RugerForum.com

This is a Ruger Firearms enthusiast's forum, but it is in no way affiliated with, nor does it represent Sturm Ruger & Company Inc. of Southport, CT.
It is currently Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:33 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Mark IV Target issues?
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 6:32 pm 
Single-Sixer

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 4:54 pm
Posts: 424
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Am seriously considering picking up a Mark IV Target but have never had luck with semi-auto 22s. Now that I know that the Mark IV is MUCH easier to strip/reassemble than prior models I'm just wondering if anyone has experienced any specific issues?

Thanks in advance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:06 am 
Single-Sixer

Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:01 am
Posts: 434
Location: South West Indiana
None that I know of.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:32 am 
Hunter

Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 2:01 am
Posts: 4460
Location: wisconsin
To each his own, but my advice would be to find a nice Mark II Target. As has been stated by many members on this forum, the assembly of the earlier versions is much ado about nothing. Got my first, an RST 6, in 1962, then a MarkI bull barrel, and later, a MarkII T678. Never had an issue with takedown/reassembly. It just ain't that hard!!!

In my opinion, the Mark II was the pinnacle of the Ruger .22 autos, and it's been downhill ever since. YMMV


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:35 am 
Single-Sixer

Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:31 am
Posts: 334
Location: La.
No problems with my MKIV target.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:29 pm 
Single-Sixer

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 4:54 pm
Posts: 424
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Wwb-

Out of curiosity, how has it been down hill since the Mark II?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 5:05 pm 
Buckeye

Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 10:46 pm
Posts: 1746
Location: Athens ,Ga.
Valmet wrote:
Wwb-

Out of curiosity, how has it been down hill since the Mark II?


I have to agree with WWB. They should have just added the mag release button that they put on the MKIII to the MKII. As far as the MKIII negatives the mag disconnect, ugly loaded chamber indicator. And the few I had were unreasonably hard to take down. Not the design but parts were just to tight. On the MKIV the pivot is just ugly. Personally I think the MKIV was a reaction to the S&W Victory sales.

_________________
https://www.facebook.com/Masterclasstargets/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 5:33 pm 
Single-Sixer

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 1:01 am
Posts: 245
Location: Rural Missouri
Had a Mark II years ago. Didn't really care for it. But, I love my Mark IV.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:06 pm 
Blackhawk

Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 5:39 pm
Posts: 773
Location: Northwestern Wisconsin
Valmet wrote:
Wwb-

Out of curiosity, how has it been down hill since the Mark II?


Down hill? I don't think that's been the case at all and I get the opportunity to work on many of these pistols. Unfortunately, some CEO's and "overly protective states" feel the need to protect us gun owners from ourselves by adding "nanny-care" devices to handguns. Thus we have, loaded-round indicators ( LCI's ) and magazine disconnects that were inflicted on the Ruger Mark III. Do those additions make the Ruger Mark III "that much worse" than the Ruger Mark II? NOPE! Both of those added devices are easily thwarted, by the use of an LCI filler and a replacement hammer bushing. Ruger Mark III pistols work just fine and were offered in variations that the Ruger Mark II were not.
The one good addition that some prefer, is the magazine latch/release positioned much like a 1911 grip frame has it. Now, is that a "killer" replacement? Maybe if you're fending off a rampaging herd of 'rogue squirrels', but otherwise the Mark II style magazine release works well enough to do what is expected.
The Mark IV pistol was a surprise to most everyone when it unexpectedly came on the scene. Did Ruger do that specifically because of Smith & Wesson's introduction of their new .22 pistols? Let's see the actual evidence for that WAG.

_________________
Visit http://www.saronagunworks.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:29 pm 
Hunter

Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 2:01 am
Posts: 4460
Location: wisconsin
SGW Gunsmith wrote:
Unfortunately, some CEO's and "overly protective states" feel the need to protect us gun owners from ourselves by adding "nanny-care" devices to handguns. Thus we have, loaded-round indicators ( LCI's ) and magazine disconnects that were inflicted on the Ruger Mark III. Do those additions make the Ruger Mark III "that much worse" than the Ruger Mark II? NOPE! Both of those added devices are easily thwarted, by the use of an LCI filler and a replacement hammer bushing........


True, but I stand by my earlier statement. In this case, you're spending extra $$ to turn a Mark III into a Mark II.

SGW Gunsmith wrote:
...Ruger Mark III pistols work just fine and were offered in variations that the Ruger Mark II were not. ....


True, but once you have the 4" standard, the 6" standard, the 5-1/4 inch bull barrel, and the 6-7/8 inch tapered target barrel, all the rest is pretty much just different shades of lipstick on the same pig, with the exception of the great 8.

SGW Gunsmith wrote:
......The one good addition that some prefer, is the magazine latch/release positioned much like a 1911 grip frame has it. Now, is that a "killer" replacement? Maybe if you're fending off a rampaging herd of 'rogue squirrels', but otherwise the Mark II style magazine release works well enough to do what is expected.....


Agreed.... the Ruger .22 auto wouldn't be my first choice for a combat sidearm. However, running trapline in Minnesota as a kid, I found it quite adequate against muskrats, beavers, foxes, and mink.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:19 am 
Blackhawk

Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 5:39 pm
Posts: 773
Location: Northwestern Wisconsin
wwb wrote:
SGW Gunsmith wrote:
Unfortunately, some CEO's and "overly protective states" feel the need to protect us gun owners from ourselves by adding "nanny-care" devices to handguns. Thus we have, loaded-round indicators ( LCI's ) and magazine disconnects that were inflicted on the Ruger Mark III. Do those additions make the Ruger Mark III "that much worse" than the Ruger Mark II? NOPE! Both of those added devices are easily thwarted, by the use of an LCI filler and a replacement hammer bushing........


True, but I stand by my earlier statement. In this case, you're spending extra $$ to turn a Mark III into a Mark II.

SGW Gunsmith wrote:
...Ruger Mark III pistols work just fine and were offered in variations that the Ruger Mark II were not. ....


True, but once you have the 4" standard, the 6" standard, the 5-1/4 inch bull barrel, and the 6-7/8 inch tapered target barrel, all the rest is pretty much just different shades of lipstick on the same pig, with the exception of the great 8.

SGW Gunsmith wrote:
......The one good addition that some prefer, is the magazine latch/release positioned much like a 1911 grip frame has it. Now, is that a "killer" replacement? Maybe if you're fending off a rampaging herd of 'rogue squirrels', but otherwise the Mark II style magazine release works well enough to do what is expected.....


Agreed.... the Ruger .22 auto wouldn't be my first choice for a combat sidearm. However, running trapline in Minnesota as a kid, I found it quite adequate against muskrats, beavers, foxes, and mink.


Who the hell has ever suggested that any Ruger Mark pistol should be considered a "combat weapon". SHEESH! The Ruger Mark pistols are target, plinking and hunting firearms, nothing to go to war with, and to state otherwise is ridiculous.
I've worked on a multitude of these Ruger Mark pistols for 50 years and have NEVER found any to be 'scary' or otherwise impossible to becoming fully functional and extremely reliable pistols. Most all complaints involved with these fine guns involve ignorance, rather than malfeasance in operation.

_________________
Visit http://www.saronagunworks.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:28 am 
Ruger Guru

Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2002 1:01 am
Posts: 34828
Location: Lake Lure NC USA
"Who the hell has ever suggested that any Ruger Mark pistol should be considered a "combat weapon". SHEESH! The Ruger Mark pistols are target, plinking and hunting firearms, nothing to go to war with, and to state otherwise is ridiculous."

The US Government (and others) suggested the Ruger be a combat weapon. That is why Ruger got several government contracts for various MK pistols over the decades.
Don Findley wrote an excellent article on the US marked MK guns a year or three ago for the American Rifleman.
I'd NEVER call Don Findley ridiculous. Noe would I call the various MK collectors who chase & have these US marked guns ridiculous.

Just a fact,, not argumentative. Making sure others out there who have never seen one or who have seen one know that there ARE US military marked MK guns.

_________________
Shoot straight and safe!

" A fine is a tax for doing wrong,
and a tax is a fine for doing
right! "
NRA Instructor
USPSA shooter
SASS shooter (Outlaw Joe Wales)
NRA Women On Target Instructor
NC Hunter Safety Instructor
Nuisance Wildlife Control
Scuba Instructor
Eagle Scout, BSA


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:29 pm 
Buckeye
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 7:18 pm
Posts: 1276
Location: NH "Live FREE or Die"
contender wrote:
"Who the hell has ever suggested that any Ruger Mark pistol should be considered a "combat weapon". SHEESH! The Ruger Mark pistols are target, plinking and hunting firearms, nothing to go to war with, and to state otherwise is ridiculous."

The US Government (and others) suggested the Ruger be a combat weapon. That is why Ruger got several government contracts for various MK pistols over the decades.
Don Findley wrote an excellent article on the US marked MK guns a year or three ago for the American Rifleman.
I'd NEVER call Don Findley ridiculous. Noe would I call the various MK collectors who chase & have these US marked guns ridiculous.

Just a fact,, not argumentative. Making sure others out there who have never seen one or who have seen one know that there ARE US military marked MK guns.



I would disagree that the Ruger Mk I US guns were meant for combat..Sure I know of a very few that were fitted with suppressors for anti-personnel ops but the others were for target use...I would have to agree with SGW’s assessment which I believe he was just trying to make a general point...the Ruger 22 pistols were not designed or intended for combat use...

Not trying to argumentative, just factual...

_________________
NH Rugerman
NRA Benefactor Member
GONH Life Member
RENE Member
ROCS Member


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:56 pm 
Hunter

Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 2:01 am
Posts: 4460
Location: wisconsin
SGW Gunsmith wrote:
Who the hell has ever suggested that any Ruger Mark pistol should be considered a "combat weapon". SHEESH! The Ruger Mark pistols are target, plinking and hunting firearms, nothing to go to war with, and to state otherwise is ridiculous.
I've worked on a multitude of these Ruger Mark pistols for 50 years and have NEVER found any to be 'scary' or otherwise impossible to becoming fully functional and extremely reliable pistols. Most all complaints involved with these fine guns involve ignorance, rather than malfeasance in operation.


Maybe poorly stated and easily misinterpreted, but if you re-read my statement, you'll see that I never said the pistols were intended for combat.... just that the mag release would be a poor choice for a combat sidearm. In fact, I was agreeing with his statement that the heel-type mag release was just fine for the intended purpose.

Don't know why his panties got in a bunch.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:32 pm 
Bearcat

Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:46 pm
Posts: 30
This thread is full of BS. I have a Std, a Mark I, a Mark II, a Mark III and a Mark IV. All have good fit and finish, perform remarkably and exhibit good accuracy. I do like my mark IV, but truthfully its a rare day I have to field strip any of the other 4. I might give the Mark II a bit of an edge on accuracy, though. Adding loaded chamber indicators, whether a legal issue or not, is really no reason to invalidate the guns functionality. If you are a wuss and can't take apart a Ruger, you better do more reading, or trade it in on a High Point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:52 am 
Blackhawk

Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 5:39 pm
Posts: 773
Location: Northwestern Wisconsin
wwb wrote:
SGW Gunsmith wrote:
Unfortunately, some CEO's and "overly protective states" feel the need to protect us gun owners from ourselves by adding "nanny-care" devices to handguns. Thus we have, loaded-round indicators ( LCI's ) and magazine disconnects that were inflicted on the Ruger Mark III. Do those additions make the Ruger Mark III "that much worse" than the Ruger Mark II? NOPE! Both of those added devices are easily thwarted, by the use of an LCI filler and a replacement hammer bushing........


True, but I stand by my earlier statement. In this case, you're spending extra $$ to turn a Mark III into a Mark II.

SGW Gunsmith wrote:
...Ruger Mark III pistols work just fine and were offered in variations that the Ruger Mark II were not. ....


True, but once you have the 4" standard, the 6" standard, the 5-1/4 inch bull barrel, and the 6-7/8 inch tapered target barrel, all the rest is pretty much just different shades of lipstick on the same pig, with the exception of the great 8.

SGW Gunsmith wrote:
......The one good addition that some prefer, is the magazine latch/release positioned much like a 1911 grip frame has it. Now, is that a "killer" replacement? Maybe if you're fending off a rampaging herd of 'rogue squirrels', but otherwise the Mark II style magazine release works well enough to do what is expected.....


Agreed.... the Ruger .22 auto wouldn't be my first choice for a combat sidearm. However, running trapline in Minnesota as a kid, I found it quite adequate against muskrats, beavers, foxes, and mink.


These are your words, not mine. It probably doesn't even matter if a pistols accuracy is not of the target variety when you pop a "trapped" critter at 5-feet or so.
Consider, a new Ruger Mark III pistol owner is under absolutely NO obligation to spend any more $$$ on his pistol, other than for extra magazines and more ammunition. Some Ruger Mark III pistols owners choose to "personalize" their pistols, by adding options Ruger didn't provide. That's their personal choice, and one that really doesn't need to be defended.
If anyone doesn't like the Ruger Mark III, so be it, don't get one. But to whine about what others want to do with their personal weaponry, is just foolish.

_________________
Visit http://www.saronagunworks.com


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group