Mark III- Which One To Buy?

[Swiftmotoring]

Please forgive me if this is a tired topic.... I am in the market for a Mark III to be used primarily for range duty; 7-25 yards. Beibg fairly new to the Ruger scene, I thought I would draw on the wealth of knowledge here on the forum and ask what you would buy and in your experience what you would recommend for this duty. Part of me wants to buy a Mark I as a nod to the history of the gun and another part says buy a new Mark III Target, blued...shoot the heck out of it and have the best of both worlds. The only thing I am sure of, is it will see a tremendous amount of range action. Not sure which way to go. What say you?
Marvin

 

[96/44]

I prefer the MKII series myself, it has the last round bolt hold open which the MKI doesn't, and lacks the loaded chamber indicator and magazine disconnect safety of the MKIII. I really like the 6 7/8" tapered barrels as well, they just look "right" to me, but I also have a 5.5" bull barrel model that shoots pretty darn good. Don't get me wrong, the MKIII's are great guns, I just prefer the MKII's. Go hold some and see which feels best to you, they can all be good shooters, and Ruger has about 30 different models to choose from.

 

[wwb]

Another vote for the Mark II rather than the Mark III. Any of the bull barrel or target models are well-suited to paper punching... add the Volquartsen hammer, sear, and trigger kit and you have a true target pistol.

There may be some regional variation, but around here, a pristine Mark II sells for the same $$$ as a comparable new Mark III. Some folks don't mind the "lawyerization" of the Mark III, but a good many prefer the Mark II.

 

[firebirdude]

I don't post here much, but I'm really curious as to why I consistently read hatred for the loaded chamber indicator, and for that reason, people preferring the MKII over the MKIII.

Personally, I highly prefer the magazine disconnect on the MKIII. I don't even notice that the loaded chamber indicator even exists on my gun. I just ignore it. I also prefer the bull barrel models. Heavier barrel means less recoil. Not that there's much anyway, but hey, it looks great too. During my search for my MKIII, I ran across a Talo edition at a decent price. Done deal. Super sexy!

In the end, I think we can all agree that it's just little variation subtleties that differ between the models. They are the same in terms of reliability and accuracy overall. And let's face it, that's what really matters.

 

[rugerman42]

I don't post here much, but I'm really curious as to why I consistently read hatred for the loaded chamber indicator, and for that reason, people preferring the MKII over the MKIII.

Personally, I highly prefer the magazine disconnect on the MKIII. I don't even notice that the loaded chamber indicator even exists on my gun. I just ignore it. I also prefer the bull barrel models. Heavier barrel means less recoil. Not that there's much anyway, but hey, it looks great too. During my search for my MKIII, I ran across a Talo edition at a decent price. Done deal. Super sexy!

In the end, I think we can all agree that it's just little variation subtleties that differ between the models. They are the same in terms of reliability and accuracy overall. And let's face it, that's what really matters.

In regards to the chamber indicator, I find it to be informative, as it tells me "I'm good to go". During action shoots, it tells you clearly you are locked and loaded or there is a problem and you know it sooner so that you can clear the weapon and continue.

 

[bowfita]

Finding that the Mark III 22/45 RP model has replaceable grip side panels cinched that choice for me. 5.5" bull barrel is fun with a capital Woo hoo!

 

[Noxi0us]

Finding that the Mark III 22/45 RP model has replaceable grip side panels cinched that choice for me. 5.5" bull barrel is fun with a capital Woo hoo!

Im new here, but I will bite.

I recently purchased this same firearm as an alternative training weapon to my SpringField Lightweight Champion Operator 1911 due to amunition costs and lack of time to reload. Surprisingly enough they weigh almost the same. This thing shoots awesome and is a lot of fun for the rest of the family as well. The blued 5.5" barrel makes the gun slightly front heavy which in turn helps in maintaining sight alignment. The gun is also just plain fun to use for squirrel and other small game hunting. If you are looking for a good training weapon and own or plan to own a 1911 any time in the future then I would def. go the 22/45 route as the grip angles and everything about it is very similar to a 1911, I just do not trust the current production of the 1911 rimfire options, so I opted for a MKIII 22/45. As bowfita said, the replaceable grips are a bonus as you can match it exactly with your 1911.

 

[rugerguy]

LOTS of choices are out there, and yes, one should at least 'try" , shoot and feel how some of the different models actually handle......yes, some do NOT like the MK IIIs now tha tthey are all "lawyered up" safety stuff out the wazzoo, and yes, makes it more difficult to field strip, as well as work on them, BUT there is a reason...........bottom line, SAFETY.............
Me, I say "shop the deal" look around and pay the best, LOWEST price, after all they are pretty much the same beast, take a licken and keep on ticken.....

 

[wwb]

.........I recently purchased this same firearm as an alternative training weapon to my SpringField Lightweight Champion Operator 1911 due to amunition costs and lack of time to reload...........

No way would I ever discourage someone from purchasing another firearm, but I have to ask..... if you already shoot a 1911, why not get a .22 conversion for it? Ciener units are $200, and take all of 30 seconds to switch.

 

[Hazama Yakiba]

I carry a RUGER Mark III Hunter w/ 4.5" Fluted Bull Barrel in Stainless w/ Crimson Trace Laser Grip as a "Back-Up" loaded with Aquila "Hyper-Velocity" 22LR FMJ ammo SCREAMING out at cha @ near 1,800fps !

Zing goes my heartstrings....

Haz :::is not to be confused with Samurai GhostDog:::

 

[wwb]

...... Aquila "Hyper-Velocity" 22LR FMJ ammo SCREAMING out at cha @ near 1,800fps !.........

Ummmm.... Don't want to rain on your parade, but it's plated, not fmj, and out of a pistol, you aren't going to get anywhere near their published muzzle velocity.

 

[DesertEagle.44mag]

I'd go with the MK3 Competition, or maybe a Hunter if you think it looks cooler but, it's going to be more expensive.

Stainless also looks way cooler and is easier to clean. Less likely to rust.

Don't buy into the garbage that MK2's are way better than MK3's, because they aren't. I love my MK3. You can easily fix the mag disconnect if you hate it that much.

 

[louiethelump]

I have two vintage standard models, two MKII's one in blue and one SS, and two MKIII with the removable grip panels. (I had sold off all my plastic frame guns, but bought back in when they put the wood grips on them). I buy and use them interchangeably, and they all shoot great and I have no issues with any of them. I shop for deals on them, and will buy more if the price is right. The Ruger auto pistol 22 is just about the most reliable and accurate gun you could ask for. (I had a couple of High Standard Trophy target pistols back in my bullseye shooting days, and they would outshoot the Rugers, but were not AS GOOD for fun and field use) My old Standards shoot right to point of aim up close and in the 10 ring at 25 yards with a 6 o'clock hold. My adjustable sight MKII's are more like target guns, and the 22/45RP models are "just cool" and a blast to shoot. One has a pac lite 3" upper on it and weighs next to nothing and drops in a pocket, and the other one is the one with rib top and bottom, and with a light on the bottom and a reflex sight on the top is a night time armadillo MACHINE. (the little dudes dig up the yard and drive my dogs nuts at night)

As far as I am concerned there are not any BAD Ruger 22 auto pistols.

 

[firebirdude]

Don't buy into the garbage that MK2's are way better than MK3's, because they aren't. I love my MK3. You can easily fix the mag disconnect if you hate it that much.

What mag disconnect issue?

 

[louiethelump]

The issue is that a lot of folks don't like them. I have no issue with them, but many do. I seldom feel the need to shoot my guns without magazines in them, so I fail to see the issue.

Louie

 

[Campagnolo]

To be perfectly honest I prefer the Mark I, 6".

I love the simplicity, without the extras.

My Mark I has no bolt release for last shot hold open, cause it doesn't have LSHO either.

My Mark I also doesn't have the etching reminding me to read the instruction manual before shooting. So the receiver is cleaner looking, without that paragraph of verbage etched into it.

I am fine with the magazine release as is and I'm fine not having a notched receiver where I grip the bolt to pull it back.

I like my Mark II, 6" also but my Mark I is pure and simple.

As far as a Mark III, don't need or want one. Why would I want to add a mag disconnect or a big ol' bar hanging out the side of my receiver to tell me there is a round in the chamber? Less simplicity, more clutter. I'll keep my Mark I and Mark II, thank you. I would like a stainless Mark II in 6" though.

Rambling thoughts,

Campy

 

[firebirdude]

So there we go. Hate on the MKIII because I already have a MKI and II and simply don't need a third. And I hardly think 1/32" qualifies as a "big ol' bar".

 

[Campagnolo]

Hey FireBird - I do NEED a third! I NEED a Mark II stainless in 6"!

To each his own, I guess! Looks like a big ol' bar to me on a .22!

And as far as loaded chamber indicators.

I have a Beretta 96 Brigadier, two Beretta 92 Brigadiers, a Beretta 92 EII, A Beretta 96 EII, and they all have big ol' bars showing me a 40 cal or 9mm is in the tube, but these pistols are designed to carry a live round safely in the chamber. And the EIIs have NO safety! They are ready to fire with a DA trigger pull when carried with one in the chamber. So a loaded chamber indicator is useful. And yes I carry with one in the tube ready to go.

The Mark .22s have little or no tactical value, SO depending on your viewpoint, the loaded chamber indicator has little or no value, at least to my way of thinking.

 

[firebirdude]

I'm a man of function. I don't care if the MKIII has a loaded chamber indicator, warning stamped on the side, internal safety lock, mag disconnect feature, etc on it. These are meaningless. I get out there and shoot the living heck out of it. I don't even notice those things exist. I do, however, notice the 1911 mag release and the last shot open feature. They are functional. I, as I think most, highly prefer these two features over what the MKI and MKII offer. If you don't, then so be it.

I just get pissed off when half of this message board hates on the "lawyered up" MKIII and recommends that all newcomers buy the MKI or MKII. Just to show defiance to "the man".

 

[Floridaoutdoors]

I would not want a protruding loaded chamber indicator bar.
why not simply remove the bar??????

 

[wwb]

I'm a man of function. I don't care if the MKIII has a loaded chamber indicator, warning stamped on the side, internal safety lock, mag disconnect feature, etc on it. These are meaningless. I get out there and shoot the living heck out of it. I don't even notice those things exist. I do, however, notice the 1911 mag release and the last shot open feature. They are functional. I, as I think most, highly prefer these two features over what the MKI and MKII offer. If you don't, then so be it.

I just get pissed off when half of this message board hates on the "lawyered up" MKIII and recommends that all newcomers buy the MKI or MKII. Just to show defiance to "the man".

For a "man of function", here's your function....

http://www.guntalk-online.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1727

A quick search will show this problem in other forums as well - in fact, I believe it turned up here about a year ago. Don't know if Ruger has addressed it or not, since it will only occur in heavily used pistols.

The LCI has also been associated with failute to extract/eject in some pistols, where removal of the LCI has solved the problem.

The mag disconnect serves to complicate disassembly/assembly... that, in my mind, disqualifies it from being "meaningless" If you can offer a logical reason for it to be there, I'm listening.

Of the "two features" that you prefer in the Mark III, the Mark II has the last shot hold-open... only the first generation lacks this feature.

Maybe there's just cause for all the folks bad-mouthing the Mark III and recommending a Mark II instead. I don't get "pissed off" when somebody vehemently defends the Mark III - - - I just sadly shake my head and walk away, figuring that they're just another poor, lost soul.

 

[firebirdude]

Thank for the links. I was obviously unaware of this issue and would obviously admit this would qualify as a functional problem the MKIII may have given the correct circumstances that the MKII or I may not.

But you don't have to be such a "wise ass" about it. You yourself said you "believe" it may have came up here a year ago. This isn't some "common problem" all MKIII's have and everyone knows about. You "post" here enough. "You know exactly what I was talking about". A topic comparing "revisions of the firearm" can't end without someone "bashing the MKIII" for being ""politically correct"".