No more target tapered barrels?

[CCW]

I was looking on the Ruger website and noticed that they don't offer the Mark III Target with the "heavy tapered barrel" anymore. Is this because of lack of demand for the tapered barrel or just cost of the extra machining involved?

 

[chet15]

Lack of demand for tapered barrels. If they want Target sights everybody wants a bull barrel with it.
If they want fixed sights then the 4-3/4" or 6" tapered will usually do.
Chet15

 

[daveg.inkc]

I shot one of these in Stainless this week I can tell no difference between a bull barrel. I hit whatever I aim at. This model likes Rem Goldens. Very accurate

 

[Kevin]

I have one of those in a Mark II. Very nice, very accurate and similar weight to the "bull barrel" style.

I bet it's cheaper to make the slab side barrels. Two quick passes with a band saw, vs time on a lathe.

 

[Backlighting]

I sold my Mark ll & got a Browning Buckmark Camper. I'm glad I did. Easier to disassemble, very accurate and reasonably priced.

 

[chet15]

I bet it's cheaper to make the slab side barrels. Two quick passes with a band saw, vs time on a lathe.

The slab side profile would be one more operation. The outer diameter has to be done first anyway.
Chet15

 

[daveg.inkc]

And there would be no bandsaw involved!

 

[SGW Gunsmith]

I bet it's cheaper to make the slab side barrels. Two quick passes with a band saw, vs time on a lathe.

The slab side profile would be one more operation. The outer diameter has to be done first anyway.
Chet15

And with today's use of CNC machining equipment, it takes more time to write about how a barrel is machined than it takes to actually machine the profile. It just seems to me that Ruger is focusing much more on the Zytel grip frame, LITE versions, rather than the steel grip frame pistols.

I think Ruger really missed the boat on this version of the Hunter model "prototype" when it failed testing using the .17 M2 cartridge. Instead of scrapping the whole project, this pistol would have been a GREAT offering in .22 Long Rifle caliber. For sure, I'd have one in my safe. I even contacted the "TALO" group to see if any interest in them getting involved with some production involving this model. The contact I spoke with told me Ruger is no longer interested in making Mark pistols with barrels longer than 6-7/8 inch. Now, whether that's actually true or not...................?

 

[WAYNO]

I have both the long-heavy-tapered 6-7/8" target barrel as well as the 5-1/2" bull barrel models. They both shoot incredibly well, but the longer sight radius on the 6-7/8" model does give it the edge on accuracy. In spite of that, I seldom shoot the long version, just because the 5-1/2" version is just easier to pack around.

I have never scoped the 6-7/8" model, but if I did, I'd bet it would give a 10/22 or a Charger a run for their money.

WAYNO.

 

[daveg.inkc]

I have a scoped SS Slabside. Yes, I have it zeroed 100 yrds. Dont own a Charger, but I've shot them. They are accurate. Now I'm looking at scoping a 7.5 SS Single Six Hunter. Love the way these Rugers shoot!

 

[mohavesam]

Demand or not, the bar-stock barrels are just plain cheaper/faster to make. Cost-per-unit drives Ruger manufacturing schedules, not nostalgia.

Friends know I have no desire for bar-stock barrels. The tapered models are just more - interesting.
And balance so much better without all the weight out front.
If I must have only one it would be the early 1950's 5.25" taper, Bill's original first-variation of the original pistol design.

The MkIII guns should all have a "Meh" rollstamp IMO. ;)
The slab-sided barrels just ran a bar barrel through an OD milling operation, nothing magic there, but they seem to all shoot well. Then again, they all shoot well for the money.

 

[Bearcat]

I have an extra 6 7/8 tapered target barrel Mark II in stainless steel that I would sell to a Ruger Forum member who is really wanting one. I want a 10/22 takedown outfit with the original nylon case. So, if anyone wants to work out a swap, let me know. Cash sale would also work.

---Doc

 

[mohavesam]

try the classifieds. nice fishing trip.

 

[pete44ru]

.

The 5-1/2" tapered bbl Mark II, I sold to another board member a few years ago, shot really well.

For me, the combination of a shorter bbl with adj sight was irresistible, until I needed eye surgery.


.

 

[Bearcat]

.

The 5-1/2" tapered bbl Mark II, I sold to another board member a few years ago, shot really well.

For me, the combination of a shorter bbl with adj sight was irresistible, until I needed eye surgery.


.

Pete: Would that have been a 5 1/4-inch tapered barrel? MK514 or KMK514???

 

[SGW Gunsmith]

Demand or not, the bar-stock barrels are just plain cheaper/faster to make. Cost-per-unit drives Ruger manufacturing schedules, not nostalgia.

Friends know I have no desire for bar-stock barrels. The tapered models are just more - interesting.
And balance so much better without all the weight out front.
If I must have only one it would be the early 1950's 5.25" taper, Bill's original first-variation of the original pistol design.

The MkIII guns should all have a "Meh" rollstamp IMO. ;)
The slab-sided barrels just ran a bar barrel through an OD milling operation, nothing magic there, but they seem to all shoot well. Then again, they all shoot well for the money.

Really? You actually have friends?

Your information on the first variation. is incorrect. :wink:

 

[mohavesam]

Unnecessary.

The target guns were the first (@1953?) variation. 5 1/4", then the 6". Until then the fixed rear
RST configuration was the only offering.
I could be wrong, just going by what the Ruger engineers have told me. :?: