Ruger Mark II vs Mark III
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: Ruger Mark II vs Mark III

  1. #1

    Ruger Mark II vs Mark III

    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!

    "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum"

  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Honolulu, HI & Salt Lake City, UT
    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.

    "A few well placed shots with a .22LR is a lot better than a bunch of solid misses with a .44 mag!" Glock Armorer, NRA Chief RSO, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Muzzleloading Rifle, Muzzleloading Shotgun, and Home Firearm Safety Training Counselor

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Glock Fan View Post
    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.

    Ohhhhhhhhh I just looked that up and MAN i got hooked. I suddenly forgot all about the Ruger. Thanks GF!
    "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum"

  5. #4
    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.
    "When the outflow exceeds the inflow, the upkeep becomes the downfall"

  6. 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...

  7. #6
    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.
    Gun control: Forcing a 95lb woman to fist fight a 300lb rapist

  8. 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.

  9. #8
    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.
    Sharon Schuckman
    Put on the Armor of God. And carry the biggest weapon you have.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    South Carolina, Myrtle Beach
    Yes the MKIII is a pain to strip but it shoots great I have the Hunter with the 6" barrel and love it. The magazine disconnect does not bother me it is not a carry gun. Mine has been finacky with ammo. Loves the dirty Remmington Thunderbolts hates the Gold and Match. No problems with any Federal, CCI or Eley.

  11. #10
    There is no real difference between a MKI, MKII, or a MKIII.
    There are product improvements, some real and some to please the California gun regulation board.

    The loaded chamber indicator is silly [IMHO] because all guns are always loaded.

    The magazine release is a butt cap on a MKII and the MKIII has a button like a 1911.

    It is easy to shoot, reliable, and the procedure to strip and reassemble is easy to learn and do.

    The MKI does not have grasping relief cuts and IIRC the slide does not lock open and the magazine only hold 9 rounds.
    The people think the Second Amendment protects their rights;
    Government sees an obstacle to be over-come.
    NRA Life since 1966

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts