Ruger MK Pistols

SwedeSteve · 04-05-2009, 04:42 PM

Why is it that the majority of the articles i have read on fine tuning/accurizing these Rugers deal with primarily MK II's ?? Are they the better pistol compared to the MK I and the MK III ?? Or is it just because the MK III is too new or what ??

Cyrano · 04-05-2009, 06:03 PM

Well, the Mark I was introduced as a plinker to compete with the Colt Woodsman, and the Mark III is simply an improvement on the Mark II. I think it's mostly that the Mark II has been around enough that there are enough aftermarket parts and enough of them out there, that people feel comfortable tweaking them. Sort of the same way people used to modify and sporterize the M1903A3 Springfield and are currently customizing the Mosin Nagants; they don't cost so much that if you screw up your modification and it becomes a Bubba-job, you'll feel badly about having attempted it.

SwedeSteve · 04-05-2009, 06:39 PM

That makes sense.

DaTeacha · 04-06-2009, 03:18 PM

The MkI Target was/is a pretty good competitive shooter. I used one for a lot of club shooting with a decent amount of success. It also makes a nice squirrel gun - head or heart shots when the critter is in front of a nice piece of the tree makes for nicer eating than picking shot out of one.

Clem321 · 04-07-2009, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwedeSteve

Why is it that the majority of the articles i have read on fine tuning/accurizing these Rugers deal with primarily MK II's ?? Are they the better pistol compared to the MK I and the MK III ?? Or is it just because the MK III is too new or what ??

I think part of it is a reaction to the 4 "safety" additions that irritate many people. I find I prefer the Browning style mag release, I eliminate the mag safety by inserting a VQ MK II hammer, and don't pay any attention to the LCI and lock.

SwedeSteve · 04-08-2009, 01:30 PM

I guess a lot of people don't like all the added "extras" that come with the MK III.

Deep13 · 04-08-2009, 02:22 PM

The supplied pad lock and and the built in lock are pretty useless since both require the recoil spring to be compressed to be useful.

Beyond that, my Mk. III is a good shooter, though the trigger could be a bit better.

SwedeSteve · 04-08-2009, 04:10 PM

My MK II trigger is better than my MK III. Eventually, I will trade out that trigger for something better.

Deep13 · 04-08-2009, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwedeSteve

My MK II trigger is better than my MK III. Eventually, I will trade out that trigger for something better.

I noticed an upgrade kit in the Midway catalogue.

SwedeSteve · 04-08-2009, 10:55 PM

Yep, there's a bunch of them out there !!

04-05-2009, 04:42 PM	#1
SwedeSteve Suspected Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Anchortown, Alaska Posts: 23,549 Images: 1	Ruger MK Pistols Why is it that the majority of the articles i have read on fine tuning/accurizing these Rugers deal with primarily MK II's ?? Are they the better pistol compared to the MK I and the MK III ?? Or is it just because the MK III is too new or what ?? __________________ Thank God we don't get as much Government as we pay for! -Will Rogers

04-05-2009, 06:39 PM	#3
SwedeSteve Suspected Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Anchortown, Alaska Posts: 23,549 Images: 1	That makes sense. __________________ Thank God we don't get as much Government as we pay for! -Will Rogers

04-06-2009, 03:18 PM	#4
DaTeacha Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: near Funk, Ohio Posts: 2,913	The MkI Target was/is a pretty good competitive shooter. I used one for a lot of club shooting with a decent amount of success. It also makes a nice squirrel gun - head or heart shots when the critter is in front of a nice piece of the tree makes for nicer eating than picking shot out of one. __________________ Teach NRA -- If you're reading this, you should be a member. United, We Stand.

04-08-2009, 01:30 PM	#6
SwedeSteve Suspected Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Anchortown, Alaska Posts: 23,549 Images: 1	I guess a lot of people don't like all the added "extras" that come with the MK III. __________________ Thank God we don't get as much Government as we pay for! -Will Rogers

04-08-2009, 02:22 PM	#7
Deep13 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 594	The supplied pad lock and and the built in lock are pretty useless since both require the recoil spring to be compressed to be useful. Beyond that, my Mk. III is a good shooter, though the trigger could be a bit better. __________________ That which can be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

04-05-2009, 06:03 PM	#2
Cyrano Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: New York Posts: 6,917	Well, the Mark I was introduced as a plinker to compete with the Colt Woodsman, and the Mark III is simply an improvement on the Mark II. I think it's mostly that the Mark II has been around enough that there are enough aftermarket parts and enough of them out there, that people feel comfortable tweaking them. Sort of the same way people used to modify and sporterize the M1903A3 Springfield and are currently customizing the Mosin Nagants; they don't cost so much that if you screw up your modification and it becomes a Bubba-job, you'll feel badly about having attempted it.

04-08-2009, 04:10 PM	#8
SwedeSteve Suspected Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Anchortown, Alaska Posts: 23,549 Images: 1	My MK II trigger is better than my MK III. Eventually, I will trade out that trigger for something better. __________________ Thank God we don't get as much Government as we pay for! -Will Rogers

04-08-2009, 10:55 PM	#10
SwedeSteve Suspected Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Anchortown, Alaska Posts: 23,549 Images: 1	Yep, there's a bunch of them out there !! __________________ Thank God we don't get as much Government as we pay for! -Will Rogers