The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: The Semi-automatic Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 15, 2013, 09:01 AM   #51
AH.74
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
Quote:
The other issue with the MK III is the placement of the mag release. There was nothing wrong with the heal release on the MK I, and MK II. These are target, and plinking pistols with no reason for "tactical" magazine changes. The placement of the mag release to the frame, while maybe a nice marketing move, does nothing to improve the pistol.
If you happen to dislike the heel release, which many people including myself do, the frame release represents a major improvement.

I agree the other "features" are not needed but that isn't one of them. You really seem to be going out of your way to bash the MKIII's. You don't like them, we get it. But they're not bad guns and certainly not a discernible step down from the MKII's aside from the LCI and mag disconnect. Remove them as many have and you have essentially the same gun.
AH.74 is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 01:10 PM   #52
Sevens
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 28, 2007
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 8,532
Well, I can't get on board with either of the two posts above mine.

The magazine release is absolutely an improvement and unless your vocation is a European police officer in the 1970s, a heel mag release is an antiquated and entirely un-modern design. Changing that was perhaps the biggest draw to the 22/45 series pistols when they were first released under the Mark II banner.

I can certainly deal with my heel mag release, and it's not a deal breaker. After all, I am used to it. It's perfect in functioning, it's just slow and methodical to use. If you elected to use your heel-release equipped Mark II in some manner of a speed competition, it would be an impediment no matter how skilled you may be at it's use. To argue otherwise is to be dishonest to the discussion.

If anything, you can make the argument that it really sucked that all the non 22/45 Mark II owners could no longer use their collection of magazines for the new Mark III pistols, but otherwise? The magazine release on the Mark III is an improvement.

The other thing that simply hasn't been mentioned enough is also quite difficult to argue against, if we'd all just be honest: removing the LCI is certainly easy enough, but please let's not skip over or gloss over the fact that it leaves a gaping, nonsensical and horrendous looking oblong HOLE in the side of the pistol.

You could formulate an argument about grit, dirt, lube, or what have you... but a simple and common denominator is that it's a damn eyesore. Certainly, aesthetics are quite subject to opinion -- but the bottom line is that the pistol looked a particular way for FIFTY-FIVE years... and then they machined a rectangular HOLE in the port side of it.
__________________
Attention Brass rats and other reloaders: I really need .327 Federal Magnum brass, no lot size too small. Tell me what caliber you need and I'll see what I have to swap. PM me and we'll discuss.
Sevens is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 01:33 PM   #53
AH.74
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
Quote:
The other thing that simply hasn't been mentioned enough is also quite difficult to argue against, if we'd all just be honest: removing the LCI is certainly easy enough, but please let's not skip over or gloss over the fact that it leaves a gaping, nonsensical and horrendous looking oblong HOLE in the side of the pistol.
When I and others have mentioned removing the LCI, it is to replace it with the filler piece made by Bruce Patza. They are inexpensive, well-made, close the gap, and look ok also in addition to being completely compatible with normal operation- they don't cause any issues IOW. I would never leave that slot open- if there wasn't the option of this piece, I would have left it as is.
AH.74 is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 01:52 PM   #54
Sevens
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 28, 2007
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 8,532
That sounds like a "best option" scenario and were I in your position -- sounds like something I might do, too.

However... we really *ARE* discussing the differences between Mark II's and III's here, as Ruger has changed them. Can we agree that Ruger cut an ugly, oblong HOLE in the side of our favorite pistols and to correct that, you've got to contact Mr. Patza to attempt to rectify what they've done?
__________________
Attention Brass rats and other reloaders: I really need .327 Federal Magnum brass, no lot size too small. Tell me what caliber you need and I'll see what I have to swap. PM me and we'll discuss.
Sevens is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 02:21 PM   #55
AH.74
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
Absolutely. Just like the mag disconnect is removed with a bushing replacement, which shouldn't be necessary.

I said in another thread concerning the LC9 that I believe Ruger dropped the ball in not offering models without the safety mechanisms for those in states that don't require them, such as Kahr does with some of its models. The LC9 was immediately crossed off my list because of them, whereas if it had been like a larger version of the LCP, which I have, it would have been a much stronger candidate for me to consider as a purchase.
AH.74 is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 05:22 AM   #56
Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2000
Posts: 3,622
Again, the mag release change on the MK III was unnecessary on a .22 target/plinking pistol. The heel mag release is secure, and makes sure the mags are fully seated. I really like my MK II era 22/45, but have to take the time to make sure the mags are fully inserted, and I hear an almost inaudable little click or I will have failures to strip the second round from the magazine. It always causes me a little concern as I carry the 22/45 as a woods gun sometimes, so I take the extra time to make sure it is fully inserted. I shouldn't have to do that.

The MK III is too much of a compromise when used MK II's and new Buckmarks are available.
__________________
Pilot
Pilot is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 08:51 AM   #57
AH.74
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
Quote:
Again, the mag release change on the MK III was unnecessary on a .22 target/plinking pistol. The heel mag release is secure, and makes sure the mags are fully seated. I really like my MK II era 22/45, but have to take the time to make sure the mags are fully inserted, and I hear an almost inaudable little click or I will have failures to strip the second round from the magazine. It always causes me a little concern as I carry the 22/45 as a woods gun sometimes, so I take the extra time to make sure it is fully inserted. I shouldn't have to do that.

The MK III is too much of a compromise when used MK II's and new Buckmarks are available.
So let me get this straight- it was an unnecessary change, yet you sometimes have problems with your old style one? It's secure, except when it's not?

I never have that problem- put them in, give it a tap, good to go.

And it's a target/plinking pistol, yet you sometimes carry it as a woods gun. Maybe other people have other uses for their MKIII's as well- ever think of that?

Stop bashing the MKIII. It is the SAME GUN as the MKII except for the safety features.
AH.74 is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 08:55 AM   #58
Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2000
Posts: 3,622
No, you misunderstood what I said. I do NOT have problems with the heel mag release, yet do have problems with the newer style 22/45 mag release which was then installed in the MK III, and MK III era 22/45. So, I prefer the MK II heel style mag release much better than my 22/45's or MK III's.

The other MK III changes like the LCI, and mag disconnect are the worst modifications. However, many tout the mag release position an improvement onn the steel framed MK III. I don't. See?
__________________
Pilot
Pilot is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 11:27 AM   #59
AH.74
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
Yes, I see- I did miss that. Fair enough.
AH.74 is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 02:03 PM   #60
Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2000
Posts: 3,622
No worries mate. That being said, there are easy mods available to essentially turn the MK III into a MK II sans the mag release which is the least objectionable for me, and like you many more like it than not.
__________________
Pilot
Pilot is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 05:04 PM   #61
AH.74
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
Yes- I've done both mods: the LCI filler piece and the mag disconnect bushing replacement. Made a great gun that much better. Well worth the minor expense.
AH.74 is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 09:14 PM   #62
Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2000
Posts: 3,622
Well then you are way ahead of the game, and have a great pistol. Good deal!

Sorry. Some time I get worked up when companies do things to pistols for reasons such as these. There is nothing wrong with the MK III that can't be corrected as you have already done, and many like it just the way it is from the factory. At least they still make them.
__________________
Pilot
Pilot is offline  
Old January 16, 2013, 10:07 PM   #63
HK_Flo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 3, 2011
Posts: 122
Quote:
Yes- I've done both mods: the LCI filler piece and the mag disconnect bushing replacement. Made a great gun that much better. Well worth the minor expense.
Where did you get your LCI filler piece?

I tracked down a guy making them on rimfirecentral.net but was wondering if there was other options.

I just installed a mag disconnect bushing and it is great!
HK_Flo is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 01:45 AM   #64
Ricklin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2008
Location: North Orygun Coast
Posts: 600
No filler piece needed

I too think the Mk. 2 is superior. I do like the new mag release tho. One does not have to buy a filler piece for the Mk. 3 to eliminate the LCI.
Field strip the pistol. Look from the bottom of the receiver and you will see a small hole with a pin in it. Tap the receiver a couple of times to allow the pin to come down. Remove the pin. Remove the LCI. You will find a small tab that projects in to the chamber that operates the LCI. Remove that little tab. Reassemble.
You have now disabled the LCI. No gaping hole in side of receiver. I could not get through a full mag until I got rid of the LCI.
Now it works more like my old Mk. 2 I still need to get rid of the mag disconnect.
__________________
ricklin
Freedom is not free
Ricklin is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 02:40 AM   #65
silvermane_1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: Burien,WA
Posts: 385
i don't mind the LCI or mag release on the MK. III, i however would like to remove locking mechanism below the safety.
__________________
Ruger:SR1911 CMD,MK 3 .22lr 6",Sec. Six '76 liberty .357 4",SRH .480 Ruger 7.5",Mini-14 188 5.56/.233 18.5", Marlin: 795 .22lr 16.5",30aw 30-30 20",Mossberg:Mav. 88 Tact. 12 ga, 18.5",ATR 100 .270 Win. 22",S&W:SW9VE
9mm 4",Springfeild:XD .357sig 4",CAI PSL-54C, WASR 10/63
silvermane_1 is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 04:53 AM   #66
Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2000
Posts: 3,622
How is the fit and finish on the MK III compared to the MK II's. I have heard some mixed reviews but have no personal experience. Finish seems fine on my friends 22/45 but he is having some reliability issues whichhe thinks is part of the mag disconnect not working properly. He sent it back to Ruger once, and it was not fixed, and the gun came back with many scratches on the receiver so he is hesitant to send it back again.

I have to admit, the MK III Hunter models seems intriguing to me.
__________________
Pilot
Pilot is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 08:57 AM   #67
AH.74
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
HK_Flo- that's the guy, Bruce Patza. He has an excellent reputation and his work is of high quality.

Ricklin- doing it that way leaves the LCI in place unfixed. There are also remaining spaces around the LCI in the gap- it's not as complete a fill as the piece provided by Bruce. This piece is fixed and will not move, and is also made of steel as opposed to polymer.

Pilot- I have a standard model, and the fit and finish is very good. The bluing is excellent.
AH.74 is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 04:40 PM   #68
Ricklin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2008
Location: North Orygun Coast
Posts: 600
It is fixed

Removing the tab eliminates the function of the LCI. Yes the LCI is still there. What is not there is that tab which is what causes the malfunctions.

All I can report is my experience. I brought my new in the box Mk. III to the range and experienced multiple FTF FTE and stovepipes. I researched on the various Ruger forums. Found the LCI was a common issue and how to disable it. I could not get through 1 full mag without a malfunction.

I removed that tab and the pistol now works like my Mk. II IE: perfect. Many others on the Ruger forums reported the same experience. Note: The metal tab is separate from the polymer piece it is mounted in. Just remove the small metal tab, and reassemble.

I do not want or need a LCI. I would not mind it's presence if it worked. It does not.
YMMV but that's my experience.
__________________
ricklin
Freedom is not free
Ricklin is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 04:50 PM   #69
Sevens
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 28, 2007
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 8,532
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."
__________________
Attention Brass rats and other reloaders: I really need .327 Federal Magnum brass, no lot size too small. Tell me what caliber you need and I'll see what I have to swap. PM me and we'll discuss.
Sevens is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 05:34 PM   #70
Ricklin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2008
Location: North Orygun Coast
Posts: 600
I agree 100%

I regret selling my Mk. II Government target. I had a bad experience with it (nothing to do with the pistol) and had to let it go. Only down side it was too darn heavy for anything but a range toy.

The Mk. II was indeed the high water mark. Nothing like having to "fix" a brand new in the box pistol. When I had the failures with my brand new Mk. III I was going to send it in to Ruger, until I read that others had done that only to have the same problems. I want my Ruger to eat most anything I feed it.

Next up is getting rid of the mag. disconnect but that is not a big deal. I am fairly happy with my Mk. III since I did the mod I described.

I also just bought a Keltec P11. I had to "fix" it too. Did not mind that so much given it was a 200 dollar pistol. I expect better from Ruger.
__________________
ricklin
Freedom is not free
Ricklin is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 06:29 PM   #71
weblance
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Posts: 605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricklin
I regret selling my Mk. II Government target. I had a bad experience with it (nothing to do with the pistol) and had to let it go. Only down side it was too darn heavy for anything but a range toy.
I agree with the weight comment. You dont want to carry a brick around the woods all day. You guys want to argue the high water mark? The 22/45 LITE is incredible. It weights half what the all steel Mark pistols weight, and has a threaded barrel. Of course, its saddled with those damn safety features that all the Mark IIIs have. I dumped the mag disco outta my LITE and have never looked back. Better than a Mark II? You betcha. There is no Mark II that compares.
weblance is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 08:47 PM   #72
Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2000
Posts: 3,622
I have been considering throwing a Tacsol lightweight upperl on one of my MK II's to kind of make my own "Lite" version without having to have the lawyer changes of the MK III, but I don't see them anywhere. Since the barreled upper is considered the receiver (bad move by Ruger IMHO) it is a hassle to get one because it must be transfered by an FFL. Plus they're bloody expensive.
__________________
Pilot
Pilot is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 09:39 PM   #73
weblance
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Posts: 605
You can buy the LITE for the cost of the Tac-Sol, and dont have the issue of the steel bolt slamming into the aluminum breech. The LITE has a steel breech.
weblance is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 09:00 AM   #74
Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2000
Posts: 3,622
I realize that you can buy a new Lite model for the price of just the Tacsol upper, however I won't buy a MKIII anything from Ruger. I really don't mind a little extra weight on my four inch bull barrel, and 5.5 inch bull barrel MKII Target Models.

If I get another .22LR which I need like a hole in the head right now as I have many, it will be another MKII or a Browning Buckmark.
__________________
Pilot
Pilot is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 01:57 PM   #75
weblance
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Posts: 605
Well then buy your TacSol upper, and when the chamber is beat out of it in 20,000 rounds, then you can get on here and complain about that.
weblance is offline  
Reply

Tags
.22 , 22/45 , mark ii , mark iii , ruger

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13737 seconds with 8 queries