Tapered?

The weight difference between a tapered barrel and a target barrel is miniscule, and the vast majority of shooters prefer the target barrel. Manufacturers make what people buy....that's what drives the end products. Tooling and additional part numbers/inventory aren't the friends of manufacturing.
 
They will (hopefully) get around to it -- they are just getting started with the MK IV, and there is already plenty of pent-up demand for the design. I'm waiting for a short, tapered barrel before I pounce as well. I remember a similar situation with the wait between the Glock 42 (.380) and Glock 43 (9mm) -- basically, in a situation with high pent-up demand, it's in their interest to release minor variations of what everyone has been waiting for, before releasing the definitive model. At least, that's the theory.

They clearly don't mind making weird machined barrel variations, so the classic design with a short, light barrel can't be too far out. The fact that the bull barrel version has "TARGET" emblazoned on the side in giant letters is another hint that it's not going to be the new standard.
 
QUOTE: "Why won't Ruger make a taper barrel MKIV .22? All they have are heavy barrel ones."

I'm not sure that it's a matter of "why they won't", but more of a "will they get around to", proposition.

During the Ruger Mark III production run, the Mark III 6-7/8 Heavy Tapered barrel target version, suffered from lack of sales and was dropped.

The Mark III was a design of necessity to capture sales in just a few states, at the cost of three test guns and an extortion fee paid to the bureaucrats defining the test criteria. It was good to see Ruger "thumb their nose" to those bandits and introduce the Ruger Mark IV.

The Ruger Mark IV has only been out for around 7-months now, so who knows, at this point, which versions will become available?
 
The weight difference between a tapered barrel and a target barrel is miniscule, and the vast majority of shooters prefer the target barrel.
Click to expand...

I don't know the actual difference in weight, but the difference in feel, for me, is significant. I'm not the vast majority of shooters, apparently, as I much prefer the long tapered barrel over the bull barrel version.
 
I had a Mark II with a tapered barrel and a MK II Government model. I liked the feel and balance of the Government model much better.
 
One of my "favorite" Ruger Mark II pistols is this blued MK514. The Heavy Tapered barrel is 5 ¼ inches long with an adjustable rear sight. They didn't make a whole bunch of these pistols in blue and stainless steel and they didn't catch on too well until they were discontinued. I take it along on my tramps through the woods out back. Never know when a "rogue" chipmunk will attack.

 
More tooling and labor=more money for the pistol. More for looks since weight reduction wouldn't be a lot. You could always buy one and take it to a machine shop and have them do it.
 
Let's face it, with a Ruger MK, you're getting a .22 that can exceed the size/weight of many full-size service pistols. On the plus side, it should have no problem lasting a century of heavy use. I've held off buying one until now, due to the bulk, and there is just no way I'm opting for *extra* bulk.
 
I have 6 MkII's and except for my Dad's Government Model they are all tapered bbl.
I think it's a real shame that this classic and very nice looking configuration might be discontinued.:(
Hard to have that cool:cool: Luger profile with a bull bbl.
I like the fact that you get enough recoil to make you practice lining your sights up again for the next shot.
That Government Model I have makes it almost to easy, it is very accurate though.
 
Probably because most people have absolutely no desire to own a tapered barrel. They are stylish, and almost nobody wants firearms now that are designed with artistry. People want them to look like tools.
 
I think it's a real shame that this classic and very nice looking configuration might be discontinued.
Click to expand...

Might be discontinued? Have you seen the new Mk IV lineup? UGLY guns, I'm sorry to say but it's true.
 
I didn't understand that the OP wanted a heavy tapered barrel. I read it and understood he just wanted a tapered barrel as available on the Standard. If my understanding is correct there is a sufficient difference in barrel weight hanging out front of the gun that changes the balance. I much prefer having a gun balance closer to my grip.
 
During the 22 years of production involved with the Ruger Mark II, they provided barrel lengths from 4 to 10-inches, and in several various configurations. So, there was a barrel contour available for just about all those wants.

It will be interesting to see where Ruger goes with the styles of barrel contour with the Mark IV production run. Except for the loose fit of the trigger, which I'm working on, I really like the Ruger Mark IV Competition Target
 
My best guess is it's what most customers prefer.
I like the heavier barrels on my 22 pistols, I consider
them to be an attractive feature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top