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.