Ruger Mark II vs Mark III

[capo2186]

If this came up before I apologize. I am admitting right from the start that I did not search I figured I would just ask. Flames are welcome for it!

Anyone have a liking to one over the other. I would love to pick up a used Mark II however I am not opposed to the Mark III. What do you guys like better? Any reasons for it? Also what does a reasonably priced Mark III go for? Only curious. Thanks for all your help! You guys always provide me feedback that really helps me out. Thanks!

Thanks,
Capo

[Glock Fan]

Don't like either one of them. Ruger .22 caliber pistols are a pain in the butt to break down. If you want a good .22 that's not a pain to work with, I highly recommend the "Beretta Neos" pistol. The gun eats virtually anything, and is a breeze to clean after a day of shooting.



gf

[capo2186]

Originally Posted by Glock Fan

Don't like either one of them. Ruger .22 caliber pistols are a pain in the butt to break down. If you want a good .22 that's not a pain to work with, I highly recommend the "Beretta Neos" pistol. The gun eats virtually anything, and is a breeze to clean after a day of shooting.



gf

Ohhhhhhhhh I just looked that up and MAN i got hooked. I suddenly forgot all about the Ruger. Thanks GF!

[DarrellM5]

I love the Ruger MKII. It's not hard to break down if you know the technique. It's very accurate and a blast to shoot.

[dacaur]

I had the same delemma. I was going to get a new (standard) MKIII For $260, But when I went in, there was a used MKII 22/45 for $195.... Now that I have read up a little more, Im glad I got the MKII....

The differences....

MKIII has a "loaded chamber" indicator on the side. The early versions could fire a round if the indicator was struck. They fixed it in later versions, so if you go for the MK III make sure its one of the fixed versions... i dont know how you can tell, sorry...

MK II can be fired without a magazine in. MK III CANNOT be fired without a magazine in. Unfortunately, the mechanism they use for this makes the MK III quite a bit harder to reassemble after you break it down for cleaning. I seen posts where people had to take it back to a gun shop for assistance...

A MK II 22/45 is easier to reassemble than a standard MK II (or III) because there is one step that doesn't apply to the 22/45, which can be tricky. The one downside to the 22/45 is that the clip is a bit more of a pain to eject, due to it hitting my palm, because its as long as the bottom of the grip, vs the standard models that is about 50% as long as the bottom...( try it at the gun shop, you will see what im talking about) The 22/45 version also has the clip release on the side near the trigger guard, vs on the bottom for the standard versions, while the MK III has it near the trigger guard on all versions...

[Ryan H]

I bought a brand new Mark III a couple of months ago. Breaking it down was a bear the first couple of times, but now I can practically do it with my eyes closed, just as with any of my other firearms. Honestly, the II and III are both excellent handguns. My Mark III Target has had well over 600 rounds through it now and hasn't had a single hiccup (CCI FMJ and Remington "Golden Bullets")! It is extremely accurate, just as accurate if not more than any other .22 pistol out there off of the shelves (1.5" groups off hand at 25 yards), and it is built like a tank! I can't see mine EVER wearing out.

[stresco]

I love my MKIII. I have the 5" Fluted barrel with Crimson Trace Grips. Hindsite, I would have prefered wooden grips, I never use the laser.

[Shari]

I have the Ruger Mark III and I love it.
I even changed the grip to where I have a thumb rest.

Don't be afraid of that gun because she is sweet and I have not had any problems with Rugie.