Ruger .22s

[M.Link]

Out of all of Rugers .22s (Mk I, II, III, 22/45) which one would you buy and why? I think I might buy one, and later a suppresor for it and a different "upper".

 

[gophishhhh]

A MK I,II or III would be an excellent choice. I personally do not like the 22/45 models due to their plastic frame. Once you get used to the mag release difference between the MK II or III, these are great pistols. The triggers are not the greatest but that can be fixed with a volquartzen kit or other trigger job. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Kimber Custom]

I recently purchased a MarkIII and I'm very happy with it. I would have liked the hunter model but I just couldn't bring myself to spend that much on a .22.

I liked the traditional style over the .22/45 because it fit my hand way better. The .22/45 was too narrow and had a rather chintzy feel to it.

My only complaint about mine is the 'adjustable sights' are worthless. I will have to replace them soon.

 

[Bajablast]

I have a Stainless Steel Mark III 22/45 w/5.5" Bull Barrel, have probably 2500-3000 rounds through it and have never taken it all the way down for cleaning. Eats everything I feed it, including some old Russian Steel case ammo. Just flat out reliable.

I installed a Hi Viz fiber optic front sight and love it.

If you own a 1911, the 22/45 is the way to go, as it mimics the grip angle. The standard Mark 1, 2, 3 has a sharper grip angle, similar to a glock.

The Mark III now has a replaceable grip model, so you can buy aftermarket 1911 grips for it. If you have an older model, there are grip options available, but it will involve some minor drilling. I have a set for mine, and it really changes how the pistol feels in my hand. This is a post about it--

http://www.northwestfirearms.com/forum/firearm-gear-accessories/22458-ruger-22-45-grip-mod.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"LIFE IS NOT A JOURNEY TO THE GRAVE...WITH THE
INTENTION OF ARRIVING SAFELY IN A PRETTY AND WELL
PRESERVED BODY, BUT RATHER TO SKID IN BROADSIDE,
THOROUGHLY USED UP, TOTALLY WORN OUT, AND LOUDLY
PROCLAIMING----WOW----WHAT A RIDE!!!"

 

[Rix]

Don't forget the "standard"
I have a mark 1 target, I really enjoy it.

 

[beezer66]

I bought a used mark2 over the mark3 for three reasons: no magazine disconnect, no chamber indicator and I like the rocker style mag release. Then I put the Tactical Solutions barrel on it, Volquartzen accurizing kit and extractor. The mark 2 seems to be that one firearm that I never leave at home when I go shooting. I think that my friends have put more rounds through it than me. I don't want to think of how much I spent putting it together, but it is worth every penny.

 

[spider]

mark 2 22/45, easy diassembly, mark 3s involve you putting the mag in half way before putting it all back together, 22/45 has the same grip cant as a 1911, enough said

 

[sandman1212]

I just picked up a MK I at the Canby gun show, great shooter and very accurate!

 

[NoAim]

I picked up the Ruger Mark III 22/45 RP with 1911 style grip panels.

I then:
- Added thicker 1911 grips to fill the handguard
- Added the VQ sear and adjustable trigger
- Added a HiViz fiber optic front sight
- Removed the magazine disconnect lever and added a Mk II hammer bushing

- Purchased a second Tactical Solutions 4.5" threaded/fluted upper receiver.

http://www.ruger.com/products/2245ReplaceablePanels/models.html

 

[Abiqua]

Install a MKII hammer bushing in the MKIII to defeat the mag disconnect and the extra steps involved in dis/reassembly, also takes slop out of trigger.
Skip the VQ kit as the hammer is too light and there have been reports of light primer strikes. Just install the VQ extractor, target trigger and sear and you'll save money over the kit.

 

[sheepman]

If you are going to modify any way, get a MKIII. The mag disconnect is easy to remove and the push button mag release of the MKIII is nice. If you are going to keep it stock go with a MKII. The MKI is a good gun but does not have the hold open on the last shot. I have owned all three and curently have an MKII. You can not make a bad choice.

 

[cyclesarge]

I've never understood the concept of buying a 22/45 as a .22 substitute for a 1911. The grip angle is similar, but everything else is totally different, different trigger pull, no exposed hammer, different way of charging, different safeties, etc. I don't get it.:huh:

 

[NoAim]

I've never understood the concept of buying a 22/45 as a .22 substitute for a 1911. The grip angle is similar, but everything else is totally different, different trigger pull, no exposed hammer, different way of charging, different safeties, etc. I don't get it.:huh:

Yup. It's almost like it's a different gun.

The nice thing is, when you come out of a holster or from low-ready and into a firing position, the muzzle is generally pointed right at the target...if you are a 1911/rest of the world kind of guy. A regular MarkII/III would end up being pointed high and would need to be compensated for.

The other advantage is not really the grip angle. The grip housing/frame is plastic, versus steel. A steel frame has a nice weight and is great for target shooting. When transitioning from target to target laterally (as in competition) the lighter gun tends to be faster, even with more felt recoil (as much as a .22 can give).

Those are the reasons I have for doing the 22/45 over the Mark II/III.

 

[zeppelin]

The MK I had a 9 shot magazine and the safety doubled as a bolt hold-open device. You could pull the bolt back, and while holding it back, engage the safety and the bolt would stay in the rearward position.

The MK II offered a 10 round magazine and offered a separate bolt hold-open device that is located the left side of the frame, similar to many other centerfire pistols. This device holds the bolt open on when the magazine is empty (last shot). Note however that the Ruger instruction manual warns people NOT to merely depress the bolt hold open latch to let the bolt fly forward. The proper way to release the bolt on a fresh magazine is to pull the bolt rearward (about a quarter of an inch) and allow it to slide forward under spring pressure.

The MK III has a chamber loaded indicator, a magazine safety, and is drilled and tapped for mounting a scope base. Personally, I find the only thing I like about these so-called upgrades is the drilled and tapped top; I don't like magazine safety because it may lock you out when you need the gun the most. Some say the magazine safety also negatively affects trigger pull.

Overall I'd say the MKII was the best gun for the money out of the three. I have owned two and still own one. Its not quite as accurate as my S&W Model 41, but pretty close from a sandbag rest.

 

[olyshoots]

The OP posts an interesting dilemma. Now you won't normally spend up for a "nicer" MK II or III like a Hunter or Target, and then put a new upper on it and suppressor - you'd likely buy a second gun (all who have this experience, raise your hands!). So, to meet your original question, look around for a "standard" MK II or III (I prefer the III for the mag release) and then go right to the new upper (Tactical Solutions?), etc. Enjoy the process. Let us know what you do.

 

[wired]

Theyre hard to take apart and hard to clean. Theres a lot of parts Ruger wont sell you and switching to an aftermarket barreled upper means a new 4473 and dealer charges. The Buckmark is better than the Ruger marks in a lot of respects.

Ive owned Mark 1,2,and 3's . Between the three I'd go mark II or Mark 3 with a few mark 2 parts to remove the mag safety. Ive never figured out the use in a magazine safety for a .22.

 

[9MilMan]

I have a MKIII Target with slab barrel. Have thousands of rounds through it with zero malfunctions. Very accurate. Hard to take apart, but you get used to it. My only complaint is that it is heavy, esp. with a red dot sight doing one-handed accuracy competition at 25 yards. The Hogue grips really help, though.