Ruger mkll...yay or nay

[Cowboyfromhell]

I'm seriously considering buying a ruger mkll. If memory serves correct , I think this was the best of the mk series. Can anyone corroborate this? The one I'm looking at is vintage 1985 and it looks brand spanking new with the old school box and literature. I don't have a .22 pistol in the safe and I think I should fix that

[Spats McGee]

I believe that every shooter should have a .22 or three, and the Ruger Mark series is one of the standard recommendations when it comes to .22 pistols. (In fairness, it's usually the Browning Buckmark and the S&W Victory that are suggested right alongside the Marks). I can't corroborate whether one Mk series was better than another, having only owned Standards and Mk IVs. That said, I will admit that I'm a bit of a Ruger Mark fan, and I think you should get it.

[littlebikerider]

I have a MKII Competition that I bought new, in the 90's I think, that I love. It has no modifications. My buddy bought the MKIV version last year, and I believe mine has a superior finish and trigger. People complain about the difficult takedown of the pre-MKIV guns but it isn't that bad once you learn the tricks. I've seen MKII's sell for very attractive prices on Gunbroker and occasionally get tempted to buy another.

I say buy it!

[lunger]

YEA! In my opinion the best Marks. Mine is probably my most accurate 22 and one of my favorites.

[AgedWarrior]

I have owned a Standard Model for a lot of years; great pistol! I recently bought a Mark IV Target, and I really like it too. Both shoot good; accurate and reliable. The Mark VI is easy take down for cleaning, but the older guns are not that hard once you figure it out. I would jump on that Mark II!

[Kreyzhorse]

I don't know much about the Ruger, but it's reputation speaks volumes about it. I recently bought a Buckmark and it quickly became one of my favorite shooters.

Buckmark or Ruger MKII, buy all means you should add a .22lr to your collection.

[GarandTd]

Yay. Love my MKIII. It's a 22/45 target model in stainless.

[Hawg]

MKII's are great guns. Get the government model with the bull barrel if you can find one.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by CBFH

If memory serves correct , I think this was the best of the mk series. Can anyone corroborate this?

I can confirm that I share this opinion.

The MKII lacks the "safety" features (loaded chamber indicator, safety lock and magazine safety) that can cause problems and make maintenance harder.

I've had Buckmarks as well. They have better triggers, a better fitting grip and sharper sights. I like Rugers better though. Once assembled, it stays assembled, and hasn't any screws to back out.

[223 shooter]

I am a fan the MKII series and the 22/45s made during that time too. Many of the best targets I ever fired were with a MKII or 22/45. I have MKIIs/22/45s in 4" , 5.25" , 5.5" and 10" - the 1985 would be a great 22 pistol to fill the spot in the safe.

[T. O'Heir]

The Ruger Mk ll is an entry level pistol. Doing the trigger job they desperately need is a nightmare. Primarily because Ruger doesn't want you taking the thing apart. They do tend to go bang every time, but buying one would depend on what you want to do with it. And your budget, of course.
Had a bull barrel one years ago. Traded it off for a Vostok. That got sold when I bought my Smith 41. If you can afford and find a Smith 41, skip the middlemen. Put a Herrett target grip on it too. They change where/how the balance feels. Those run about $100 now though.

[BBarn]

Original models are nice, but do not lock the bolt back after the last shot, a feature added to the Mark II. As already stated, the Mark III adds additional features which complicate the mechanism. The Mark IV retains the Mark III features, but has much easier takedown.

I prefer the Mark II, but the Mark IV is very nice also. I also prefer the 22/45 variants. Lastly, it's worth noting that some parts for the Mark II (such as the recoil spring assembly) are no longer available from Ruger.

I've owned a few of the Rugers as well as Buckmarks, and have a slight preference for the latter.

[stinkeypete]

My vote is yea if you want one and yes if you like collecting Rugers or just want an okay .22 from back in the day but old .22s are sometimes real cheap now because the old ones don’t have a bunch of holes in em and rails for your iPhone, waffle iron and spotlight...

Trigger on the Ruger is really meh. Taking them apart is easy, putting back together the first time takes 10 minutes and 10 seconds the third time.

If you said an old Hi Standard, Colt or Smith... hmmmmm.

[10-96]

I too say go for the Ruger. I have one I won't part with. I also have two Buckmarks and a S&W 41. They get carried to the range more often, but I do like to take the MkII out when I'm introducing or working with a new shooter.

I'll probably catch the dickens for this, but here goes... I think a lot of folks over think the cleaning and lubrication of the, well, all rimfire pistols and rifles. I kinda keep the breech area and chamber clean, but I don't go all into detail cleaning a rimfire until it starts acting sluggish. The Army taught me to clean after every shooting session, but over time, I realized .22's don't really care all that much. Rimfire rounds tend to shoot dirty, but too much oil just makes for a thicker, heavier slurry that gums up twice as fast. True, there are some areas where a touch of oil is good, but you'll be surprised at how well they operate with just small amounts.

Every rimfire is different, you probably know all about buying several different brands and styles of ammo to find out which yours likes best. I don't buy plated bulleted ammo at all. I guess I understand it may help with higher velocity ammo to prevent leading or fouling, but that brings up another point. In the circles I shoot in, it's believed that non-jacketed target ammo that runs between 1050 and 1200fps will tend to deliver best consistency and possible accuracy if your pistol likes that particular brand, type, and lot number. I believe just about all lead bullets have some sort of coating that helps reduce leading- and lower velocity helps reduce that also. If the pistol is around 1985 vintage and hasn't been shot since then- and if the seller recommends a particular ammo- it may be worth looking into. However, for some reason, either the powder or priming compound has changed since then. I'm not the onliest one that's convinced .22 ammo just isn't as accurate as it was prior to the 70's and 80's. YMMV.
Good luck, have fun, and go shoot!

[reteach]

My Mark II is a 22/45 and is a 2000 vintage. It was accurate and reliable from the start, but then my eyes got old. About a year ago I put a red dot on it and now it's almost boringly accurate. Like others are saying, it's one I will not part with.

[HBoswell]

I say go for it! One question though, is the one you are looking at a standard(fixed sights) or a target(adjustable sights)? A decent price for a standard would be $250 to $300 in like new condition whereas the target would be $300 and up depending on which model you are looking at. A Mark lV will run you $400 plus. As to the difference between the Mark ll and Mark lV, I am firmly in the Mark ll camp and have several Mark ll's in different models. Youtube will teach you everything you need to know about take down and re-assembly which isn't nearly as complicated as some people claim. Besides, you really don't have to break it down for a full cleaning until you have 300-500 rounds down range.

[dgludwig]

The MK II is also my favorite of the Mark pistols. As others have noted, the MK II isn't burdened by superfluous "safety" features but does have a bolt hold-open device the original lacked. I'm an old Bullseye competitor and prefer the Government variant for my purposes.

My Ruger MKII shares space in my gun box with some high-priced neighbors, including a Browning Medalist and a Smith Model 41, but it takes a backseat to none of them when it comes to intrinsic accuracy potential. Ruger Mark pistols may cost a lot less than some of its competitors but it is no "entry level" gun in terms of its accuracy credentials-it won a lot of matches at Camp Perry "back in the day".

[jetinteriorguy]

Mark II’s are the way to go. I have the 5” bull barrel target model in stainless I bought used about five years ago for $275.00 and it makes me really look good at the range. This reminds me, I haven’t shot it for a while. I think tomorrow is a range day for .22’s.

[mxsailor803]

I’ve owned a MK 1, 2, 3, and 4. I personally prefer my MKIV just because of the ease of cleaning. It makes it worlds easier to clean it. Now, am I going to turn down a good deal for one of the previous models? Heck no! They are still super reliable and accurate.

[rc]

That was a great vintage for reliable ruger products. If it has the tapered two piece bolt the ears, the back part may fall off over time. But if it does Ruger will replace it so buy away.

[libiglou]

I have one that has had 10 of thousands of rounds through it.For awhile it was my only 22 pistol. Like everyone else has said a bit of a pain in the butt to disassemble in the beginning but after a few times its easy. The trigger is also an issue. I had it worked on and its still not Target grade, although the gun can deliver some pretty impressive accuracy results with the right kind of ammo. If your looking for a plinker or General purpose 22 it will fill the role. If you want to compete or if accuracy is a priority to you then either get a 41 or get it worked on. Vosquartson does some nice work on these guns. I went with a nelson conversion on a worked on 1911 frame and now have a true target pistol with an outstanding trigger.but I can't depart with my Ruger. Looking to put a dot on it now to increase its versatility. Chances are your going to have more than one 22 pistol or even rifle. The caliber is addicting. Good Luck

[rep1954]

MKII NRA with a little help from Volquartsen on the sights and 1911 style frame. Shoots as good as anything I’ve shot with the same sight radius and better than most. Most I’ve seen need only a little trigger work at the most to be excellent shooters.

EA512011-DB0C-47B4-A93B-65493AC963A5.jpeg

[rodfac]

I too have a Mkll Standard with the skinny bbl. and really like it. It's heavy enough for stability while shooting but still light enough to carry all day long in an OWB holster. I also have a M41 Smith that I shot Bullseye competition during the late 70's through 1987. It was and still is, superbly accurate and with an outstanding trigger.

But I've got to say that for two-handed use I'm equally accurate with the Mkll Ruger as I am with the M41. Any .22 pistol I've owned over the years has preferences as to what brand of ammunition shoots the best. Both my Ruger Mkll and the M41 are no exception. For the Ruger, Federal Auto-Match is every bit as good as Eley or Wolf Match. Groups, two-handed from a rest are well below 1-1/2" at 25 yds. And that's the limit of my aging eyesight.

I'd say you're well served getting the Ruger for any thing except blue ribbon Bullseye matches where a better trigger would help with one-handed shooting.

YMMv, Rod

[44 AMP]

I got a Mk I in the early 80s, and 'fell into" a MK II a half dozen years later. THe Mk I has the long barrel and adj, sights, which I like, and the Mk II had a bull barrel which I didn't. I did like the slide stop of the Mk II (which the Mk I lacks) but not enough to keep the gun and traded it off after a while. Still have the Mk I and its not going anywhere.

As to the "too difficult" to take down and reassemble there is a very simple solution. Don't.

The Ruger Mark pistol can be cleaned and kept running for decades without any need to take it apart.

[Cheapshooter]

I'll probably catch the dickens for this, but here goes... I think a lot of folks over think the cleaning and lubrication of the, well, all rimfire pistols and rifles. I kinda keep the breech area and chamber clean, but I don't go all into detail cleaning a rimfire until it starts acting sluggish. The Army taught me to clean after every shooting session, but over time, I realized .22's don't really care all that much. Rimfire rounds tend to shoot dirty, but too much oil just makes for a thicker, heavier slurry that gums up twice as fast. True, there are some areas where a touch of oil is good, but you'll be surprised at how well they operate with just small amounts.

No "flaming" here! Truer words have never been spoken.