Ruger Mark III

[5ontarget]

I was tooling around on Ruger's web page. I saw a press release dated 4/16/04 announcing the new Ruger Mark III. The new features include "A newly-designed, convenient-to-use magazine release button is located on the left side of the frame, behind the trigger guard. The new Ruger Mark III pistols also feature the very first visible loaded chamber indicator for a .22 rimfire pistol (patent pending). These new features, combined with an unobtrusive internal lock, magazine disconnect, and re-contoured sights and ejection port, result in the most innovative .22 pistols ever offered."

The first Ruger Mark III model is the MKIII512, which will be available in May 2004. This pistol has a 5 1/2 inch bull barrel, micro-adjustable rear sight and a blued steel receiver. The receiver is drilled to accept the new Weaver-style scope base adapter, included with each pistol.

available May 2004.

[tptplayer]

On the 5th Thursday of the month, the range I shoot at has a rim fire match. I have never gone but have heard others complain about the difficulty of speed reloads with the Mark II. Perhaps this was designed to alleviate this problem. On the other had, a 5 1/2 inch bull barrel doesn't sound ideal for this type of use.

[TMan]

Okay, it took me awhile on their site to find it. For the benefit of others the URL is: www.ruger.com/Firearms/News-04-16-2004A.html

So why did they think they needed a magazine disconnect on a .22LR? Someone going to use it as a carry weapon? ;D I hope it doesn't add additional tension for the trigger pull.

I'm sure this is just the first in a series, but I tend to agree with tptplayer on the 5 1/2" barrel. I have the MKII in SS w/10" barrel. It is a joy to shoot. You hardly notice any muzzle flip.

Personally, I don't mind the magazine release on the bottom. The only time it bothers me is when I shoot something else with the frame button after shooting the Ruger, then I keep feeling for the release on the bottom. What can I say - old dog!!!

Maybe I should buy another MKII before they are discontinued.

[XavierBreath]

Why oh why didn't they just make a .17HMR pistol and call it the MKIII?

I see no reason to relocate the mag release and a magazine disconnect and LCI? This was the perfect pistol to teach handgun safety with. I would never want to teach handgun safety with a magazine disconnect or LCI. There is only one sure way to tell if the gun is loaded. Look in the chamber! The MKII was the perfect .22 pistol. Sometimes innovation is not a good thing............ Maybe I'm just an old fogey.

[MLB]

I like the Weaver rail and the standard magazine release, but the magazine disconnect is not a good idea IMO. I suppose if it doesn't affect the trigger pull it would be ok. No need to fire a target pistol without the magazine in. (Carry gun is a different story...)

[TMan]

MLB, I removed the magazine disconnect on by Browning Hi-Power (BHP) and it reduced the trigger pull by 1/2 lb.

Interestingly enough, of my 9mm pistols, the Sig P210 has the lightest trigger at 3.25lbs, and of all things, it has a magazine disconnect, but of a different design than that of the BHP.

I suspect that if a gun was designed from the ground-up the engineer could provide a magazine disconnect that didn't effect the trigger pull by a noticable amount.

I'm in agreement with XavierBreath, why didn't they leave the MKII alone. Let's repaint the Mona Lisa.

[MLB]

They changed it because that is what the market wants I'm sure. I'd bet that MKIII sales will rival the MKII as soon as the full line of comparable models is available.

[5ontarget]

I'm sorry for not posting the link, I was having one of those sleepless and nearly thoughtless nights when I made the initial post.

I also missed something else. Ruger claims to have the only visible LCI in a .22 pistol, but my Walther P22 has a LCI, not a great one, but a LCI regardless. Its a little cut/slit that you can see the brass in the chamber. I still always do a full manual check anyway. Depending on the lighting, it can be hard to see into the little LCI.

Of course the 22/45 is getting pretty much the same new features as well. initiall offering will be with a 4" bbl.
www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/News-04-16-2004D.html


BTW they will have a .17cal available sometime in 2004.
take a look at....
www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/News-04-16-2004C.html

8" fluted SS bbl is standard.

[KrustyBurger]

Just for the sake of balance - for me it would make a good hammer or deep water fishing sinker. You couldn't pay me enough to buy another Ruger .22. : )

[TMan]

KrustyBurger said:

Just for the sake of balance - for me it would make a good hammer or deep water fishing sinker. You couldn't pay me enough to buy another Ruger .22. : )

KrustyBurger did you have a bad experience? I did! I had a Ruger 22/45 that I was so frustrated with because of jamming, that I slod it and swore I would never buy another one.

Then I kept reading all the reports of people that love the Mark II, and all the people that had trouble with .22LR autopistols in general using particular manufactures' ammo. I bought some CCI Mini Mag that tamed my other .22's. So I went out and bought a Ruger MKII with a 10" barrel. I love it. I've put close to 1000 rounds through it without a single failure.

I'm thinking of buying the competition model.

[KrustyBurger]

I had a Mk II 5" bull barrel and I couldn't find one thing to like about it, and plenty to dislike. It wasn't that cheap, either. I'd heard all those great reviews about the Ruger for years, and was very disappointed. I got a small, used Beretta M-70s .22 around the same time, and while it's no tack driver, it has been light years more fun and less frustrating than my MkII was. I don't know if I got a rare lemon - in fairness, a buddy has his dad's very worn standard Ruger from the early 1960's and it shoots fairly well. I'm glad he has to clean it, though, lol.