Florida Guy
New member
This is my first (and only) Ruger MKII.
I am very happy with it.
I am very happy with it.
Ruger "Mark" series .22s
- Thread starter steveNChunter
- Start date
Well, if you grew up with Mark II's (and for those who grew up with Mark I's and Standards) then it's hard to not notice a large, oblong hole cut in to the side of what was an outrageously familiar image, especially when you consider that it looked pretty nearly EXACTLY the same for fifty-five years before Ruger decided it was time to make a rectangular slot in the port side of it.
So you can "notice it" in that way. And for all the others who have REMOVED it, they probably noticed it when the pistol would fail to feed or eject cleanly, which is even more noticeable for people familiar with the legend of the pistol. Frankly... failing to feed and eject is simply something the Ruger Mark I and Mark II pistols didn't ever do much of...ever. The Mark III does it often enough (YOU decide what that number is) that a 2-minute Google search pulls up a myriad of fixes, suggestions and work-arounds to address these problems and get new owners running better.
This is probably not the best time to mention that a loaded chamber indicator is an idiotic device that promotes lazy and unsafe gun handling right at it's very core. Is a chamber loaded? Of course, because Rule#1 says that it's always loaded and you should treat it as such. If you need for that chamber to be unloaded, you ENSURE that it is, and you don't leave that necessary bit of information to an idiotic, later-added and completely loathed device such as a "loaded chamber indicator." You open the action, you look inside, perhaps you even FEEL inside and in some cases, you insert a flag to REALLY ensure that it's not a loaded chamber.
That's not something to be left to a gizmo. That gizmo is as worthwhile as an on-board or integral lock.
So you can "notice it" in that way. And for all the others who have REMOVED it, they probably noticed it when the pistol would fail to feed or eject cleanly, which is even more noticeable for people familiar with the legend of the pistol. Frankly... failing to feed and eject is simply something the Ruger Mark I and Mark II pistols didn't ever do much of...ever. The Mark III does it often enough (YOU decide what that number is) that a 2-minute Google search pulls up a myriad of fixes, suggestions and work-arounds to address these problems and get new owners running better.
This is probably not the best time to mention that a loaded chamber indicator is an idiotic device that promotes lazy and unsafe gun handling right at it's very core. Is a chamber loaded? Of course, because Rule#1 says that it's always loaded and you should treat it as such. If you need for that chamber to be unloaded, you ENSURE that it is, and you don't leave that necessary bit of information to an idiotic, later-added and completely loathed device such as a "loaded chamber indicator." You open the action, you look inside, perhaps you even FEEL inside and in some cases, you insert a flag to REALLY ensure that it's not a loaded chamber.
That's not something to be left to a gizmo. That gizmo is as worthwhile as an on-board or integral lock.
Floridaguy,
That is a beautiful slabside. They are one of the best all around target pistols available. Ruger did a nice job with that one and d&t'd it too and I believe included the base and scope rings in the package. I have to pick one up at some point. Considering getting one of my 5.5 bull barrel target models d&t'd for an optic.
That is a beautiful slabside. They are one of the best all around target pistols available. Ruger did a nice job with that one and d&t'd it too and I believe included the base and scope rings in the package. I have to pick one up at some point. Considering getting one of my 5.5 bull barrel target models d&t'd for an optic.
I don't think Ruger "decided" anything on their own- they had incentive; ie reasons to do this as dictated by certain nanny-states and their requirements for selling in their markets.
I have said before and I'll say again- Ruger dropped the ball in deciding to go with a one-size-fits-all rather than offering models without the lawyer-bits, to those of us in states which don't require them.
Gets in the way !!!
Be Safe !!!
Personaly can't say that it's a serious problem but does restrict air flow and catches dirt and powder residue. The more you shoot, the more it will become apparent. On the Pre-MK-III's, you will not see this taking place and allows for easier access on cleaning !! ...
Be Safe !!!
Last edited:
Man, those Ruger Marks can be a ball of fun. Pick up a 500-round box of .22 ammo, a handful of clips and spend an afternoon going pop-pop-pop-pop at cans and what have you. Best, most fun little gun in the world. I had one ages ago, and I've kicked myself a thousand times for selling it.
steveNChunter
New member
Good luck simply "picking up" a 500-round box of .22 ammo right now unless you already own it.
Ruger Mark .22s
All of the Ruger Mark series are good. I have an older Standard and a Mark II Target (bull). My son has a Mark III Target, also in a bull barrel, very accurate and has had no reliability issues what so ever. He has a Sig Mosquito, a Walther P22 and an older Colt Challenger. The Sig and the Walther are decent shooters but both are finicky with ammo. The Colt is good looking and will shoot any brand of ammo but is not the shooter that any of the three Rugers we have are.
Standard
Mark II
Sorry, no pics of my son's, he currently lives about 1500 miles away.
All of the Ruger Mark series are good. I have an older Standard and a Mark II Target (bull). My son has a Mark III Target, also in a bull barrel, very accurate and has had no reliability issues what so ever. He has a Sig Mosquito, a Walther P22 and an older Colt Challenger. The Sig and the Walther are decent shooters but both are finicky with ammo. The Colt is good looking and will shoot any brand of ammo but is not the shooter that any of the three Rugers we have are.
Standard
Mark II
Sorry, no pics of my son's, he currently lives about 1500 miles away.
Stevie-Ray
New member
My first handgun was a Ruger RST-6, pictured first below. It is generically called a Mark I, but Mark Is were the adjustable sight models. I liked it so much that about 10 years later I bought the KMK-512 version of the Mark II. Difference in price was astounding, $92 for the RST in 1979, $259 for the Mark II in 1989. But I wouldn't give up either.
brotherzoo
Inactive
I own Mark I, II, and III Rugers, and I can't say enough good about them.
I am not a fan of the 22/45 personally, but my brother has one, and it runs just as well as my all steel versions, of which I have pasted a few pictures below.
The two on the bottom are both unfired (yet...?) safe queens, with the hard chrome model being # 102 out of 150 Mark I Magnaport limited edition, and the blued pistol being a Lipseys Mark III limited edition.
The two on top are my general walkabout shooter and my goto small game hunter.
IMHO,if you want a great all purpose shooter, get the Mark III Hunter.
I'm still trying to buy mine back from a buddy.
I am not a fan of the 22/45 personally, but my brother has one, and it runs just as well as my all steel versions, of which I have pasted a few pictures below.
The two on the bottom are both unfired (yet...?) safe queens, with the hard chrome model being # 102 out of 150 Mark I Magnaport limited edition, and the blued pistol being a Lipseys Mark III limited edition.
The two on top are my general walkabout shooter and my goto small game hunter.
IMHO,if you want a great all purpose shooter, get the Mark III Hunter.
I'm still trying to buy mine back from a buddy.
Last edited:
Brotherbadger
New member
Let me start by saying the Mark iii is an awesome gun. If you buy one, you won't regret it. They are super accurate out of the box.
That being said, I prefer the Mark ii. It's not because it's more accurate(it's not. They are both very accurate IMO) or cheaper. It's merely because of the familiarity with it and the emotional connection. The Mark ii was the first .22 handgun I shot, and I just love it. I like the feel, the weight, etc.
In the end, both are great guns. If you get a chance, shoot both models and see which you prefer.
That being said, I prefer the Mark ii. It's not because it's more accurate(it's not. They are both very accurate IMO) or cheaper. It's merely because of the familiarity with it and the emotional connection. The Mark ii was the first .22 handgun I shot, and I just love it. I like the feel, the weight, etc.
In the end, both are great guns. If you get a chance, shoot both models and see which you prefer.