Difference between MK1 and MKII.

[1828]

What are the major differences between mark 1 and mark 2. pistols?

 

[rugerguy]

the Mark II holds 10 shots and the last shot the bolt will stay open (Lock back)
and the Mark I ( RST-4 & 6) does not..........

 

[Jeepnik]

The engineers took a perfectly marvelous semiauto .22 pistol and screwed it up creating the MK II. It was the start of adding geegaaws that were totally unnecessary. The trend has continued through the MK III and MK IV

 

[buckeyeshooter]

All I remember is the Mark I that I had was a terrible pain to take down for a full cleaning.

 

[rugerguy]

No, the improvements of the Mark II was all good to us, I recall countless numbers of times at any given range on any given day , the people who shot or were using the older RSTs and mark I s, when they got to the last shot was the gun empty?? or was there still one in the chamber. NO ONE counted the rounds!! heard many, many "clicks on an empty" gun or it went bang....wow eye opener.....good changes they made...later they completely lawyered up and the MARK III was a fiasco, caused the most problems with takedown....I NEVER in 60 years had an issue with any of the RSTs or the Mark Is, and I worked on, shot and owned thousands of them ....having been in the business and shot on pistol teams, worked at Camp Perry back in the 70s and have owned 3 gun shops...nough said........

 

[louiethelump]

Agree on your assessment. The MKIII was the gadget disaster. The MKIV is the solution to the take down issues that were never really issues unless one did not read the instructions. A second job (pretty much required to live on police pay) at local gun shop found so many problems with the MK guns when people took them apart and could not put them back together and would take them to the shop in a bag. They became the “brother in law” guns; as the owner invariably claimed he loaned it to “his brother in law” who took it apart. I would put them back together and collect a labor charge for the shop.

The MK line of pistols are still the overall BEST in my eyes. My first Standard Model bought at KMart for $69 I think it was, that I put a conservative count of 50,000 rounds of mostly cheapest bull ammo through and finally traded off toward a High Standard Trophy, shot as well when I traded it as when new. Now I have a couple of MK IV as they are great, a MK III standard that has the gizmos removed and the best of the best, an all stainless steel MK II 4 3/4” Standard that is the “Perfect” 22 pistol and will be the last to leave my hands.

From my first one at 22 years old to my now 69 years, there have been only brief times I did not have a MK pistol of one generation or another.

Many hate them and many love them.

 

[Jeepnik]

So you’re saying instead of learning the manual of arms for a handgun manufacturers should just keep adding junk to their products.

 

[louiethelump]

Actually YOU said that. I did not. I just said what I said. Not sure how you interpreted it, but whatever.

Are you saying you are against gun manufacturers improving their products???

 

[RSIno1]

With the MKII you had to step up to the optional target model to get the target sights that were standard on the MKI.
But I think you are trying to compare the Standard to the basic MKII.
The MKII was typical of manufacturers adding new things to a perfectly good product to generate a buzz and sell as "new and improved". What I'd consider the big change to the little 1949 pistol didn't occur until the easier to take down MKIV arrived on the scene. All other changes don't make any of them shoot better than an old Standard.
Yes I'm still happy with my lightly used 1970 Standard I bought with the box & papers in the mid 80s for $25.

 

[louiethelump]

Well, on that, I agree with you. My favorite remains the 4 3/4” standard model with fixed sights in all the series variations. You may disagree but a 10 round magazine is better than a 9 round, and a slide lock on an empty magazine is better than not having one. No further comment on the MKIII which added nothing.

 

[rugerguy]

NO the target sights were NOT standard back in the beginning of the Ruger semi auto 22 rimfire pistol,,,they were "standards" (fixed sights) either 4 3/4 in or 6 in, then the Mark I came out with "target" ( adjustable sights. ) the standard was all the way till 1982 when the Mark II came out and ALL the of them ( Models)were Mark II's, "standard" ( fixed) or target ( adjustable)....so NO "step up from a Mark I to a Mark II, just a GOOD improvement, to 10 shots and a hold open on the LAST shot........the Mark III was the biggest cause and problems , issues of take down,,,one HAD to read and follow the manual get all the steps in a row,,,,,duh, and of course the final one (for now?) the Mark IV, even a blind person can take it apart, we'll wait to see how long before this one ends up.........ha ha fat chance ,marketing HAS to come up with a Mark V just to be cool.......

 

[TacoFrank]

Never claimed my brother-in-law took it a part. Blamed my little brother.
TF

 

[louiethelump]

Well, then,,,,, that is different.

 

[Dan in MI]

I find the lack of true knowledge of the history of the MK Series added to assumptions funny.

Add me to the list that thinks the MK-II is the peak of the series and cannot fathom why the addition of controls that match a 1911 could be considered useless marketing additions. (Don’t confuse this comment with the 22/45 edition)

 

[Fox Mike]

Having shot a MK I in competition the MK II was a SUPER improvement. Since most all indoor matches are 10 round strings. With the MK I I would have to chamber a round them insert a 9 round magazine. The MK II eliminated that problem AND the bolt stayed open after the 10th round went downrange. I have two MK IIIs that I have 'modified' so they are just new MK IIs

 

[hittman]

the improvements of the Mark II was all good

they completely lawyered up and the MARK III was a fiasco

Well said!

 

[Busterswoodshop]

I like both , the Mark I and the Mark II.
My favorite is a Mark II with a 10" barrel.
I bought it new in 87 or 88.
I have shot more bullets through it than a truck could carry and it still shoots great and functions perfectly.
It was probably the best $200 I ever spent.

 

[Mobuck]

I vote for the MK2 being an improvement over the MK1.
The MK3 a backslide vs the MK2.
The MK4 a consolation to the mechanically challenged.

 

[wproct]

I agree totally with the last couple of posts or so. While I still like the original Ruger pistols, the MKII is by far my favorite of all. I currently own two of them and they will be some of the very last handguns that I would part with.

 

[Danny]

Having shot a MK I in competition the MK II was a SUPER improvement. Since most all indoor matches are 10 round strings. With the MK I I would have to chamber a round them insert a 9 round magazine. The MK II eliminated that problem AND the bolt stayed open after the 10th round went downrange. I have two MK IIIs that I have 'modified' so they are just new MK IIs

The Highpoint of the Ruger Auto Pistol series was the MKII. It was uphill from the MKI to MKII, then a quick downhill slide from the MKII to the others.

Danny

 

[eveled]

Not enough pictures in this thread. I agree with those who think the MKII was the pinacle of the series. Not only because of the improvements over tge MKI, but because of all the cool MKII variants available.

To the original question by the OP. The early guns did not have the recessed areas behind the bolt ears.

 

[arcticruger]

View attachment 3629View attachment 3630View attachment 3631

”Not enough pictures in this thread”. I agree with those who think the MKII was the pinacle of the series. Not only because of the improvements over tge MKI, but because of all the cool MKII variants available.

How about some plain ol’ Standards then? They are still my favorites

 

[rugerguy]

OK, the differences, front two are RST's ( standard auto) the rest are the Mark I's, my wife liked the early 22 cal Ruger.......

and pictured below will be Dans ,'newer' Mark IIs.....nice selection by the way.....

 

[Dan in MI]

 

[kcsteve]

To make reassembling the Mk easier, turn the pistol upside down.

 

[Thanatos]

The Mk 2 has a bolt hold-open on the last shot, and no, the mags aren't interchangeable. they're still lots of fun, though.

 

[Dan in MI]

The Mk 2 has a bolt hold-open on the last shot, and no, the mags aren't interchangeable. they're still lots of fun, though.

Yes and no. Early A-54 frames have the follower button groove on the opposite side of the frame from later A-100 frames. Easily fixed by swapping the follower button on the magazine to the opposite side also.

 

[lark63]

Yep- Kinda funny at the OGCA shows, most want the Mark IV because the earlier versions are too hard to take apart.
Trying to teach them it's not that hard to do a proper disassembly if you can read and if you have to- YouTube it.
Generally falls on deaf ears.

 

[rugerguy]

yes amazing that for so many years, since 1949 no less, that folks just knew how to use the Ruger semi auto 22 pistol and was not a real problem at all, hell I even knew some old timers that NEVER had to even take them apart, soaked 'em in kerosene, run a swab down the bore, oil a bit and runs like a clock,,,,,even to this day...give me a break and to the above yes, the Mark II mags could, would and do work in the early RUger RSTs and Mark Is, gotta switch the button over...........

 

[NightSailor]

I just put new grips on my Mark II. (eBaY purchase $60). In the same style as the newer Mark IV. I've had this Mark II since the early 90's I'll guess. I wish I bought the bull barrel. I bought it as a back packing gun and used to take it with me on hikes in the California Sierra. At the time, I felt the tapered barrel would be a bit lighter. It is still a somewhat heavy gun. Holster is an unlined Bianchi # 89 which fits perfectly. I would prefer a lined holster. If anyone can recommend one, let me know.

The grips are not a perfect fit as they have cut outs where they are not needed. Still, it's a big improvement over the black plastic grips. I've considered the more common white plastic grips many times over the years but never felt moved to switch.

These wood ones look marvelous though and make me like the Mark II even more. Lighter color looks better. Matching the holster color, suits me as well.

Regarding the Mark IV. I recently ordered a Hunter in SS with a fluted barrel as well. Fell in love with the looks. Which is why I ordered the grips for the Mark II. They are both stunningly good looking pistols. I am debating gifting one to my brother. I'm not sure I could part with either one.