The Ruger 22 caliber handguns

T

triplebike

New member
As far as I'm concerned there isn't a better designed 22 handgun made. Yes there are more expensive 22's, but I don't think there is a better overall design that is superior to the Ruger. I have 3, SR22, 22/45 LITE MKIV & a 22/45 5.5 standard MKIV. All three load, fire and eject ANY ammo I feed it regardless of brand, price , weight, HP or RN. All with excellent accuracies. They are all extremely easy to maintain & clean. The mags for all 3 have 1000's of rds through them without a single issue. And with Rugers stellar customer service you don't have to worry if there is a issue. Out of the box they are a joy to shoot & with a few very simple trigger mods they become a world class 22. Ive heard that some think that the SR22 is overpriced, I have to strongly disagree. My SR22 is an absolute joy to shoot, incredibly accurate, eats all ammo I feed it and is super easy to clean and maintain. I also doubt I'll ever wear any of my Rugers out. For a selling price of 4-5 hundred dollars for any of the 3 mentioned, I really don't think you can buy a better overall 22.
 
You're doing fine !!!!

I think you need to really step up to do better. The Smith 41 is nicer in my opinion, but a lot more money.
Click to expand...
True and I always say that if your first .22-auto, is a 41, you don't need to look further. but then again, what's the fun in that. I can buy three MK members for the price of one 41 and the fun-factor is still there. Then again, is there anything better than a 41? … Yep !!!

Be Safe !!!
 
I've owned Ruger Mk ll and the early Standard model pistols over the past 50 yrs, and other than a better trigger and the Byzantine take down procedure, they've been fun, accurate, and have taught literally dozens of new shooters how to safely handle a semi-auto pistol.

For the money, & if you want real quality, I doubt you can do better...and I'd have said that in 1967 when I bought my first one. Best Regards, Rod BTW, I own a M41 with all three bbl. assemblies, a Colt Woodsman Match Target 4-1/2" and several 1911 .22 uppers, but when we go to the woods, here, or out to our farm range, it's the Ruger Mll that tags along.
 
My only Ruger is a stainless MKIII 22/45 target model. It's a great pistol. I can darn near shoot it as well as one of my riimfire rifles and it is reliable and not picky.
 
I have a Mark III 22/45 and have really begun appreciating it again as well. It's amazing how it eats every time of ammo, when very few other .22's will do so. I am a bit jealous of the Mark IV's easy take down, the Mark III can be a pain.

With that said, I believe I paid $240 for my Mark III brand new (About 10 years ago), I was really surprised to see the Mark IV 22/45 target model being nearly double the price that I paid for my Mark 3.
 
Here is my MKIII Competition with a full compliment of Volquartsen parts and red dot. If anything that is any better is available for any amount of money I don't need it or want it, couldn't ever shoot it any better than I can this one and 100% reliability can't BE beat. It is minute of squirrel accurate at 100 yards all day long if I do my part.

attachment.php
 
The Ruger Mk series are good pistols.

But they fall notably short of the Browning Buckmark (and previous Browning models) when it comes to, "extremely easy to maintain & clean." Buckmarks do not even require disassembly to clean, let alone the archaic, ridiculous take-down method for Rugers prior to the Mk IV.

Buckmark magazines are easier for small hands and weak fingers to load, and the wide open slide means malfunctions caused by bad ammo are far easier to clear - even for inexperienced shooters.

More often than not, you can pick up a Buckmark for a little less than a comparable Ruger Mk, as well. Simpler design. Cheaper to produce. But that simplicity leads to easier maintenance and better longevity.


And, for those that only buy new pistols but don't like magazine safeties, the Buckmark is, yet again, easier to defeat. Pull the grip panel, pull the magazine safety out of the pistol, and reassemble.
Unlike the new Rugers, there is no requirement to fully disassemble the fire control group, fiddle with springs, shims, pins, and overpriced aftermarket parts, and hope that alignment doesn't have to be further adjusted with more shims and filing of the aftermarket parts.


Rugers are good.
In my opinion, Buckmarks are better.

But neither is the best.
For that, you have to go back in time.
 
I've owned a dozen Rugers in 22LR over the years, ranging form Single Six, MK's, SR's, & 10/22's.

They are ok guns but there are more accurate for the money and there definitely are better guns in 22LR for more money. To each their own and that is why I still love this country even though it's currently in the crapper.
 
I have a SR22 and a 22/45. The 22/45 does have issues with truncated cone bullets. A friend has had the same issues with his. Other than that, I really enjoy shooting them and have had no other issues.
 
Ruger 22

My competition .22 pistol is a Ruger MK I and yes, I did change the trigger, barrel and some other parts but it consistently beats other high end 22s.

The MK series is simply a remarkable design.
 
Sharkbite said:
I think you need to really step up to do better. The Smith 41 is nicer in my opinion, but a lot more money.
Click to expand...
I have a Model 41 from 1963 and I have a MarkIII 22/45. I actually enjoy shooting the Ruger more. The Model 41 has a black fixed front sight which can be hard to see at times while the ruger is fiber optic. The ruger is more reliable. Also I shoot thumbs forward so I have to watch I don't drag my thumbs on the 41. I will say the 41 is really accurate. and has a great trigger. Both are very good guns.
 
I have a stainless MK II with a 5” bull barrel and target trigger and sights. Pretty much all the .22 I’ll ever need in a semi auto pistol.
 
The Single Six is a good handgun. I prefer the S&W 17 or 617 to anything Ruger ever made. No comparison....
 
I agree that the MK series work extremely well- but I've never met one that didn't have a trigger pull that made me irritated: too gritty/heavy, with annoying break characterisitics.

The Buckmark Camper, out of the box, feels like a MK series after plopping down another $200 in trigger parts and then paying a 'smith to make the upgrades.

Yet, both of them pale by comparison to the more 'competition/target' oriented pistols, like the High Standards, S&W 41s, or Colt Match Targets. Or, the rarified area of the Pardini's and other $1400+ competition .22 pistols.

However, the more expensive they are, the more tweaking to 'dial them in'.

I would say the Ruger MK series is like a Mustang or Camero, while the S&W 41 is like a Corvette, the High Standards are like a precision Italian car from the 60s that had to have its carbs tuned every 6 months, and the Pardini's are like Formula 1 cars.

Which is a better design? It depends on what you are trying to accomplish and what your skill levels are.


That said, the MK Series is definitely a solid performer, and they DO go 'bang' every time, and they are more accurate than 80% of the shooters I know can capitalize on.

My wife loves the 22/45 I have set up for her- but my MK series have no original parts inside the grip frame except the MSH/latch assembly.


Ammo...
Is your competition really a MK I, with the 9 round magazine? Cool!

Yet, from what you described, you have a ruger angled pistol, that is no longer a Ruger. Accuracy comes from barrel/bolt alignment coupled with feed reliability and trigger smoothness. If the barrel and bolt are no longer Ruger, and the trigger/hammer components are no longer Ruger, then it isn't really 'Ruger' that is making it so accurate.
I am no putting down your accomplishments at the line with it. Yet, we also have to acknowledge that some of this could be more about your ability compared to your neighbors ability at the line.

I have embarrassed some people at my local range when I was firing a $550 RIA 1911 and regularly getting 50 rounds into a fist-sized hole at 10 yards, when the people in question had trouble keeping 10 rounds in a 12" circle at the same distance, and they had $1500 1911s in the same caliber. One of them, after seeing what I was shooting, said I should be in a commercial for RIA.

I smiled, packed up and left. I didn't feel like explaining that I could probably have the same results, or better, with their 1911s- and that their results would not be much different on my RIA.

Yet, it IS satisfying when some firearm 'snob' looks down their nose at our choice at the beginning, and then we mop the floor with them. I get that!;)






Pete2- The Ruger revolvers are good solid plinkers, but you are right- the .22lr round out of a single six isn't going to be as accurate as out of a classic S&W or Colt revolver.

That is partially because the Single-Six uses a barrel optimized for the .22mag round, which is a thousandths or two larger than the .22lr.

A Single-Six in .22Mag has more accuracy/precision potential than in .22lr, due to the barrel diameter.

I have not personally fired the S&W or Colt .22lr revolvers enough to have a preference- but I envy those who have them and get a chance to use them often.

They are elegant revolvers with great potential.
 
Last edited:
I did not like the trigger on my SR22 and could not hit squat with it.

I did not like the trigger on my LCRx and could not hit squat with it.

My two 22lr Single Sixes have been excellent.

My Ruger Standard has been excellent.

I won a bid on a Mark II this weekend and look forward to seeing it soon. :)
 
Contradiction at face value. That's awesome. :D

If the Ruger Mk series factory triggers are so good, why are so many of you replacing them with aftermarket triggers? :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top