PDA

View Full Version : How much should I pay for a Ruger MKI from 1966


American Eagle
September 20, 2011, 04:26 AM
A friend is offering me a Ruger MKI standard, with what looks like the larger barrel (looks like 6 inches to me) Anyway, the serial numbers say that it was manufactured in 1966, and it comes with the original Ruger box, original purchase receipt from early 1967, and original papers. The MKI is roughly 85%, with minor wear marks around the front of the barrel and grip area, and very minor dissassembly marks around the back of the grip area. It has the two original factory magazines, good bore, grips are in excellent shape, and the pistol shoots flawlessly.

He wants $200 for it. Is that too much to pay for this pistol? I offered him $150 and he wouldn't budge. He is adamant about getting $200. Should I walk away from it at this price? :confused:

(See my post further down for a better description of firearm's condition)

I should add that the original factory box from 1966 is in a little bit of a rough shape, though it is not torn. :( However, the original paperwork is in excellent shape.

NWPilgrim
September 20, 2011, 04:44 AM
I have the exact same pistol from a coupe of years earlier.

With only 85% finish I don't believe it has any collector value. A ton of these were made. One in pristine condition I could see having a premium but an obviously used one, I don't see it.

You can buy a new Mark III version (blued, 6" taper bbl, fixed sights) for $280. Would you rather have a brand new one for $280 or a 45 yr old one for $200? I would be surprised if he could sell an 85% finish Ruger standard for more than $150.

I would never sell mine. It has been a great pistol, and it was the last gun my Dad bought mailorder (direct from the Ruger newsprint catalog). That was before 1968.

I have bought a couple of Mark III pistols in the last few years and they are top notch. The used Standard would have to be pretty cheap for me to buy it over a Mark III, especially since now they can have bull barrels, adjustable rear sights, 10-rd mags that are easy to find, etc. An old pistol like that you may want to buy replacement springs at least. I know I've had to. Recoil spring, extractor and spring, mag springs are weak and new Standard 9-rd mags just don't work as well as the aluminum follower originals. I only shoot mine occasionally now for remembrance, and the new Mark III pistols do the hard range work.

ETA:
...very minor dissassembly marks around the back of the grip area.

To me that is a killer for any kind of premium price. I know, I have a couple of pistols I bought cheap because they have disassembly marks. I could never sell them for much for the same reason, but I bought them as working guns not for show or resale.

Of course your friend wants the most he can get for it. The question is, What is it worth to you given your alternatives? These sold for I think about $25 back in the 1960s, and the Blackhawk was about $75. So even the discounted sale price of $150 is pretty good appreciation for a well used gun made by the tens of thousands.

gyvel
September 20, 2011, 04:46 AM
I would rather have the 45 year old one for $200.00, especially with the original box and all the papers. Easily worth $200.00.

American Eagle
September 20, 2011, 04:57 AM
A little more information: The bluing itself is good, but is a little thin in some spots around the front of the barrel (where the barrel would rest on a surface.) The wear marks and dissassembly marks are all very light (nothing deep...i would say faint.) I would call it very moderate honest wear on a 45 year old pistol. My best estimate is that the pistol is around 85-87% (I'll stick with 85%)

Anyway, be honest about whether you would buy it or not. It would help me to make an informed decision. I am not looking to justify the purchase, and would only do so if it makes perfect sense.

SW40F
September 20, 2011, 06:45 AM
A year or so ago I bought a similar Ruger Standard with an old-school leather holster for $150 cash in a local, private sale.

Your friend has asked $200, and you have offered $150. Only when you both agree on a price will the sale take place.

As with any other commercial transaction, the gun is only worth the amount that it sells for, and everything else is advertisement, speculation and negotiation.

Best of luck, let us know how this works out.

American Eagle
September 20, 2011, 07:05 AM
I'll let you guys know what happens. I have a lot of thinking to do. I do have an MKIII, which has impressed me enough that I would not mind picking up an MKI or even an MKII....as long as the price is right. This is a tough decision.

ohen cepel
September 20, 2011, 07:13 AM
I think $200 is a good deal, not amazing but good. If you want it and are going to enjoy shooting it then $200 is good.

ammo.crafter
September 20, 2011, 07:14 AM
The MK I is a great little gun I use mine to shoot competition PPC and it performs flawlessly. If you have a MK III what is the purpose of buying the MK I?

American Eagle
September 20, 2011, 07:31 AM
If you have a MK III what is the purpose of buying the MK I?

I've enjoyed the MKIII so much that I've developed a great appreciation it, and deep down inside I think it would be neat to also have an MKI or MKII, though it's not really a necessity.

I guess it's kind of like the people who own 2 or 3 different M1911 pistols, or several different types of S&W .38SPL and .357 magnum revolvers. Do they really need more than 1? Probably not, but they appreciate the quality and reliability of their pistols so much that they want to own different variants just to shoot and have fun.

Pahoo
September 20, 2011, 09:55 AM
Personally, I feel that your $150.00 is right, on the money, especially in the condition you are indicating. That is unless you have a specific reason you want this one. If so, perhaps you guys could split the difference. Part of my reasoning is that recentlyy, I bought a standard MK-II, in box and stuff, for $135.00. It is in 98% condition. ... :)

You see many posts about the differences in the MK pistol family and a good MKI is really all you need. Hard to improve on perfection. ....;)


Be Safe !!!

HighValleyRanch
September 20, 2011, 10:17 AM
I have a Ruger Mk I from the commemorative year of independence, 1976.
It is one of the nicest target guns I have.

Because of the simplicity of the trigger setup, it has the cleanest triggers of all the Rugers.
I am one of those that prefer the Mk I over the others.

200.00 sounds like a very fair price. I don't see the Mk I's selling that often.

AZAK
September 20, 2011, 11:08 AM
A friend is offering me a Ruger MKI standard... He wants $200 for it.

Unless $50 is the difference between eating this week or not, buy it for the $200; that is what I would do.

In my mind this is a short journey, you are talking about a friend, and it is only $50/money.

loose_holster_dan
September 20, 2011, 11:11 AM
$100 tops

Boatme98
September 20, 2011, 11:14 AM
If you want it badly, go ahead. If you just "kind of" want it, negotiate and be willing to walk away.
I bought a "76 Mk I a year ago in 99% condition. No box or papers, but the gun is pristine. I paid $180 and would have gone quite a bit higher. But the Mk I is one I've wanted since I was a kid.

Walt Sherrill
September 20, 2011, 11:51 AM
I think I'd rather have a MK II for that price. I bought one recently that looked NIB for $225. Maybe a used MK III -- although that model has some quirks.

Finding mags for the MK I can be challenging, from time to time. I've had one.

I don't think the older guns really justify paying a premium; I have not seen a degradation in quality, over the years, for example.

WIL TERRY
September 20, 2011, 03:25 PM
I just bought an all but new-in-the-box MKII 6" for $175.00.
IMHO, the 6" STANDARD you're looking at is NOT worth over $150.00, and it is NOT a MKI unless it is so marked on the side of the upper frame. [ it is not...]

Joe the Redneck
September 20, 2011, 03:31 PM
Remember the old saying "split the difference"? This is a great time to use it

Dr. Strangelove
September 20, 2011, 04:25 PM
$200.00 is a fair price for that gun in that condition; in these parts, anyway. I don't know where you guys are buying the $150.00 Ruger pistols...

Like I say, it's a fair price, not a fire sale "jump on it now" kind. If you want it, buy it, don't try and beat your friend up about price. (I try to avoid buying, selling, and trading to family and friends because it complicates the deal and the relationship sometimes)

American Eagle
September 20, 2011, 04:55 PM
Ok...thanks for the advise. I'll try to see if I can split the difference in price with my friend...or maybe I can offer him a few boxes of ammo from what I have in stock to make up for the price difference between us. We'll see :D:D

I live in south Florida, which means I'm used to paying more for firearms than some of you pay in the Midwest, or the countryside somewhere....so if $150-$175 is good for you, maybe $200 is not so bad here in south Florida. But I'll still try to see if I can persuade him to split the price, or make a trade of some sort.

gyvel
September 20, 2011, 05:50 PM
$100 tops

When? In 1993?

NWPilgrim
September 20, 2011, 07:59 PM
$200.00 is a fair price for that gun in that condition; in these parts, anyway. I don't know where you guys are buying the $150.00 Ruger pistols...

That is not the point. In fact I rarely see Ruger Standards for sale. Maybe they are worth millions by that criteria.

The fact is you can buy a brand new Mark III, blued, same barrel length for $280. Unless you absolutely hate the mag safety (which means nothing to me on a non-self defense gun) I can't imagine why you would want to pay $200 for a 45 yr old gun and then spend another $20 or so for new springs and such. Assuming of course there is nothing significant worn out.

I would absolutely check those mags carefully as that is the hardest thing I have found to replace. even new Ruger Standard mags just don't work as well (plastic follower instead of aluminum). Mags are what, about $20 apiece? So if you buy the gun at $200, replace springs (or pay shipping to/from Ruger) for another $20 or more, and then replace two mags for another $40 you are at or above the price of a brand new Mark III.

The only reason I like my Standard is because of family memories. Without that there is no way I would pay a penny more than $150, nor ask a friend or family member to pay me more than that for a 1966 Standard. I love my Mark III Targets as hard use shooting guns!!

American Eagle
September 21, 2011, 03:35 PM
I decided to buy the pistol and managed to talk my friend down to $170 plus a round of beers. I should be picking the pistol up in about a week when I stop by his house again.

I'll post pictures and a range review sometime after that, when I have had time to fire the pistol and can compare it to my MK III

Dr. Strangelove
September 22, 2011, 12:23 AM
$200.00 is a fair price for that gun in that condition; in these parts, anyway. I don't know where you guys are buying the $150.00 Ruger pistols...

That is not the point. In fact I rarely see Ruger Standards for sale. Maybe they are worth millions by that criteria.

The fact is you can buy a brand new Mark III, blued, same barrel length for $280. Unless you absolutely hate the mag safety (which means nothing to me on a non-self defense gun) I can't imagine why you would want to pay $200 for a 45 yr old gun and then spend another $20 or so for new springs and such. Assuming of course there is nothing significant worn out.

I would absolutely check those mags carefully as that is the hardest thing I have found to replace. even new Ruger Standard mags just don't work as well (plastic follower instead of aluminum). Mags are what, about $20 apiece? So if you buy the gun at $200, replace springs (or pay shipping to/from Ruger) for another $20 or more, and then replace two mags for another $40 you are at or above the price of a brand new Mark III.

The only reason I like my Standard is because of family memories. Without that there is no way I would pay a penny more than $150, nor ask a friend or family member to pay me more than that for a 1966 Standard. I love my Mark III Targets as hard use shooting guns!!

Reooowrr! Hissss! Cool down kitty kat!

NWPilgrim
September 22, 2011, 12:46 PM
Reooowrr! Hissss! Cool down kitty kat!

Are you on drugs?

What in my post leads you to believe I am "hot"? I have both pistols, Standard and Mk III, and like them both. The fact is, the Standard is well worn and is not as reliable or easy to mags for.

If the OP wants to pay his friend $200 for a old pistol then good for him. Since he asked our opinions/advice I am trying to back up mine with experience and quantifiable factors. Unlike some who just throw out numbers with nothing to support them.

If my post seems hot to you then I can't imagine what your blood pressure does reading the rest of the InterWebz. A little thin skinned perhaps? Relax friend, we're talking guns, a fun hobby!

Dr. Strangelove
September 22, 2011, 03:20 PM
Are you on drugs?

What in my post leads you to believe I am "hot"? I have both pistols, Standard and Mk III, and like them both. The fact is, the Standard is well worn and is not as reliable or easy to mags for.

If the OP wants to pay his friend $200 for a old pistol then good for him. Since he asked our opinions/advice I am trying to back up mine with experience and quantifiable factors. Unlike some who just throw out numbers with nothing to support them.

If my post seems hot to you then I can't imagine what your blood pressure does reading the rest of the InterWebz. A little thin skinned perhaps? Relax friend, we're talking guns, a fun hobby!

:rolleyes:

NWPilgrim
September 22, 2011, 04:07 PM
OP, let us know how it works out for you. If you go for it they are nice pistols.

The only thing I do not like are the fixed sights. Back in the 1960s they were in the early stages of design and production and I imagine fixed sights helped to keep the price very low. That's why they sold so many. But today there is more competition in that market and most models have adjustable rear sights. One thing I like about the Mk III.

Sevens
September 23, 2011, 08:23 AM
I have shot and handled Mark I's, II's and III's.
I own a Mark II.

NOT because that's what I happen to own... but I would go FAR & WIDE to find, and I would pay more, for a Mark II than any of the others.

I would absolutely buy anything because I wanted it or because I thought I might enjoy it, but if I were looking for a firearm because it was valuable or rare, I'd likely avoid a series of handgun where they made them by the absolute truckload.

Mark II all the way and the others aren't in the race as far as I'm concerned.

buckweet
December 26, 2013, 06:50 AM
i like this thread .. prompted me to buy a mk1..
i love my mk2s .... have NO use for a mk3 ..
heck i paid 250.00 for my mk1 .. and happy with that . :D

silvermane_1
December 26, 2013, 09:42 AM
i had the chance to shoot a friends 4" tapered bbl Ruger Standard, pre-MK1, made in '54-'56, a very nice pistol for pushing 60 years old, so i say go for it OP, and i have a 6" tapered bbl Ruger MK3.

44 AMP
December 27, 2013, 12:42 PM
For a 6" standard model (not target model) with a decent finish, and with box and original papers, $200 is not a bad price. You'd be hard pressed to find one with all that, at that price at a gun show in my state.

For the gun alone (nothing else) and for one with a lot of finish wear, $200 is steep-ish.

It was a very common gun, BUT with original box and papers, that makes it uncommon today. TO those people who's interest is only in a shooting gun, its worth one amount. To someone who's interest includes the gun and all its original accessories, its worth a bit more.

Pilot
December 28, 2013, 01:35 PM
I think $170 is a fair price. About two years ago I bought a used, but LNIB MK II Target Model (5.5 inch bull barrel) with box, papers, and four mags for $175, and thought it was a fair price.

I think the MK II was the pinnacle for this model as it incorporated some upgrades on the Mk I, but also does not have the lawyer crap of the MK III.

SaxonPig
December 28, 2013, 01:39 PM
I can't recall how long it's been since I have seen one priced under $200.

Sevens
December 28, 2013, 06:58 PM
I think $170 is a fair price. About two years ago I bought a used, but LNIB MK II Target Model (5.5 inch bull barrel) with box, papers, and four mags for $175, and thought it was a fair price.
That wasn't a fair price two years ago and certainly isn't a fair price now, no matter how it felt.

That's not opinion, that's math.

Walt Sherrill
December 28, 2013, 09:17 PM
I seem to be another of the odd men out, here...

Having owned and shot both a MKI and a number of MKIIs, I personally don't understand the attraction of the MKI. I can't think of anything the MKII didn't do at least as well as the earlier MKI models.

If you're talking about a MKI that is pristine, maybe even a relatively rare model, in the original box with papers -- a true collectible -- then MAYBE I might be interested. That gun wouldn't be a shooter, having been bought only as a potential investment; that written, I think the money might be better "invested" in a mutual fund.

That wasn't a fair price two years ago and certainly isn't a fair price now, no matter how it felt.

That's not opinion, that's math.

A "fair price" is the price you pay with a clear conscience and a somewhat knowledgeable seller accepts freely. I'd argue that nless one party has KNOWINGLY taken advantage of the other, just about any sale price is a fair price.

.