JackBull
Hunter
Thinking of getting a Mark IV for plinking. I was told, years back, that the bull barrels were more accurate, is this true? What model's are recommended and why?
Mark IV Barrel
- Thread starter JackBull
- Start date
contender
Ruger Guru
Accuracy seems to be directly associated with a couple of things.
The ammo choice & how a gun fits a person's hands as it settles & balances.
The ammo choice & how a gun fits a person's hands as it settles & balances.
I would say the bull barrel comment falls into the longer barrel category. Just as the longer barrel isn’t more accurate in itself, the added sight radius is what helps. The bull barrel it’s the added mass that helps. Harder to move about freely. Law of inertia applies here.
For many shooters, the front heavy feel of the heavy barrel profile improves 'offhand' accuracy.
Personally, I prefer the feel of the heavy barrel.
Personally, I prefer the feel of the heavy barrel.
I had one of those Competition Target ( I think it was called ) slab side 6 7/8 barrel MKIIs ….. holy cow what a shooter!
Last edited:
A few years before Bill Ruger died he bought his own barrel making machinery. He now had a handle on the quality of his barrels compared to before when he sub-contracted out to the lowest bidder. This is why in the dead hand of the past you often had 1 Ruger rifle shoot amazingly accurate and the next 9 look like scattergun groups. In a TV interview before Bill died he said "I find it rather ridiculous that people go out and buy a custom made barrel for their 10/22 rifle when we now make the most accurate barrels in the world".
Heavy barrels (assuming a quality barrel) do shoot more accurately because the person can hold the gun more steady during the trigger pull and they heat up more slowly which causes less barrel vibration. Heavy barrels also vibrate less violently than standard weight barrels.
The longer the barrel the longer the sighting radius when used with iron sights and you have less aiming error. This of course does not hold true when one uses a scope or electronic sight which are standard equipment now for most competition.
Trigger pull often contributes to 50% of the accuracy of any weapon. When you have a heavy, rough, creepy trigger pull accuracy goes right out the window no matter how good a shot you are and no matter how expensive the ammunition you are shooting.
Quality of the ammo is also paramount to good accuracy. If you think a box of econo-grade blaster ammo like Remington Thunder Turd is going to outshoot the Kings Ransom price ammo like Lapua Midas or Eley Red Box Rifle match you are definitely on drugs.
A dirty, fouled and leaded barrel will not shoot accurately either, but improper barrel cleaning will ruin a match barrel faster than a cat can scratch his rectum.
Over cleaning can ruin a barrel as well. Recently in the past few years two of your top shooters sold off their prior match .22 rifles and the bores were so fouled it was a wonder they did not blow up but it proved one thing and that was that a good shooter using expensive ammo can go long periods between cleaning a barrel. It is just that trying to clean such a fouled barrel can be time consuming and you run the risk of ruining the barrel if you are not careful in the cleaning process. I might add that when these two guns were cleaned they shot every bit as accurately as when they were new. I might add one of the reasons these top shooters did so well was not that they had superior accuracy but they had superior skill in doping the wind. The Achilles heal of .22 rimfire shooting is the devil in the wind. Pick a day with a constantly shifting wind, even one as low as 5 mph and you may as well stop shooting and quit wasting ammo. Go play golf that day instead.
Pál_K
Guns. I has it.
I haz this:
the 10" stainless Mk IV is the heaviest of them all (heavier than 10" blued). The longer sight radius, heavier weight, and increased velocity (less bullet drop) should help in IHMSA smallbore competition with targets from 25 to 100 meters.
the 10" stainless Mk IV is the heaviest of them all (heavier than 10" blued). The longer sight radius, heavier weight, and increased velocity (less bullet drop) should help in IHMSA smallbore competition with targets from 25 to 100 meters.
"should help in IHMSA smallbore competition with targets from 25 to 100 meters."
Many folks don't have any idea of the accuracy capabilities of the Ruger 22 pistols. It's really unfortunate that it's illegal to utilize the 'artillery Luger' type stock attachment.
Many folks don't have any idea of the accuracy capabilities of the Ruger 22 pistols. It's really unfortunate that it's illegal to utilize the 'artillery Luger' type stock attachment.
Pál_K
Guns. I has it.
I wish the front sight were narrower, but it is decent as-is.
When the KMK-10 came out it took IHMSA by storm. You’ll be happy.
nice thing about the longer, say 10 inch guns we used to cut them back to whatever length the customer would want...............the new MK IV and the 5.5 bull barrel is just fine.........good compromise
I've tried them all, but the 5.5" Bull Barrel version just hangs better in the hand, and provides the best accuracy for me...
Very nice looking rig! I’d like to know what base or attachment system you’ve used on your MkIV above. Looks lower/more compact than the typical dovetail-type mount.
Thanks!
It's made by Burris, FastFire base #410329.
lipofsky
Single-Sixer
I have a MK-II Government, many thousand rounds thru it, I will never be able to shoot to the capabilities of this gun. Put it in a Ransom rest a couple years ago, 10 shots, one dime sized hole at 50'. I recently acquired a MK-IV 22/45 target with the bull barrel, shooting from a bean bag rest I make a quarter sized hole.. would like to try the ransom rest again just to see.
" I will never be able to shoot to the capabilities of this gun. "
Nor will most shooters. I did some unconventional things to a 4" 22/45 series 3 in an attempt to determine the mechanical accuray of the pistol. W/o a Ransom or other return to battery rest or bolted solid to the bench I don't think it's humanly possible. I got down to about 3MOA @ 100 yards but that was probably just the limit of the ammo accuracy.
Nor will most shooters. I did some unconventional things to a 4" 22/45 series 3 in an attempt to determine the mechanical accuray of the pistol. W/o a Ransom or other return to battery rest or bolted solid to the bench I don't think it's humanly possible. I got down to about 3MOA @ 100 yards but that was probably just the limit of the ammo accuracy.
Now that's interesting. A shot in the dark here, but do you by any chance remember what brands/types of ammo you used in your testing, and any general conclusions you reached about them or your particular gun?
I know every gun has (often extremely) different tastes in ammo, but I'm planning to do some 100yd rested testing this spring on some of my Marks in lengths of 10", 7.5", 4.4", and 3.5". I have a couple of 2-6x pistol scopes I usually shoot with out to 75yds, plus I plan to experiment with a couple of 1980's Japanese glass Bushnell Trophy 4-12x40AO/6-18x40AO's that normally reside on vintage precision match and sporter air rifles.
I picked up a really nice KMK-10 that was cut back to 7.5" beautifully with the -10 muzzle bevel. I thought it was factory until I did some research:nice thing about the longer, say 10 inch guns we used to cut them back to whatever length the customer would want...............the new MK IV and the 5.5 bull barrel is just fine.........good compromise
I really like the slight taper that was unique to the MK- & KMK-10's. The barrel tapered from 7/8" at the receiver to 3/4" at the muzzle. It was very subtle, but was very pleasing to the eye, even if the viewer didn't explicitly notice the taper. I wish the 10" Mark IV still had this profile.
Last edited:
That's a really nice MKII Ruger. I see that the trigger isn't original, has it had some action work done?
I have a mkIV target, which I like, but frankly my 10" mkII target outshoots it all day, every day.
"A shot in the dark here, but do you by any chance remember what brands/types of ammo you used in your testing,"
RWS was one of better performers. Aguila does quite well. (both sub-sonic). The best was CCI sub-sonic HP. It seems that using sub-sonic ammo may help with longer range accuracy as the bullets don't suffer(?) from the super to sub transition.
I didn't try SV ammo as it's not something I keep on hand.
RWS was one of better performers. Aguila does quite well. (both sub-sonic). The best was CCI sub-sonic HP. It seems that using sub-sonic ammo may help with longer range accuracy as the bullets don't suffer(?) from the super to sub transition.
I didn't try SV ammo as it's not something I keep on hand.
It has a Clark Custom trigger installed as well as gunsmithing on the sear and hammer, for a crisp 3lb break, a little heavier than my Volquartsen trigger kit installs, which come in around 2.25–2.5lb.
Clark no longer offers the trigger, since Volquartsen has pretty much dominated that field. The Clark trigger, like the earlier Volquartsen "paddle" triggers, offers only an over travel screw, but no pre-travel adjustment. Clark traditionally drilled and tapped a pre-travel adjustment screw angled up through the front of the trigger guard. (See photo at end.) Careful sear and hammer work did away with any pre-travel on this pistol.
AMT copied the Clark trigger outright for their Lightning pistol copy of the Ruger Mark back in the early 80s. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe AMT added material to the front of the trigger pivot area to remove some pre-travel without having to add a screw there.) The AMT version is still available and a perfect workaround if you don't mind polishing the trigger's sides for the classic Clark look:
The current Volquartsen triggers incorporate both pre- and over-travel adjustments in the trigger itself, a much improved design.
The Tandem Kross trigger is an equally nice design for adjustments, but unless you have pretty large hands, very long fingers, or just love the radical look, I would avoid them because they move the trigger surface so far forward that people with medium-large or smaller hands wind up pulling on the sharp front corner of the trigger rather than the flat face, unless you're willing to rotate your hand around the grip to increase your trigger finger's reach, which increases the tendency to pull your shot one way or the other.
Here's a Mark II with a Clark-type pre-travel adjustment screw through the trigger guard and an early Volquartsen "paddle" trigger with over-travel screw only in the face of the trigger:
Last edited:
That is what I thought it looked like. My Volquartsen custom based on the MKII Ruger came with the exact trigger and pre-travel screw in the trigger guard as displayed by fwb124. I never cared for the paddle style trigger that Volquartsen used for awhile, but I did like the pre-travel screw in the trigger guard, makes a very robust and strong system. I wound up replacing the paddle trigger with a Clark trigger that was available at that particular time, around 2005 or so pictured below.
Last edited:
I had the MK IV Competition, slab sided bull barrel that I mounted a red dot to and was, by far, the most accurate 22 pistol I have ever shot. I fired a bunch of High Standard's at the range decades ago at Ft. Belvoir and the Ruger is by far, the best. Gave it to my son 20 years ago, hope he has enjoyed it as much as I did.
