How accurate are the fixed sights on a Ruger MK pistol?

[Lou_NC]

I'm thinking about buying a Ruger standard model pistol to compliment my target model. I like the look of the fixed sight models, and the low-profile of the fixed sights, but I am reluctant to buy one, wondering if the sights are regulated well enough for "plinking" accuracy? (To me that's within about 2" of point of aim at 50 feet).

I'm curious about folks' collective experience with these pistols and how well-regulated the fixed sights are with a variety of .22 ammo?

Thanks,
Lou

 

[Snake45]

Ruger's been making them a long time. Something tells me they have some idea of how to make the sights look more or less where the gun shoots.

The rear sight can be drifted for windage, and the front sight can, if need be, be filed for elevation. (It probably won't need it.)

I started my shooting career as an adjustable sight nerd. Nowadays nearly all my autopistols have "fixed" sights that have been regulated to my own use. The ones that still have adjustables haven't been adjusted in years.

Buy it, shoot it. I bet you'll like it.

 

[contender]

Quite often the Ruger Standard is a more accurate gun than people expect it to be. It's a great "plinker" type of pistol.

 

[Cape Cod Terry]

Hi Lou, I own a blued standard model and a stainless Mark II both with fixed sights. These are my favorite range plinkers and are shot from 10 to 25 yards ( the max length of the range I belong to). The standard model was basically right on at 50 feet, I did a minor drift correction on the Mark II to center it from maybe two inches left at 25 yards. Both are more accurate than my single six with a longer barrel and adjustable sights. Everybody's hands, eyes, and trigger fingers are different but the guns were designed to be accurate plinkers, and they are. I buy whatever brick ammo is on sale or in stock and can't say I have noticed a measurable difference but I am partial to CCi Blazer. Idon't think you will be disapointed with a standard model.
Cape Cod Terry

 

[Dirty Bob]

I just bought a MkIII 22/45 version of the Standard, and I'm very pleased with it. Mine came from Bass Pro Shops. I mention that because I haven't seen it anywhere else.

So far, it's more accurate than I am with every ammo I've tried in it. Great little pistol!

You can see a pic of it at:

http://api.photoshop.com/home_70f7cd42f ... 4b872a3448

All my best,
Dirty Bob

 

[DarkStarCrossed]

I recently picked up a new MKIII4 standard and at 50 feet it hits to point of aim with Federal bulk pack and CCI mini mags... very accurate little gun...

 

[DMN]

I have a Mark III Standard with the 6". Very accurate at 25 yards. In fact, it's my favorite iron sight pistol. Now.....if I can only get my eyes squared away. :lol:

 

[Snake45]

Fixed sights got their bad rap from decades of the tiny notches in service revolvers such as the Smith & Wesson M10, and the tiny sights on military M1911s. Today's fixed (or semi-fixed) sights are much larger and easier to see and shoot. If the sight picture is the same, and the sights look where the gun is shooting, who cares whether they're adjustable or not?

Let's not forget that sights have absolutely NOTHING to do with the inherent accuracy of any given gun. What the sights do is let the shooter USE the accuracy of that gun.

The most accurate 1911 I've ever shot wears the tiny USGI WWII sights. They are hard to see and thus the gun is very hard to shoot well. But put it on a bench with a rest, under good lighting conditions, and really concentrate on those mini-sights and that stupid thing will fling them all through the same hole.

 

[edlmann]

I'm thinking about buying a Ruger standard model pistol to compliment my target model. I like the look of the fixed sight models, and the low-profile of the fixed sights, but I am reluctant to buy one, wondering if the sights are regulated well enough for "plinking" accuracy? (To me that's within about 2" of point of aim at 50 feet).

A matter of semantics: fixed sights are always more accurate than adjustable sights since you know that the adjustment hasn't slipped. Whether or not the point of impact is where you want it to be is another matter.

 

[Bearlaker]

I've only had two adjustable sight pistols in my life, a Hi-Power Standard and my P4MKIII, neither of which I've ever had to adjust. I've never seen the point of adjustable sights on a pistol.

 

[Lou_NC]

I've only had two adjustable sight pistols in my life, a Hi-Power Standard and my P4MKIII, neither of which I've ever had to adjust. I've never seen the point of adjustable sights on a pistol.

Adjustable sights are very handy for centerfire pistols and revolvers, particularly if you reload. You may choose a bullet weight and velocity for accuracy, and the impact point of that load may differ substantially than other loads and bullet weights. So, assuming you want to hit exactly where you're aiming, having the option of adjustable sights can be very handy in that case. Even different bullet weights in the same caliber and brand of factory ammo can impact to different points on a target.

My question may not have been clear. What I'm trying to ask is this:
What has the expeience been of folks regarding the fixed sights on Ruger MK series standard pistols? Specifically, do the pistols generally shoot reasonably close to point of aim (defined by me as 2") with a variety of .22 ammo, at a reasonable distance (I asked about 50 feet).

Thanks,
Lou

 

[jupiter]

I just need to learn how to use them....

 

[wingspar]

I have a Standard that was made in 1950, pre Mark I. Tho I haven't shot the gun for more than 20 years, it's been in storage that long. I've recently taken it out and photographed it. That's it in my avatar. The brown truck just delivered some ammo, and I hope to get it out and shoot it sometime soon. I don't know if I'll remember to post back with my results on accuracy, but as I recall, I never had a problem with accuracy before.

 

[rugerguy]

In the hands of a GOOD shooter, they are very accurate, as said, once you know where they hit , with whichever ammo you may be using.....one of the guys on our pistol team ,years ago, shot a RST-4 in competition,to......
proove a point... and shot a 288 out of a possible 300.....

 

[Ale-8(1)]

Way back when I was still young and had good vision and a steady hand, I shot all the way thru NRA 50-ft smallbore Sixth-Bar Sharpshooter qualification with my "fixed sight" Single-Six. I could no more do that today than I could grow wings and fly. The limitation was not the inherent accuracy of the gun, but the fact that above Sixth Bar the timed and rapid fire portions of the qualification strings were impossible for me to do with the single-action revolver, shooting one-handed as required by that qualification.

If you're up to it, the gun can do it with you.

 

[tomiswho]

I have a Standard that was made in 1950, pre Mark I. Tho I haven't shot the gun for more than 20 years, it's been in storage that long. I've recently taken it out and photographed it. That's it in my avatar. The brown truck just delivered some ammo, and I hope to get it out and shoot it sometime soon. I don't know if I'll remember to post back with my results on accuracy, but as I recall, I never had a problem with accuracy before.

Though my Standard is 18 years newer than yours, it has always shot to point of aim at distances I can shoot.