Is the Ruger Mk II better than the Mk I or Mk III ?

[wrightd]

Is the Ruger Mk II better than the Mk I or Mk III ? Why ?

 

[wwb]

The ONLY shortcomings of the first generation were the use of the safety as a bolt lock, and the lack of a last shot hold-open feature. The Mark II took care of these problems.

The Mark III is a giant step backwards.... I understand the need to add the LCI and the magazine disconnect in order to satisfy the requirements in certain unmentioned lunatic-controlled states - however, they add nothing to, and in fact, detract from the pistol as a whole.[/b]

 

[Snake45]

The ONLY shortcomings of the first generation were the use of the safety as a bolt lock, and the lack of a last shot hold-open feature. The Mark II took care of these problems.[/b]

The little finger-grooves at the back of the receiver made the MKII easier to cock, too. The MKII was just a better mousetrap all the way around. The MKIII is a big step backwards.

 

[CajunBass]

I don't see enough difference to worry about.

 

[steveinaz]

The Mark III is a pure lawyer gun. Bill Ruger is rolling over in his grave over that debacle.

 

[airwin]

Yes, the MK II is the best of the MK pistols! The MK II has a 10 shot mag (instead the 9 shot of the MK I) and a slide stop. These features are useful. Otherwise the MK III has additionally a mag-disconnect and a loaded chamber indicator which are useless features (only my mind). The third modification of the MK III is the mag-release-button in new position which can be operated now with the thumb like at all modern pistols. This last feature I think is a good modification, but not the other safety features of the MK III, what makes the gun unneeded complex.

 

[steveinaz]

I much prefer the heel-clip arrangement on the MkII magazines. No mag catch notch to mess with function of the follower.

 

[Geezer]

The Mark III is a pure lawyer gun. Bill Ruger is rolling over in his grave over that debacle.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Remember that ol' Bill was the one that said that the general public shouldn't have any magazines that held over 10 rounds.

 

[G. Freeman]

The MK-III is a giant step backwards for Ruger. Will never purchase one.

 

[transalp1961]

I have 5 Mark III's and 7 Mark II's. Although they have the same accuracy, I prefer the cleaner look of the Mark II's. I do like the Mark III hunters with the fluted barrels! The one good thing is that they did not cheapen up the Mark III's like they have the new 10/22's.

 

[810wmb]

damn!

here i have been all proud of my MIII i bought last christmas....LOVED it until now


now i find i have bought a PIECE OF CRAP!

I'M SELLING IT TODAY! NO, STRIKE THAT, I'M GIVING IT AWAY!!!



i hope nobody says anything bad about my SR9 or my 1911


:wink:

 

[Spike66]

damn!

here i have been all proud of my MIII i bought last christmas....LOVED it until now


now i find i have bought a PIECE OF CRAP!

I'M SELLING IT TODAY! NO, STRIKE THAT, I'M GIVING IT AWAY!!!



i hope nobody says anything bad about my SR9 or my 1911


:wink:

I'll give you $10 for it. :twisted:

 

[blkhawk]

damn!

here i have been all proud of my MIII i bought last christmas....LOVED it until now


now i find i have bought a PIECE OF CRAP!

I'M SELLING IT TODAY! NO, STRIKE THAT, I'M GIVING IT AWAY!!!



i hope nobody says anything bad about my SR9 or my 1911


:wink:

I voted for the MkII but that's not to say the MkIII is junk. I have a stainless steel MkII Target model and don't see anything in the MkIII, except for the mag release, that is any improvement. The LCI, mag disconnect and internal lock are only 3 new potential areas for problems.

Also don't like the fluted bull barrels and the only non-fluted bull barrels are 5 1/2" and I'd want 6 7/8". On top of that what happened to the stainless Target version? The new MkIII's may be alright but I'll still take a MkII over a MkIII any day.

 

[sheepman]

Voted for the MK II because I like the changes from the MK I and don't care for the changes on the MK III. How ever any one of the three will do and have owned all three, all were great guns. JMHO : Bill

 

[810wmb]

:lol:

aw hell guys, just funning.

i started shooting about 3 1/2 years ago. i bought a p95. i bought a buddy's MI a year later, to shoot a little cheaper.

i gave the MI to my stepson, went out and bought a MIII 5 1/2 bull - i love the gun big time.

as for the changes made - beats me, i only know of what y'all listed. i never did like the heel-clip deal on the MI though.

 

[wwb]

.......i hope nobody says anything bad about my SR9 or my 1911.......

Wouldn"t ever say nothin' bad about a 1911 - sure wish Ruger would build one... I'd add it to my collection real quick.

The SR9...... well, momma always said, "If you can't say somethin' nice, don't say anything at all."

 

[810wmb]

.......i hope nobody says anything bad about my SR9 or my 1911.......

Wouldn"t ever say nothin' bad about a 1911 - sure wish Ruger would build one... I'd add it to my collection real quick.

The SR9...... well, momma always said, "If you can't say somethin' nice, don't say anything at all."

:lol:

yep, i know!

i got a good one though

 

[fallujah]

I dont see any major objections to complain about. My Mk III shoots like a dream. As regards the magazine disconnector, I dont see why anyone would lose sleep over that. So what?

 

[Hauss]

About the only thing that I don't like about my mark III is the LCI. It really does not look right on the side of the receiver. I can deal with all the other safety issues, because they are basically internal. But that darned LCI just bothers me.

 

[kscott]

Also don't like the fluted bull barrels and the only non-fluted bull barrels are 5 1/2" and I'd want 6 7/8".

Here ya go...

http://ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/FAPr ... l=10112&re