Author Topic: Which ruger, mk II or III? (Read 3011 times)

fishboy1 · « **on:** May 23, 2005, 08:31:52 AM »

Ive decided I would like to get a .22 pistol for hunting, plinking and target.

Which model would you recommend and why? The MKII or III?

308 Hunter · « **Reply #1 on:** May 23, 2005, 09:17:53 AM »

I'd recommend the Mark II. I just bought one, the 22/45 MK II stainless steel taper barrel and put about 60 shots through it and not a jam, misfire or hicup. I've also heard that the Mark III's have trouble with ejection? something to do with that loaded chamber indicator mess-in things up.

Nebraska Kelly · « **Reply #2 on:** May 27, 2005, 12:33:44 AM »

I have had both models. I do not like the 45 grip. I like the standard configuration in a 5 1/2 inch bull barrel or the 6 7/8 taperd bull. I just bought a new mkIII in 5 1/2 bull. I would highly recomend it. I like the drill and tapped for scope mount. It comes with the mount. The mount does not interfere with the open sights. Meaning you can take the scope off and have a sighted in pistol when you dont want a scope. Then you can slip the scope back on and have an accurate zeroed scoped pistol. I shot 300 rounds of winchester hollow points. I had 2 feeding fails. These were ammo related and nothing to do with the new features of the pistol. I shot 50 yard 10 shot one inch groups with my new scoped MKIII. It is accurate and a very usable hunter with scope or plinker without the scope. Get the one you like best. If you are anything like me even if you get the one someone else recomends then you wont be satisfied until you get what you really wanted in the first place. Save yourself a little money and get WHAT YOU WANT THE FIRST TIME.
Nebraska Kelly

Jim n Iowa · « **Reply #3 on:** May 27, 2005, 01:05:36 PM »

mk2 5.5" bull barrel, to many issues with the mk3 developing. I just bought one NIB, so they are out there for now. I also have a mk1 tapered barrel target model, also a shooter.
Jim

Swamp Fox · « **Reply #4 on:** May 31, 2005, 05:59:37 PM »

Recently got a MKIII Target. Topped it with a ProPoint.

At 25 ft it shoots one ragged hole with CCI Velocitor ammo. I was suprised that it liked the Velocitor better than the other 5-6 types of ammo.

If I ever get a day off I'll go to the range and see if it will be a squirrel gun.

minutemen1776 · « **Reply #5 on:** June 01, 2005, 05:43:37 AM »

I, too, have heard rumors of problems with the Mark IIIs. I'd avoid it for now, as there are still plenty of new Mark IIs on the shelves. Don't mind all the hype in the gun magazines about the new Mark IIIs. Ruger is a big advertiser, so it's no shock that the gun rags all love the Mark III.

As someone else mentioned, make sure you get what YOU want. Handle as many different configurations as you can and pick the one that feels best. Still, you may later find that the one you buy isn't as great as you'd have liked it to be once you've shot it a lot. Don't be afraid to sell or trade once you get a better handle on your preferences.

Personally, I've had the Mark II Government Target model and a Mark II 22/45. The Government turned out to be too muzzle-heavy, even though I liked it at the time I bought it. The 22/45 felt better and shot as good as the Government, but the Zytel grip was never impressive to me. I'm shifting to the Buckmark, so I'll see how I like those. Before getting too enamored with the Rugers, I'd suggest you shop the competition, too. There are many variations of the .22 semiauto. Some are good and some are bad, but it's mostly in the eye (hand) of the beholder (shooter).

fishboy1 · « **Reply #6 on:** June 07, 2005, 05:25:10 PM »

What other autos should I be looking at? I like the buckmark but it is appreciably more expensive and everyone I know that has one experiences feed problems.

I want something that is going to be Target accurate. My eyes aren't so great so scoping it is possible but I would like to avoid it if I can. Im willing to go with a longer barrell if it improves accuracy. And I want Stainless. It will get rough service hunting and blued guns tend to get scratched and rust on me.

Keith L · « **Reply #7 on:** June 07, 2005, 10:22:54 PM »

My Buckmark has never given me a lick of trouble and has a much better trigger from the factory than any Mark II I have seen. I have never seen a Mark III so I can't comment on that. Not stainless though...

minutemen1776 · « **Reply #8 on:** June 14, 2005, 04:48:37 AM »

Quote from: fishboy1

What other autos should I be looking at? I like the buckmark but it is appreciably more expensive and everyone I know that has one experiences feed problems.

I want something that is going to be Target accurate. My eyes aren't so great so scoping it is possible but I would like to avoid it if I can. Im willing to go with a longer barrell if it improves accuracy. And I want Stainless. It will get rough service hunting and blued guns tend to get scratched and rust on me.

Look at the Buckmark Campers. I just bought one of the new stainless models for right at $300. I've heard of shooters having problems with the Brownings, but I've heard the same about Rugers, too. I believe both are excellent guns, but both companies can turn out a dud now and then. I would not pigeonhole the Buckmark as universally inferior to the Rugers.

Also check out the S&W 22 series. Some like them and others do not. The same goes for the new Beretta Neos. Sig's Trailside is good, but it will be more expensive. I'm sure there are others, but these are the big ones.

If you want to scope your pistol, most of these can be adapted to that use. Most (not the Browning Camper, although other Buckmarks have an integral sight rail) are already set up with a rail or included mount. I wouldn't worry much about barrel length. Extra inches will give more sight radius, which some shooters find contributes to accuracy. Others, myself included, dislike the muzzle-heavy feel of the longer tubes. Also, if you're going to mount a scope, sight radius won't mean anything to you.

fishboy1 · « **Reply #9 on:** June 14, 2005, 03:10:05 PM »

Thanks.
Reason I mention the longer tube is the single six I had with the 9-7/8" barrell. People would laugh at me when I took it out. They werent laughing when we got to shooting, crappy eyesight and all. This go round I want an auto.

Not sure what the sigs or berettas go for retail but msrp is WHEEEEW! Im not paying $500+ for a .22 pistol unless Im getting paid to shoot it.

minutemen1776 · « **Reply #10 on:** June 15, 2005, 05:12:51 AM »

Perhaps a longer barrel would be a benefit to you if you don't scope yur pistol. It sounds like this has been the case in the past with your Single-Six. If you go this route, I suggest a tapered barrel rather than a heavier bull barrel.

I've seen the Beretta Neos for around $250 in stores and just over $200 through online auctions. The Sig Trailsides will cost you about $350-$450.

Yukon Gold · « **Reply #11 on:** June 16, 2005, 06:52:05 AM »

For me, the MK-III address the only two gripes I had with the MK-II

1) Magazine release on the side vs. the bottom. When shooting "fun" events like pins, when I need to reload in a hurry, I now can release the mag with the strong hand, while loading with the weak - I like that.

2) Loaded Chamber Indicator - most don't like it. But .22s have a nasty habit of failing to clear the chamber due to the nature of the the cartridge. More than once, I have pulled back the bolt, etc, only to have the round fail to clear. For me, I like it.

The MK-II was a significant improvement over the MK-I, and although not as great a step, for me, the MK-III is another improvement.

Nebraska Kelly · « **Reply #12 on:** June 21, 2005, 10:26:26 PM »

Hello. I had recommeded the ruger mklll. But after having trouble with mine locking up tighter than a nuns underwear I will not get another mark three. I love the mark two. Better sights and was always accurate and worked.
Nebraska Kelly

Vietvet · « **Reply #13 on:** June 24, 2005, 05:12:41 PM »

MKII bull barrel, change out the grips (get a thumb rest), maybe get a better trigger. Had one for 15 years, 1000's of rounds, still shoots well. Just recently added a scope on the B-Square mount. So far, so good. This is a gun I will never get rid of!

Jim n Iowa · « **Reply #14 on:** July 07, 2005, 01:36:59 PM »

Vet
can you recomend some grips? I just purchased mine and am very satisfied with the trigger. I also have a MK1 7" tapered that could do with a grip change.
Jim

Thompson · « **Reply #15 on:** August 16, 2005, 12:10:35 PM »

I've shot Rugers for over 30 years and currently have 5 of the MKII's in 4 different configurations and like the ones I've shot. Haven't shot the Competition Model yet. I've found, on mine, the factory trigger on the blued models to be better than the stainless. I put a complete Volquartsen kit in a stainless 5 1/2 bull barrel and it's trigger is now so much better than factory.

I don't have a MKIII but after reading the disassembly/assembly instructions, it seems a number of magazine insertions are required to overcome the magazine safety in getting the hammer in the proper position. I probably would want not to do it but I guess that's a matter of personal preference.

I also have two Buckmarks, a Plus and a Challenge. Trigger is about the same as my blued Rugers. The only problem I had was with the Plus model. I bought it used and had feeding problems that were obviously a magazine problem (old style magazine). After switching to the newer type, I haven't had any problems.

Browning is lighter than the Ruger if weight is a factor. Both Browning and Ruger are very accurate. Browning is probably easier to take down and reassemble than the MKII or MKIII.

Good luck with your selection.

cattleskinner · « **Reply #16 on:** August 17, 2005, 04:21:12 PM »

After wearing out a Taurus m94 revolver(had to have the cylinder/crane/yoke put back on, also another time had to have the transfer bar fixed), I decided enough was enough. I picked up a 5.5" mkII competition target model. I've shot it a couple thousand rounds in the few months that I've had it, and can honestly say that I won't get rid of it. It comes drilled and tapped for a scope, and is accurate as all get out. I ended up switching the wood laminate thumbrest grips last week to the Hogue thumbrest style, and highly recommend them too. The finger grooves help alot in shooting, and the thumbrest doesn't stick out quite as far as the wood ones. Overall, it's a very accurate shooter that balances well, and as long as you clean it every brick or two of ammo, it shouldn't give you a lick of trouble on the reliability side. Just my :money: .

~~~Amos

millwright · « **Reply #17 on:** September 07, 2005, 01:26:20 PM »

I can't vouch for the MK II or the MK III, but I have owned a MK I 5 1/2 bull barrel for many years and many thousands of rounds. Everything from competition shooting, to plinking, and coyote trapping. It has never failed in any way. I would think that either the MK II or the MK III would be even more user friendly.

K.K. · « **Reply #18 on:** October 07, 2005, 12:35:56 PM »

I've owned and shot them both, but I really like my new Mark III Hunter. The factory irons are good, but I mounted a red dot on top. The only problem with this is the holster issue!

Anyway, I am most impressed that Ruger has hidden the unecesary writing on the barrel, and, more importantly, placed the magazine release on the side. Something we are used to in America.

X-man · « **Reply #19 on:** November 11, 2005, 08:51:10 PM »

My preference is for the MK II over the MK III. I've owned several MK IIs over the years and never had a single problem with them. After reading about some of the problems and negative reviews about the MK III I decided to go out an buy another NIB blued MK II bull barrel 5.5" model. My brother decided to pick up the new MK III with the fluted bull barrel in stainless around the same time.

After handling/shooting the pistol, my impressions were that Ruger tried to "fix" a design that wasn't broken! Absolutely hate the loaded chamber indicator. It spoils the line of the pistol, is another point of entry for dirt/foreign debris and a poor substitute for proper gun handling/safety. Having the mag release in the same position as most 1911s and other semi-auto pistols was nice, but IMHO, it didn't outweigh the negatives introduced with the MK III design. I'll be sticking with my MK II bull barrels for the forseeable future! BTW...my brother is after me to sell him one of my MK IIs! :wink:

poncaguy · « **Reply #20 on:** November 12, 2005, 03:10:51 AM »

I have a new SS Mark III target model, excellent pistol, super accurate, no problems at all , as was my bull barrel Mark II. I prefer the new III.