Ruger MKII choices, choices..............Help

B

boiler03

New member
Ok, so I am considering the MKII. Now there are all of the options to choose from, but I don't know what I want. I will be plinking mostly and shooting paper targets at 50 ft some (non-competiton). My major choices right now are:
1. Barrel: 4.75" or 5.5"
2. Bull Barrel or Standard
3. Sights: Adjustable or Fixed
4. Finish: SS or Blue

This will NOT be a competition gun and components that only slightly affect my performance don't matter much to me. I am a newbie and I can't really feel differences between most .22's other than grip and weight.

So basically I am going to go bare bones basic, or spend a little more and get one a little decked out.

MK4 with 4.75" standard tapered barrel, fixed sights, and blue finish.

Or KMK512 with 5.5" bull barrel, adj. sights, and ss finish.

Or a comprimise between. Maybe a stainless KMK4 for durability and looks? Is the price difference that big? I know I want something that feels good (obviously). I just shot a 5.5" bull barrel Target model, and it felt good shooting from a rest, but it got a little heavy shooting it one handed bullseye. I don't know if I am just a wussy or what. For this reason and the possiblity of a field gun, constitutes my choice of the 4.75" tapered barrel. To save weight! It also has more of a classic look to me. I am also considering the 22/45 for the grip, but I haven't heard good things about the grip and I haven't had a chance to get my hands on one. Thanks.
 
Ruger's KMK-512

It's the stainless 5.5" bull barrel model with adjustable sight's.

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, Life Member N.R.A.
 
Ehh...go with whatever feels/looks best to you. :p

The only difference between Mk.II and 22/45 is the grip and controls, so it's a matter of whatever feels best. Go to a gun shop and fondle examples of each.

Stainless steel might offer some advantages..easier to clean (easier to spot lead/powder deposits in the various nooks and crannies of the frame and receiver, I imagine) and more durable. My Mk.II is blued (MK-512) and the finish is starting to fade near the muzzle.

Have you considered one with the 'target' barrel? IMHO these are the best combination between balance and looks..
kmk678b.gif


I wonder if Ruger is still making the MK4 model. Adjustable sights and a four-inch bull barrel would be nice. It's not listed on their website, but some digging around revealed the image:

mk4b.gif
 
Last edited:
I have to admit bias when I endorse the KMK 512. I saw this stainless baby in the gunstore and just new that she had to be mine!

When I pull her out of her cushioned pouch, that stainless steel shines like a diamond and the heavy barrel gives her a look of seriousness.

Accuracy is great. Beauty is more than skin deep. I love her.

If I was wanting a "kit" gun, I'd go with a revolver for the simplicity. Might lose a bit of capacity, but....

Definitely love that KMK512.
 
I have a 5.5" bull with adjustable sights that is blued. I like it quite a bit, but I would recommend the stainless. I am a big Ruger fan, 4 of 8 of my firearms are Ruger, but I can say that there blueing is lacking. I treat my firearms like they are children, but they still have a tendency to rust. I have gone to shooting wearing gloves to prevent sweat on the backstrap of my MKII. Do not get me wrong, they are fantastic pitols for the money, but you should be extra careful looing after a blued Ruger.
 
Ooo, Ooo, my turn

Well, I know you complained about the weight of one of the longer barrels, but I love my long barreled Mk II. I have the MK-678, the almost 7 inch target barrel. Is it heavy, yeah, way heavier than my H&K. But, I bought it to introduce my wfie to guns, and I wanted to make sure there was no kick at all the first time she fired.

Now, while it is heavy, the balance is so nice, that I barely notice it. And talk about accurate. Ooo man. What the saying? The gun is at least as accurate as I am.

The weight savings is not much of a factor. In my opinion, balance is by far the most important factor. That being said, if you have any thoughts of 'field work' with the pistol, 7 inchs of barrel gets kind of unwieldy. If you have any future plans of getting a larger caliber handgun, I would recomend the 22/45's. After putting 500 rounds through my Mk II, my H&k always feels so bulky. Takes at least 50 rounds to get used to it again.
 
Barrel and 22/45

Well, I have decided (whatever gun I get), I will go with the 5.5" bbl. I do intend on getting a larger bore gun later on and in fact I considered getting one first, but I like the .22 and it is plenty fun an challenging for me at this current time.

I definitely want to get a 1911 some day. But I don't know if I want to make a jump from .22 to 1911 right away. I might buy in sequence a .357/.38 revolver, then a 9mm auto, then the 1911. The revolver will most likely be a S&W or Ruger. The 9mm will be a Browning HP, Beretta 92 Compact type M, or Glock 19. The 1911 will be a Colt or SA.

So I am still going to consider the 22/45 for a smoother transition. Some mentioned that they thought the grip angle of the MKII was similar to the Glock's and that they had no trouble switching between. The other 9mm's I mentioned, well, the HP will be similar to the 1911 and they have fairly narrow grips, and the Beretta is a single stack, so it too will be narrow. So I don't think that a bulky grip will be that big of a change.

I still haven't shot a Browning Buckmark, and I need to feel the 22/45 grip. I am in no rush to get something yet, because I can rent from my club. Thanks.
 
I've owned a MK512 for over almost 15 years now. The only thing I did soon after purchase was modify the front sight a bit so it would be snag-free and throw on a pair of Pachmayr grips and I've been happy ever since.
 
I wonder if Ruger is still making the MK4 model
Click to expand...

They stopped making it a few years ago but very recently they released it again as some kind of special model calling it the ruger commemerative or something (not to be confused with the 50 year commerative). This could have been specially reconfigured/released for someone like davidson's. I have MK4 (got it in 95) I had it np3 ed and added crimson trace laser grips (the only gun I have a laser on) What a fun little trail gun, I also use it to put down animals when I trap.
 
I have the 5.5" bull barrel stainless, my Dad has the 4.75" (whatever the short barrel one is) bull barrel in blue. To me the longer barrel points much nicer and belive it or not has noticably less recoil. You'd think "hell it's a 22, how much recoil can it have" and you're right, both have virtually none but it's noticably less in the 5.5.

If you can I'd say try both for yourself, otherwise my vote goes to the 5.5" bull barrel.
 
Yep, I've got to agree with going with stainless steel. My 22/45 is blued and less than a year old, but it's starting to look pretty beat up. IMHO, Rugers (especially 22s) are best bought in stainless steel!
 
KMK 512. I have one and love it. You won't be disappointed. Amortize the cost difference over 10 years and it's nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top