Ruger MKII/MKIII Skinny barrel accuracy

S

samsmix

New member
I have shot Ruger MK I, II, & III pistols a lot, but never owned my own. I know the theory behind making Heavy Barrel "target" models, but I was perusing the racks at my LGS yesterday when it dawned on me: The thin barrel of the Ruger Standard MKII & MKIII should really be quite stiff at that length (5" or 6").

Is the Heavy Barrel on a target model really affecting barrel harmonics in a .22lr, or is this just for better balance while shooting off hand?

Should I expect just as good accuracy from the lighter guns?
 
The "skinny" barrels are just as accurate as the heavy ones; the extra weight further forward is solely for improved handling, plus a shorter sight radius appears to the shooter to reduce wiggle. (It just appears that way, the wiggle is still there, but the apparent reduction resulting from a shorter sight radius gives the shooter more confidence.)

Jim
 
I see. I for one appreciate the input from a longer sight radius. Since this will be a holster gun, I think I will go with a 6" Standard model with adjustable sights for my small game handgun needs.

Currently I use a 6" single six. I have no complaints, but want to add a MK to the stable...maybe 2.

Thanks for the info.
 
Just as a good example, I have an S&W Model 41 with an extensible front sight. I can shoot better with the sight fully in the slide to give a shorter sight radius than I can with the sight extended. No change in the gun, or the accuracy of the barrel, just a change in the way I see things.

Jim
 
Interesting. I tend to shoot a 6" better than a 4", but if memory serves the M41 is a 6" gun to begin with. IIRC the extension goes back over the wrist? It's been a while. I always wanted a Model 41, but they cost a pretty penny compared to a Ruger.

I had a 7" S&W 22A when they first came out. WONDERFULLY accurate gun. Shot 10 shot groups the size of a business card at 100yards off the bench. Problem was, it kept going back to the factory for repair. On the 3rd trip I sold it.
 
No, the Model 41 extensible sight is the front sight; a bar rides in a dovetail slot in the top of the slide and there are a couple of set screws to hold it in whatever position the user wants.

Obviously, the choice of barrel length is a personal one; I prefer shorter barrels that put more weight in the hand; others like longer or lighter barrels. But none of that really changes accuracy.

I once got a bargain on .308 Mauser 98 barrels at $10 each. They were 20", very lightweight. The muzzle diameter was under .50". I used one, and sold the others to friends. All of them shot well under MOA groups, and would do it all day. That is not what the books say; lightweight barrels just aren't supposed to be so accurate and so consistent, but these were. I never did know who made them, and the store was going out of business, which is why the barrels were being sold at what were bargain prices even in 1980.

Jim
 
I've had both and they were both more accurate than my skills (or vision) can exploit.

The heavier barrel one just pointed a little better for me and that's why I got it, not for increased accuracy.

I checked out the new S&W answer to the Ruger mark series and it is very nice. I absolutely don't need it but I love .22s so... You know...
 
I have both a MK II Standard and a MK II Target. They both are great shooters. If shooting a lot the Heavy barrel holds accuracy longer, otherwise they both are capable of shooting better than me.
 
FWIW, I have both a Ruger Mk I (with some mods by me, but original heavy barrel) and a Model 41 S&W also short heavy barrel. From a machine rest, the Ruger seems to shoot a bit better with most ammo than the Smith. Off hand, I can't tell any difference. (The S&W trigger is better, but that has nothing to do with barrel accuracy.)

Jim
 
Thank you JamesK, that is comforting to know. The Rugers I have shot were not formally tested by me, but seemed to be very accurate. We were popping gophers out to 80 paces with one of them.

In another thread you mentioned a preference for the MKII over the MKIII. What makes the MKII a better gun for you? I've never shot a MKIII, just I and IIs.
 
I have several Rugers, two with long barrels, one shorter. Also, have a S&W Model 41. In the past, several .22lr pistols have lived at our house. My interest is target shooting, so most of my pistols are target oriented.

I can't tell any accuracy difference due to barrel length. The way a gun balances in my hand/s seems to affect accuracy. Over past couple of years, the following .22lr pistols have been better balanced and more accurate: #1 S&W Model 41, #2 Hammerli Xesse Sport, #3 Ruger Mark iii Target (std. short barrel), #4 HK4 w/.22lr barrel, #5 SIG p210 6 .22lr Conv. Kit and then there's the rest.:eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top