Ruger Mark III , .22 LR
- Thread starter Ben
- Start date
CZ93X62
Official forum enigma
My version of the TOTAL CLASSIC Ruger 22 autopistol is the 22/45, about 20 years old now. I love the thing, and I have battled manfully to keep it in my safe, since our daughters love the thing so much. They have liberated the 10/22s in some number, which I tolerate sullenly. These pistols can no longer come into Kalifornistan per Cal-DOJ, so those rotten girls have been told to buy their own 22 pistols, or get their husbands/main squeezes to cough up the cash for same. YES, we spoiled them--and still do to some extent. BUT I KEEP THE 22/45. The End.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
I have great respect for the Ruger Standard Pistol and its offspring such as the MKII and MKIII.
It is often the gun I use when introducing new shooters to pistols. The Rugers are FAR better pistols than some people suspect and are capable of outstanding accuracy. They are also very reliable and durable. I've owned several variants over the years and never worn one out or even broken one.
The design of the Ruger Standard Pistol and its offspring is an exercise in engineering efficiency. The receiver is a simple round tube with an ejector riveted in place. That ejector also serves as a bolt guide. The grip frame consists of two mirror image stamped steel halves welded together. Ruger uses very good steel for the barrel and that barrel is threaded into the simple receiver, allowing for a long sight radius. As a plus, the sights don't ride on a moving slide. The bolt is a simple part and completely serviceable. Many of the smaller parts are stamped parts or simple round stock but there is quality where needed. Most of the springs in the gun are coil springs, including the magazine spring. It is, IMO, one of the best inexpensive guns you will find.
While the guns are perfectly acceptable "as is", you can upgrade the hammer and sear to Volquartsen parts, polish a few small parts and upgrade the trigger for an excellent high quality target action - all for very little time and money.
It is often the gun I use when introducing new shooters to pistols. The Rugers are FAR better pistols than some people suspect and are capable of outstanding accuracy. They are also very reliable and durable. I've owned several variants over the years and never worn one out or even broken one.
The design of the Ruger Standard Pistol and its offspring is an exercise in engineering efficiency. The receiver is a simple round tube with an ejector riveted in place. That ejector also serves as a bolt guide. The grip frame consists of two mirror image stamped steel halves welded together. Ruger uses very good steel for the barrel and that barrel is threaded into the simple receiver, allowing for a long sight radius. As a plus, the sights don't ride on a moving slide. The bolt is a simple part and completely serviceable. Many of the smaller parts are stamped parts or simple round stock but there is quality where needed. Most of the springs in the gun are coil springs, including the magazine spring. It is, IMO, one of the best inexpensive guns you will find.
While the guns are perfectly acceptable "as is", you can upgrade the hammer and sear to Volquartsen parts, polish a few small parts and upgrade the trigger for an excellent high quality target action - all for very little time and money.
Last edited:
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
In the category of, “Dumb Things I have done” (and it’s a big list), many years ago I traded off an excellent blued, MKII bull barrel.
That particular gun was a very early MKII model (probably one of the very first MKII Bull Barrel models circa 1982) and it shot exceptionally well. I never thought twice about it and just assumed every MKII would make tiny, tiny groups. Well, I’ve owned a bunch since then and they have all been good pistols, but none would hold groups like that early MKII. I don’t know if the tooling was brand new, or the assembly work was done with great care, but that thing shot like a high-end target rifle. I’ve never been displeased with a Ruger Standard Pistol or MKII, but I sure wished I had held onto that particular pistol.
Oh well, hopefully it landed in a good home.
That particular gun was a very early MKII model (probably one of the very first MKII Bull Barrel models circa 1982) and it shot exceptionally well. I never thought twice about it and just assumed every MKII would make tiny, tiny groups. Well, I’ve owned a bunch since then and they have all been good pistols, but none would hold groups like that early MKII. I don’t know if the tooling was brand new, or the assembly work was done with great care, but that thing shot like a high-end target rifle. I’ve never been displeased with a Ruger Standard Pistol or MKII, but I sure wished I had held onto that particular pistol.
Oh well, hopefully it landed in a good home.
Winelover
North Central Arkansas
I have the Mark II Target (tapered bbl) and the Mark IV 22/45 Lite. Never cared for the original bull barrel models. Always seemed to feel barrel heavy.
Being a south paw, I never cared for the right handed safety on the Mark I, II & III. The Mark IV finally remedied that situation. The disassembly is also much improved over the earlier versions. As I aged, I've gravitated to lighter firearms. Hence the recent addition of the 22/45 Lite.
Being a south paw, I never cared for the right handed safety on the Mark I, II & III. The Mark IV finally remedied that situation. The disassembly is also much improved over the earlier versions. As I aged, I've gravitated to lighter firearms. Hence the recent addition of the 22/45 Lite.
Winelover
North Central Arkansas
The Mark II's were never available dovetailed for 22 tip off mounts. I had Trapper of Bullseye Springs dovetail mine. Aftermarket scope mounts weren't available either, back then. The nickel silver front site, I fashioned to replace the gut hook styled original front. The original front was gouging up my leather Bianchi holster plus I preferred the brighter front sight. I was making pocket knives, at the time, so I had nickel silver odds and ends.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
I've had standard barrels, bull barrels, slab sided barrels, blue, stainless......etc.
I liked some more than others, but I liked them all.
The standard tapered barrel is certainly a little lighter and easier to carry. The bull barrel models provide a bit more muzzle forward heft, which some target shooters prefer. The slab side (flat side) barrel was sort of a compromise between those two options.
The MKII with the slab side barrel could be had with a scope base but it was a Ruger ring type base.
There were a LOT of options.
As for that "Gut Hook" front sight- WOW, yeah that thing could be difficult to live with. I replaced mine with a conventional ramp. The undercut front sight was nice in bright sunlight and gave a crisp sight picture but that thing little sharper than I cared for.
I liked some more than others, but I liked them all.
The standard tapered barrel is certainly a little lighter and easier to carry. The bull barrel models provide a bit more muzzle forward heft, which some target shooters prefer. The slab side (flat side) barrel was sort of a compromise between those two options.
The MKII with the slab side barrel could be had with a scope base but it was a Ruger ring type base.
There were a LOT of options.
As for that "Gut Hook" front sight- WOW, yeah that thing could be difficult to live with. I replaced mine with a conventional ramp. The undercut front sight was nice in bright sunlight and gave a crisp sight picture but that thing little sharper than I cared for.
I haven't played with the Ruger MK III or IV's but have played with a number of MK I and II's. I'm not 12 anymore but I still love shooting these. On the Bull Barrel model the Ruger Single Six ramp front sight is pretty much a direct replacement if the "Gut Hook" front sight is troublesome. Saves leather in the holster from being hogged out also.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
Takedown and reassembly of a Ruger Standard or MKII is like riding a bicycle. Once you get it, you get it forever.
It isn't complicated but some folks seem to be determined to make it complicated.
It isn't complicated but some folks seem to be determined to make it complicated.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
Here's my current MKII, it's had a hard life but it's still a good shooter.
I purchased it new. In those days I would typically upgrade the action by fitting a steel Clark trigger, Volquartsen sear and hammer, and polishing the trigger bar. This results in a fine and crisp hammer release that is safe and doesn't degrade. I don't believe the Clark triggers are still available. The "gut hook" front sight was removed for a while when it was field gun, but I put it back on for target work.
I gave the gun to a family member that used it for pest control. It was improperly stored, and the exterior of the stainless-steel barrel somehow got pitted.
I didn't think that would happen to stainless, but it did. Fortunately, the damage is only cosmetic, and the rest of the gun is fine. The gun was returned to me when the elderly owner moved.
The bore is perfect (despite years of neglect) and it shoots as well as it always did.
I purchased it new. In those days I would typically upgrade the action by fitting a steel Clark trigger, Volquartsen sear and hammer, and polishing the trigger bar. This results in a fine and crisp hammer release that is safe and doesn't degrade. I don't believe the Clark triggers are still available. The "gut hook" front sight was removed for a while when it was field gun, but I put it back on for target work.
I gave the gun to a family member that used it for pest control. It was improperly stored, and the exterior of the stainless-steel barrel somehow got pitted.
I didn't think that would happen to stainless, but it did. Fortunately, the damage is only cosmetic, and the rest of the gun is fine. The gun was returned to me when the elderly owner moved.
The bore is perfect (despite years of neglect) and it shoots as well as it always did.
Last edited:
Kevin Stenberg
Well-Known Member
My 22 is the black sheep of the family. It was made by Browning.
I inherited a 1952-or-so Standard with the 4 3/4" barrel. This is the 6th Ruger auto I've owned. None of my accumulated grips, holsters, or even mags will fit. With mags it likes, it does OK--about as consistently accurate as most Single Sixes I've had.
My favorite was probably a MK II 6" tapered barrel. Unlike most 22s, it seemed to prefer Remington Thunderbolts from Walmart!
My favorite was probably a MK II 6" tapered barrel. Unlike most 22s, it seemed to prefer Remington Thunderbolts from Walmart!
CZ93X62
Official forum enigma
That Ruger 22/45 I mentioned above does the thing I love best about the company's 10/22 rifles--they all run on ANYTHING. I cannot say that about some other 22s in the toy chest--Win 290 and SIG Mosquito, I'm talking about YOU here. Those two arms are my Steak & Lobster Cotillion Debutantes--CCI ammo ONLY, HV ONLY, and then they will behave. Kind of a PITA.
The Rugers behave wonderfully, though. They don't give a rip about ammo, they just want to RUN. Even the crummy Remington loss-leader cheep stuff--"Just give me MORE, please!" Rugers just plain RUN.
The Rugers behave wonderfully, though. They don't give a rip about ammo, they just want to RUN. Even the crummy Remington loss-leader cheep stuff--"Just give me MORE, please!" Rugers just plain RUN.