Mark IV Target issues?

Help Support Ruger Forum:

Valmet

Single-Sixer
Joined
Oct 9, 2016
Messages
410
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.
 

wwb

Hunter
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
2,867
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
 

1gunsnotenough

Buckeye
Joined
Nov 30, 2008
Messages
1,873
Location
Athens ,Ga.
Valmet said:
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.
 

SGW Gunsmith

Blackhawk
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
966
Location
Northwestern Wisconsin
Valmet said:
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.
 

wwb

Hunter
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
2,867
Location
wisconsin
SGW Gunsmith said:
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 said:
...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 said:
......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.
 

SGW Gunsmith

Blackhawk
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
966
Location
Northwestern Wisconsin
wwb said:
SGW Gunsmith said:
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 said:
...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 said:
......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.
 

contender

Ruger Guru
Joined
Sep 18, 2002
Messages
25,145
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.
 
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
1,781
Location
NH: LIVE FREE OR DIE
contender said:
"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...
 

wwb

Hunter
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
2,867
Location
wisconsin
SGW Gunsmith said:
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.
 

GypsmJim

Single-Sixer
Joined
Mar 19, 2011
Messages
374
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.
 

SGW Gunsmith

Blackhawk
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
966
Location
Northwestern Wisconsin
wwb said:
SGW Gunsmith said:
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 said:
...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 said:
......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.
 

SGW Gunsmith

Blackhawk
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
966
Location
Northwestern Wisconsin
Getting back to the original post. There are a few things that I have seen/found on the Ruger Mark IV pistols that have crossed my bench, but are easily rectified.
Under the right side grip panel resides the "magazine ejector assist". This seems to be a response to some of the complaints involving the magazine disco. On my personal Ruger Mark IV Competition Target, and a couple of those I;ve come across, the magazine ejector assist ( it's a plastic part ) had a bit of distortion on the periphery at its top end. This plastic distortion of the radius prevented the ejector assist to get fully upward in the grip frame and magazines would drop after 4 or 5 rounds, as the magazine became lighter and the ejector took over. I removed the magazine ejector and the problem went away, so then I trimmed the top of the ejector until it seated more fully and the issue was resolved:

jdGF2ail.jpg


This little rubber "bumper", for lack of a better part identification, has gotten mangled up after only a couple of upper removals and replacement. The manual that came with this pistol doesn't ID the part, so I'm not sure what a replacement will cost. With Rugers $15.00 shipping cost with most parts, it doesn't seem worth it, so I've been experimenting with making a replacement from a mid-range plastic:

GxCLbt9l.jpg


Some folks, including myself, are not overly enamored with the trigger pull weight that these guns arrive with. The Ruger engineers who contrived this version of the Ruger Mark have done their best to thwart any parts replacement, but, if you have one of these pistols and are happy as a clam with it as is, by all means ENJOY!

As for me, I won't rest until I get the trigger pull weight down to around 2½ to 3 pounds..........SAFELY.
 

SGW Gunsmith

Blackhawk
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
966
Location
Northwestern Wisconsin
Getting back to the original post. There are a few things that I have seen/found on the Ruger Mark IV pistols that have crossed my bench, but are easily rectified.
Under the right side grip panel resides the "magazine ejector assist". This seems to be a response to some of the complaints involving the magazine disco. On my personal Ruger Mark IV Competition Target, and a couple of those I;ve come across, the magazine ejector assist ( it's a plastic part ) had a bit of distortion on the periphery at its top end. This plastic distortion of the radius prevented the ejector assist to get fully upward in the grip frame and magazines would drop after 4 or 5 rounds, as the magazine became lighter and the ejector took over. I removed the magazine ejector and the problem went away, so then I trimmed the top of the ejector until it seated more fully and the issue was resolved:

jdGF2ail.jpg


This little rubber "bumper", for lack of a better part identification, has gotten mangled up after only a couple of upper removals and replacement. The manual that came with this pistol doesn't ID the part, so I'm not sure what a replacement will cost. With Rugers $15.00 shipping cost with most parts, it doesn't seem worth it, so I've been experimenting with making a replacement from a mid-range plastic:

GxCLbt9l.jpg


Some folks, including myself, are not overly enamored with the trigger pull weight that these guns arrive with. The Ruger engineers who contrived this version of the Ruger Mark have done their best to thwart any parts replacement, but, if you have one of these pistols and are happy as a clam with it as is, by all means ENJOY!

As for me, I won't rest until I get the trigger pull weight down to around 2½ to 3 pounds..........SAFELY.
 

SGW Gunsmith

Blackhawk
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
966
Location
Northwestern Wisconsin
contender said:
"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.

The main purpose of the .22 caliber Rugers, involved use for "training purposes", and for use by the US pistol teams at Camp Perry, for the rimfire competition. I have Mr. Fridley's book, "Bill Ruger's .22 Pistol", also
A few of the US stamped pistols were used by "tunnel rats" in Vietnam, but all of those were Mark I pistols that had integral suppressors ( check page #91 ). Don't think many of those made it to civilian hands. Most of those marked U.S. were issued initially, as "Target" pistols, were returned to Ruger for "refab", and then sold to the public. From what I've been told, most of the tunnel rats in Vietnam preferred 1911 .45 autos rather than a .22. Can't blame 'em for that.
 
Top