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 keep tellin ya Doc, I'm in pretty good shape considerin the shape I'm in !!
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.
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
Taxpayers voting for Obama are like chickens voting for Colonel Sanders.
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.
Teach
