MKIII 22/45 target (older style)

[JumpmasterC]

So, I ended up accumulating several hundred rounds of .22LR...mismatched, old as heck, some kinda dirty, just all sorts of various kinds that ended up in a coffee can by my gun-tool box. I was going to the range yesterday to shoot my LCP & threw the 22/45 & the hodge-podge ammo in my bag too, just for fun & to get rid of the ammo. Sat down & shot & I'll be damned....the MKIII chewed through them all (except for a couple, but to be fair, they were so bad I should not have even loaded them up) & it was still pretty accurate, albeit, not the same as with some good ammo, but not bad by a long-shot! Not a bulls-eye every time, but I don't believe it ever shot outside the rings! Every time I go to the range, I am reminded as to why I like Rugers the best (I love my Glock, but Glock is a 1 kind of pony show).

When I got home though, I remembered what a PITA reassembly of the MKIII is. Don't know why they made that process so difficult...a lot easier now....but still a pain!

 

[Baldy]

I proved the same thing to myself a long time ago. For the price of the Rugers you can't beat them. They are more fun than the law allows.

 

[Xsales]

Agree with you, 30 years of shooting Ruger 22s and never gone wrong

Once you learn the re-assembly it is as EZ and candy from a baby while sleeping

Enjoy the RUGER

Xsales

 

[ranger1]

And what would be an older style MK III 22/45?

Haven't heard of them yet. :?:

 

[JumpmasterC]

And what would be an older style MK III 22/45?

Haven't heard of them yet. :?:

I dunno, a buddy of mine has a brand new one & it has that annoying loaded chamber indicator & magazine disconnect...luckily mine doesn't have that crap. I bought it used about 5 years ago & the owners manual is pretty generic, spanning MKII, MKIII, regular, 22/45, target models....the pistol itself just says MKIII 22/45 so I really dunno exactly which model I got...4.5" bull barrel, adjustable sights & non-removable grips....beyond that....dunno! :lol:

 

[contender]

Interesting. You have a gun marked MKIII and it doesn't have the loaded chamber indicator nor the mag disconnect safety? That sure does sound like a MKII instead of a MKIII.

 

[98_1LE]

Maybe a MkIII that a previous owner modded to remove the mag disconnect and LCI?

 

[Xsales]

Was thinking the same, got to be a modded MKIII

Jump - Can we get some pics ?????

A mystery to some of us as to what that one really is

Xsales

 

[Bullseye57]

You can compare the various models of Ruger .22 Autos here (including 22/45)
http://www.guntalk-online.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=7205#7205

The only pistol I don't have on there is the 22/45 Mark III RP, but the only real difference is the replaceable grip panels vice the molded ones on the Mark III version.

R,
Bullseye

 

[contender]

Well, I too had considered the possibility of the modified MKIII. However, he bought it used about 5 yrs ago, and my thinking was it most likely was a MKII. If it has a slot in the side of the main reciever, (left side, opposite of the ejection port,) about 2" long, and 3/32" wide, it'll be a MKIII. Somebody could have put in a filler piece of metal. It's being done a lot.

 

[JumpmasterC]

Contender called it right away, I went to that site that Bullseye57 put up a link to. It appears I just have a plain old Mark II. I thought I recalled it saying MKIII on the gun...nope, just on the hand written tag that came on it from the gunstore. I had no idea about it when I bought it or I could have called it out right then! Thankfully there is RF where the discrepancy got noticed right away. Thank goodness....no wonder some people would look at me like a dumbass when I said it was a MKIII....thanks for picking up on it because I woulda just continued in my ignorance as I really didn't know the differences. I just thought that it was weird that ALL the MKIII 22/45's that I saw had the added (safety) features, even the ones with them modded still didn't look like my pistol....now I know why....thanks again RF!