« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Mk. II v. Mk. III  (Read 1474 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Old Griz

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2030
  • Gender: Male
Mk. II v. Mk. III
« on: February 26, 2005, 06:49:02 PM »
:cb2: I know they have changed the magazine release on the new Mark III, but what else have they done to it?
Logged
Griz
<*}}}><

I Cor. 2.2 "For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified."

Offline TC Shooter

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 157
Mk. II v. Mk. III
« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2005, 05:29:39 AM »
Ruger Mark III pistols continue the legacy created by the Ruger Standard, Mark I and Mark II pistols and incorporate many new engineering refinements. All Mark III pistols feature:

** An unobtrusive internal lock that locks the safety in the "SAFE" position. :roll:

** A magazine disconnect to prevent accidental discharge when the magazine has been removed. :roll:

** The first-ever visible loaded chamber indicator for a .22 rimfire pistol. :roll:

**New front and rear sights for quick target acquisition.

** A magazine release button re-located to a more common position, on the left side of the frame, behind the trigger guard.

** A contoured ejection port and tapered bolt ears.

The new mag release is nice but I can do without the lawyer features.
Logged

Offline Tacoma

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 139
Mk. II v. Mk. III
« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2005, 12:31:14 PM »
I cold be wrong but I remember reading somewhere that the trigger itself was different (internally). Volquartzen was on the verge of releasing a MK II trigger upgrade soon.
Logged

Offline Questor

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7075
Mk. II v. Mk. III
« Reply #3 on: March 01, 2005, 07:00:01 AM »
I just heard that the loaded chamber indicator of the mark III is such that impacting it, as in a fall, can cause the round in the chamber to be discharged. I believe it's being fixed.
Logged
Safety first

Offline Dali Llama

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2452
Mk. II v. Mk. III
« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2005, 07:19:42 AM »
Quote from: TC Shooter
An unobtrusive internal lock that locks the safety in the "SAFE" position.
What do that mean in layman's terms, ask Dali Llama?
Logged
AKA "Blademan52" from Marlin Talk

Offline fyrepowrx

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 245
Mk. II v. Mk. III
« Reply #5 on: March 01, 2005, 03:25:11 PM »
it means that Ruger is diligently searching for ways to prevent lawsuits, i would imagine...
 :wink:
Logged
8) There is plenty of room for all of God''s Creatures...Right beside the mashed potatoes.. 8)

Offline Vern Humphrey

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 221
Mk. II v. Mk. III
« Reply #6 on: March 01, 2005, 03:32:24 PM »
What I can't figure out is why they didn't fix the major flaw in the Ruger .22 Automatic -- it's a nightmare to strip and reassemble.
Logged

Offline TC Shooter

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 157
Mk. II v. Mk. III
« Reply #7 on: March 01, 2005, 08:05:23 PM »
What do that mean in layman's terms, ask Dali Llama?

TC Shooter say - he copy description directly from Ruger web site , so Dali need to contact Ruger for explanation.
Logged

Offline tallpaul

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 122
Mk. II v. Mk. III
« Reply #8 on: March 03, 2005, 03:29:49 AM »
Quote from: Vern Humphrey
What I can't figure out is why they didn't fix the major flaw in the Ruger .22 Automatic -- it's a nightmare to strip and reassemble.



actually if you take the time to learn how it is not that bad. I don't break mine down often enough so it takes me a few minutes to do it the first time then I can do them as fast as anything else....  there is a trick to holding the gun vertical and pulling the trigger as you do so to let the pieces fall into place... unloaded of course.....
Logged
Jesus Loves You.... right now just as you are.

Offline Vern Humphrey

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 221
Mk. II v. Mk. III
« Reply #9 on: March 03, 2005, 03:40:23 AM »
Quote from: tallpaul
Quote from: Vern Humphrey
What I can't figure out is why they didn't fix the major flaw in the Ruger .22 Automatic -- it's a nightmare to strip and reassemble.



actually if you take the time to learn how it is not that bad. I don't break mine down often enough so it takes me a few minutes to do it the first time then I can do them as fast as anything else....  there is a trick to holding the gun vertical and pulling the trigger as you do so to let the pieces fall into place... unloaded of course.....


I don't say it can't be done -- it's just a pain in the posterior.  If John Browning had designed it, it would be a lot easier.
Logged

Offline Dali Llama

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2452
Mk. II v. Mk. III
« Reply #10 on: March 03, 2005, 01:48:31 PM »
Quote from: TC Shooter
What do that mean in layman's terms, ask Dali Llama?

TC Shooter say - he copy description directly from Ruger web site , so Dali need to contact Ruger for explanation.
That's a big 10-4, say Dali Llama. :-)
Logged
AKA "Blademan52" from Marlin Talk

Offline Deaf Smith

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 346
About the only thing I like about the mark III is the new
« Reply #11 on: March 25, 2005, 10:32:54 AM »
Magazine release behind the trigger ala the 1911. The rest of the "Lawer mandated" "Safty" features I can safely live without. I see no use for a magazine safty on a trail or target gun and the lock is redundent. The loaded chamber indicater is unsafe allowing the gun to be fired if dropped loaded and the gun struikes the indicatger. Actually unsafer than the unchanged Mark II. JMHO. I will NOT be buying any new Rugers in the future.
Logged
Jim L
Proud TFL alumnus



Invalid e-mail address. TOS Violation. Acct. Deactivated

Offline Vern Humphrey

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 221
Re: About the only thing I like about the mark III is the ne
« Reply #12 on: March 25, 2005, 04:47:31 PM »
Quote from: Deaf Smith
Magazine release behind the trigger ala the 1911. The rest of the "Lawer mandated" "Safty" features I can safely live without. I see no use for a magazine safty on a trail or target gun and the lock is redundent. The loaded chamber indicater is unsafe allowing the gun to be fired if dropped loaded and the gun struikes the indicatger. Actually unsafer than the unchanged Mark II. JMHO. I will NOT be buying any new Rugers in the future.


Nor am I.

I would like a M1911-style magazine release, but the other features tend to cancel that out.

The ONE thing they should have done is made it easier to strip -- but noooo!
Logged

Offline myronman3

  • Moderator
  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4837
  • Gender: Male
Mk. II v. Mk. III
« Reply #13 on: March 27, 2005, 03:06:57 AM »
Quote
I will NOT be buying any new Rugers in the future.


 i concur.   the mag release is an improvement, but the rest are truely...
Quote
"Lawer mandated" "Safty" features
and i can live without them.   add the way ruger handled my sbh's breaking, and it is a done deal.  

ruger used to be my favorite manufacturer of guns.  i can not say that anymore.  this year alone i was going to buy a bolt 22,  a red label 410 or 28,  and a new 22 pistol.   their attitude toward my plight has cost them the sale of three guns in 2005 alone.  

i sure wish they would pull their heads out of their tails.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »