1957 Mark I Standard

[BRL]

Picked this one up yesterday at a LGS and function tested it today after a good cleaning...excellent results! :D

Great shape given its age.

Came with a MK II magazine, but I can live with that given that this one is my plinker and not a safe queen by any means.

Sent an old shooting buddy a teasing type e-mail today, asking if he was jealous of my new toy, and his reply was..."Of what?"

...sends me a picture of his 1953 MK I Standard he picked up today at a gun show...with a Mark I magazine even... :shock:

Can't wait 'til he shows up Tues. for our usual gravel pit plinking session! 8)

BIG FUN! :D

 

[golferboy426]

not a Mark !, it's a Standard, mark !'s have adjustable sights, common slang but incorrect

 

[Sam Johnson]

You did good, Nice .

 

[BRL]

I thought the models without the cocking scallops etc. were all Mark I's?

Adjustable sighted ones being the MK I Target models, and the fixed sighted ones were MK I Standard models?

Learn something new every day.

Whatever they're called they sure are a real blast to plink with! :D

 

[Jim Puke]

Nice looking old gun.

 

[Highstandardguy]

Still not quite right. The "Standard" models are RST-4 (which you have) and RST-6 and are not MKIs and have no MKI roll mark on the receiver. The T-514, T-512 and T-678 are target models and are roll marked as MKI.

 

[BRL]

OK so I'm incorrect on their actual title, but I will still describe them as a MK I to friends so as to differentiate them from the MK II III IV etc.

However I know that I am correct in describing them as being a ton of FUN to plink with at the ol' gravel pit! :D

...poor soda pop cans never stood a chance, even with their fixed sights. 8)

 

[chet15]

Yeah..even Ruger makes this mistake today. When Ruger came out with their .22 auto they called it "Ruger Pistol". Then the Mark I came out in December 1950, so they started calling the first model a "Standard".
Everybody gets fouled up on this because the fixed sight and adj. sight Mark II's are all Mark II's.
Chet15

 

[edlmann]

The real covers of Ruger Mark I/Standard and Mark II instruction manuals:

Something I did one day when I was bored:

ETA: I should be ashamed of myself.




I'm not, but I should be.

 

[BRL]

The real covers of Ruger Mark I/Standard and Mark II instruction manuals:
ETA: I should be ashamed of myself.

I'm not, but I should be.

I actually had to go to the Ruger website to see what you had done.

Ya done good! :D

My (MK I) Standard was made in 1957 and is 57 years old.

I was made in 1957 and am 57 years old.

...this purchase was meant to be!

Me and my shooting buddy have been friends since I was 14 years old, and we were out plinking with our Crossman Powermaster BB/pellet rifles nearly every Sat. & Sun.

This outing with our new Ruger pistols was every bit as fun as I recall from back in those days. 8)

...can't wait 'til spring. :shock:

 

[Jeffro57]

There's a few of us '57 models out here. Some have obviously aged better than I have.

 

[edlmann]

I was made in 1957 and am 57 years old.

There's a few of us '57 models out here.

!@#$% teenagers! :lol:

 

[m657]

re: "correct in describing them as being a ton of FUN"

totally agree!!!

My own Precious, a 5 digit RST-4 from 1953, recently completed a Steel Challenge match!
We both managed to finish in the middle half of the bunch, despite being 3 times older than some of the participants....

 

[WIL TERRY]

The RUGER STANDARD 22 Autoloading pistol is the Standard by which ALL other 22 pistols have been judged since. ALL have been found wanting in comparison.
BUT when we decide to make up our own terminology pretty soon NO ONE knows which/or/what/in/the/dickens you are talking about !!!
WBR used the word "mark" meaning CHANGE I, CHANGE II, CHANGE III in the ENGLISH language which had been standard terminology in armaments for 50 years by 1949/50.
THERE WAS NOT THEN NOR WILL THERE EVER BE A MARK I STANDARD NOR A STANDARD MARK I.
And so it goes...

 

[Ale-8(1)]

Amen.

If it doesn't say MKI on the left side of the receiver . . . it isn't one.

:) ;) :)

Edlmann, do you realize how many fools will see copies of your work and spend the rest of their lives corrupting the DNA of Ruger collecting???

;)

 

[G2]

I had this old holster kicking around in a old box of "stuff" so had to find a gun to fit. :roll:

Hey if you want a set of wood grip panels drop me a PM. :wink:

 

[27 Man]

Nice leather.

 

[edlmann]

The real covers of Ruger Mark I/Standard and Mark II instruction manuals:

Something I did one day when I was bored:

ETA: I should be ashamed of myself.




I'm not, but I should be.

Edlmann, do you realize how many fools will see copies of your work and spend the rest of their lives corrupting the DNA of Ruger collecting??? ;)

my reply

 

[street]

The real covers of Ruger Mark I/Standard and Mark II instruction manuals:

Something I did one day when I was bored:

ETA: I should be ashamed of myself.




I'm not, but I should be.

The above copy of the paper work that comes from Ruger is a prime example of why one shouldn't get too excited when someone call a Ruger Standard a Standard Mark I. Even Ruger can't get it right and they make and sell the gun!!!!! Most collectors know that it is a Standard Ruger and not a Standard Mark I. And as most of us know what it is, there is no reason to get upset over it. As Ruger started calling their Standard guns Mark II Standard and Mark III Standard right off the bat, most newer collectors of Rugers starting calling the old original Standard guns Mark I Standards so as not to confuse them with the Mark II, and Mark IIIs.

So if Ruger can't get it right, then give the collector who can't get it right a little slack please!!! :wink:

 

[WIL TERRY]

I disagree. ALL the MKII [ Change II ] guns were just that, ALL MKII's. ALL the MKIII [ Change III ] were just that as all the MKII?MKII guns contain all the changes of their series.
THE STANDARD did not include ANY of the MKI changes---better sights, better BBL, better trigger etc---and are not were not ever never ever part of the MKI series of pistols.
AND you are misreading what STURM RUGER & CO says in their brochures...
And so it goes...

 

[rugerguy]

so much easier and cheaper to put BOTH in ONE catalog( owners manual) thats why you have to read and decipher, and SEE which is which, not that hard and it is in English, no need to push buttons.
hell today everyone wants you to download some sort of file, screw 'em, give me the owners manual, let me read and understand it......it ain't rocket science boys and girls...........
wish I had a PENNY for everytime some one asked me this at any given gun show, I'd be RICH !!!

 

[street]

It is written in Rugers Instruction Manual per Edlmann post:

( Mark I
Target Model and Standard Model)

I don't see how you could misread that! It's saying that the Mark I, has both a Target and Standard Model! Just how hard is it to read this, it is in English after all!

How hard would it have been for Ruger to put the following on their parts list instead. This would have shown the two models are not Mark Is:

(Standard Model and Mark I Target)

It would have been easy to read and just as easy and cheap and very easy to decipher if Ruger had done it this way!!! It wouldn't have been rocket science to have done it this way either, nor brain surgery!

 

[WIL TERRY]

FOR CHRISAKKES QUIT IT !!! NO where in ANY Ruger literature does it say MKI STANDARD.

IT is the MKI TARGET, PERIOD.

AND with ten [ 10 ] like in less than eleven and more than nine [ 9] , there are TEN Rugers in my family tree and I KNOW how they they named the damn things.

NOT FRICKIN QUIT YOUR SILLY GUESSING GAMES !!!

 

[rugerguy]

I read in BOTH places,here, and in any and ALL of the 22 semiauto manuals that I have,,say BOTH , Mark I AND standard ......key word is the conjuction "and"..........which is just what 'street' is saying, look above on his post on this page, and as he says, MOST of us, kinda know already just what they meant when they did it, thus one less "manual"..........though they could have kept printing the FIRST manual, "pre Mark I" kept things all proper and such 8) :roll:

so yes, 'brl', the gun you pictured at the top is a 'standard' auto (RST-4) of the early era....... :wink:

hey, happy hanukkah to all of our Jewish friends................ :)

 

[bob kk]

Local range had a tin can shoot about 30 years ago. A man with a Ruger Standard model beat all the shooters. There were Colt match targets and S&W M41's shooting and he took all the prizes with that Ruger. I have a MK1 bull barrel I bought new in 1969. It's ben a good shooter.

 

[rugerguy]

same thing here, a former police Sgt Brian Delehanty, of the PD, shot a 288 out of 300 Bullseye match, using an RST-4............

 

[WAYNO]

I had this old holster kicking around in a old box of "stuff" so had to find a gun to fit. :roll:

Hey if you want a set of wood grip panels drop me a PM. :wink:

Wow. I've got the holsters twin. :mrgreen:



WAYNO.