That hands-on, real-world genuine experience you just added supports my assertion 100% that as built, shipped, and delivered from Ruger: Mark II is a better gun than Mark III. And that Mark III was a step down.
Isolated incident? Rare experience?
But with a quick, easy internet search & fix for a
common known problem?
With a known, suggested fix?
Plenty of ways to skin a cat. And I'm not saying that discussion threads don't have a life of their own (they do, no problem with that) HOWEVER, If we look at the original post of the thread, posted by the OP:
Quote:
|
I want to look around at the used stuff and get a general consensus of which of the "mark" series might be the one to look for between the standard automatic (a.k.a. mark I), Mark II, mark III, and any certain variations.
|
I'll say Mark II was the high water "mark."
