Difference between MK1 and MKII.

Help Support Ruger Forum:

1828

Bearcat
Joined
May 23, 2022
Messages
6
What are the major differences between mark 1 and mark 2. pistols?
 

Jeepnik

Hawkeye
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
5,230
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

Blackhawk
Joined
Nov 8, 2004
Messages
682
All I remember is the Mark I that I had was a terrible pain to take down for a full cleaning.
 
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
7,777
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........:cool::rolleyes:;)
 

louiethelump

Buckeye
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
1,869
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

Hawkeye
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
5,230
So you’re saying instead of learning the manual of arms for a handgun manufacturers should just keep adding junk to their products.
 

louiethelump

Buckeye
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
1,869
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

Hunter
Joined
Sep 17, 2013
Messages
2,159
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

Buckeye
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
1,869
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.
 
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
7,777
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.......:cool::rolleyes:;)
 

louiethelump

Buckeye
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
1,869
Well, then,,,,, that is different.
1653601673899
 

Dan in MI

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 9, 2003
Messages
2,756
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

Hawkeye
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
9,989
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
 

Busterswoodshop

Buckeye
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
1,073
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.
 

wproct

Single-Sixer
Joined
Nov 7, 2006
Messages
239
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

Bearcat
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
89
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
 

Latest posts

Top