Is the Ruger Mk II better than the Mk I or Mk III ?
- Thread starter wrightd
- Start date
Help Support Ruger Forum:
Coop
Blackhawk
Never had a problem with my MK II's. Why fix something that ain't broke.
Coop
Coop
If I could just get a MK 2.5 I would be a happy camper. A MKII upper, with the MKIII lower, as I really prefer the magazine release. I have a MKII 22/45 that solves that, but it sure is an eyesore compared to a regular MKII. I also have a MKI target that I am quite fond of, but the bolt hold open is a pain.
Ferdinand
Single-Sixer
I have 3 MKII's, and love them dearly. Perhaps the last handguns that I would sell in a financial pinch. The MKIII looks OK, although I'd take a MKII over one of them any day.
G. Freeman
Bearcat
I need to clarify my previous statement. The MK-III does have many good new features that I like--a nicely contoured ejection port and the mag release.
Yeah, I don't care for the LCI and mag disconnect. But good news is the LCI can be removed if function problems cannot be eradicated. The mag disconnect can also be removed later on if the user finds that this feature makes disassembly more difficult. Yes, it's a little more hassle for the new MK-III owner, but Ruger still makes a good gun. Now, if the MK-III owner has no reliability issues with his gun, then that would be a bonus.
Personally, I wouldn't let these feature keep me from buying a MK-III if this will be my first 22LR. However, I would definitely install a VQ extractor and ditch the LCI at the outset.
Yeah, I don't care for the LCI and mag disconnect. But good news is the LCI can be removed if function problems cannot be eradicated. The mag disconnect can also be removed later on if the user finds that this feature makes disassembly more difficult. Yes, it's a little more hassle for the new MK-III owner, but Ruger still makes a good gun. Now, if the MK-III owner has no reliability issues with his gun, then that would be a bonus.
Personally, I wouldn't let these feature keep me from buying a MK-III if this will be my first 22LR. However, I would definitely install a VQ extractor and ditch the LCI at the outset.
A
Anonymous
MK I....
Based on the ingenious design. Lots of folks rate John M. Browning as a deity. I find that Bill Rugers early work is of high merit.
So the original gun broke the ground and blazed the path for the improved MK II.
But have you ever really compared a original MK I with those early Ruger walnut target grips on that gorgeous bluing against a similiar MK II
OK, so I'm old and like old stuff.....
giz
Based on the ingenious design. Lots of folks rate John M. Browning as a deity. I find that Bill Rugers early work is of high merit.
So the original gun broke the ground and blazed the path for the improved MK II.
But have you ever really compared a original MK I with those early Ruger walnut target grips on that gorgeous bluing against a similiar MK II
OK, so I'm old and like old stuff.....
giz
A
Anonymous
I voted for the MKII, but if you had the option of a MK2.5 I would have voted for that instead, LOL! I have a few MKII's and love them, but I wish they had the magazine disconnect near my thumb rather than the heal of the gun. The best option is a MKIII, with the LCI and magazine safety disconnect removed IMHO. I have a couple of MKIII's which I removed the "lawyer" improvements from.
45flattop
Single-Sixer
I voted for the MKII since it basically solved the few usability issues
that had lingered from the MKI/Standard old design but the MKIII is
purely a piece of **** some lawyer dreamed up once the last of the
Ruger family was gone. LCIs that frequently jam, yet another new
form of magazine to stock for dealers(I never saw the use or need
to switch from the A-54 style frame to the A-100, actually) but I have
nothing but MK1 and MKII models anyway, the minute I saw the MKIII
come out I read " lawyer " all over it.
that had lingered from the MKI/Standard old design but the MKIII is
purely a piece of **** some lawyer dreamed up once the last of the
Ruger family was gone. LCIs that frequently jam, yet another new
form of magazine to stock for dealers(I never saw the use or need
to switch from the A-54 style frame to the A-100, actually) but I have
nothing but MK1 and MKII models anyway, the minute I saw the MKIII
come out I read " lawyer " all over it.
I bought my first mark 2 last year a 5 1/2 inch target model. Liked it so much i bought 3 more in different flavors along with a 1953 standard. I like them all. My latest purchase was a govt model which i got for 250.00 with original box and paperwork. Still looking for the competition model. I was shooting with someone yesterday who had a high standard. He didnt quite look down on my mark 2 but a walk to the target showed the same groups if not better with the mark 2.
Dan
Dan
Cherokee
Single-Sixer
I have a Mark 1 target bought many years ago and shot a lot. I bought a Mark III target because of the mag release. It shoots just as well and I am happy with it. Better, no, I just like the mag release better.
I've gotten rid of both MKI and MKIIs. I've also gotten rid of a couple of MKIII 22/45s.
My 2 stainless standard MKIIIs are the bees knees.
The LCI doesn't bother me one bit and can be removed if I'd like.
I much prefer the more ergonomic and common sense placement of the push button mag release.
Every Browning or 1911 I've ever owned or shot always had the mag release in the "proper" place. Every Ruger semi-auto hand gun (except the MKI and MKII) all have it in the "proper" place.
I never understood why it took Ruger so long to get it "right" but I'm glad they did.
:lol:
My 2 stainless standard MKIIIs are the bees knees.
The LCI doesn't bother me one bit and can be removed if I'd like.
I much prefer the more ergonomic and common sense placement of the push button mag release.
Every Browning or 1911 I've ever owned or shot always had the mag release in the "proper" place. Every Ruger semi-auto hand gun (except the MKI and MKII) all have it in the "proper" place.
I never understood why it took Ruger so long to get it "right" but I'm glad they did.
:lol:
