bloody expensive.
I realize that you can buy a new Lite model for the price of just the Tacsol upper, however I won't buy a MKIII anything from Ruger. I really don't mind a little extra weight on my four inch bull barrel, and 5.5 inch bull barrel MKII Target Models.
If I get another .22LR which I need like a hole in the head right now as I have many, it will be another MKII or a Browning Buckmark.
If I get another .22LR which I need like a hole in the head right now as I have many, it will be another MKII or a Browning Buckmark.
Ive only shot, and owned, the bull barreled Rugers. I have always wanted to shoot the thin barrel just to see how accurate they were. I like the look of the 4" stainless thin barrel, but I think its a distributor only pistol now, so availability might be "iffy". I would have to find a used one. That would be ok. A Mark II because I have lots of magazines for my Mark II and all my Mark IIIs are 22/45s
steveNChunter
New member
Im still planning on looking around locally for a nice used MKII at a deal. But after hearing all the woes of the new MKIIIs on here, I think if I buy new it will be a Beretta Neos Inox thanks to Weblance's thread on one.
Don't let me or anyone else disuade you from a MKIII. Many (most?) have great success with them out of the box with no mods. Do I prefer the MKII? Yes, but the MKIII is usually just fine, and if not can be easily modifed by removing the LCI and mag disconnect to essentially become a MKII with what many believe is a better magazine release.
The MKIII is nice because while very accurate out of the box it can easily be made more accurate and grow with the shooter with simple installation of a few VQ parts. If you just want a plinker, the NEOS seems fine though.
I think the 2 pistols are equals, until it comes down to cleaning. The Neos is so easy to breakdown and clean. Being able to easily get to the Breech face is really nice. Digging around inside the chamber with tools, trying to clean the breech on the Ruger just sucks. Ive never had a problem with dis-re-assembly with the Ruger, and thats not what Im talking about. Im talking about actually getting the gunk off of, and out of your pistol. I also like the fact you can barrel swap with the Neos. I like choices, and somedays I might be in target mode(6" with optic) and some days plinker mode(4" open sights)and somedays, squirrel or groundhog hunter(carbine kit). I havent had my Neos very long, but I see myself shooting it more than my Rugers. Each of my Rugers is different, and I have different situations where I would use them, so getting rid of one of them wont happen, but if I was just starting out, and didnt have a .22 pistol, I think I could do anything with my Neos I can do with one of the Rugers, and not be hindered in any way. There needs to be a threaded barrel available for the Neos, and then they would have all the bases covered.