Ruger 22/45 advice

[Green Lantern]

To pick one is choice I face.

Mark II 22/45 built in '95 for $229

OR

Mark IV 22/45 New for $340


Thanks in advance. You guys are great.

[DnPRK]

If you are going to keep it for a long time, I'd go for the mk 4 since it will have parts available from Ruger. Peculiar parts for older pistols run out and are hard to get.

[PzGren]

I do not see a parts problem arising with this relatively new design of firearm any time soon. Ruger is known for excellent customer service and besides that, the 22/45 and MK II & III has a plethora of aftermarket parts that will help upgrading the pistols.

I would go used.

[AzShooter]

I'd go with the Mark IV. I love mine. I have thousands of round through it with very few problems. Mostly bad ammo. It's so easy to clean compared to my Mark III.

Accuracy is excellent. I use it for Steel Challenge Matches and am doing pretty well with it.

Ruger has stopped honoring parts for the Mark II so I wouldn't buy one.

[ms6852]

I have read that the Mark IV is easier to field strip now, but since it is a new design they had a recall and continue to have problems. As of right now it is a hit or miss. I would wait another year before purchasing a Mark IV and let the company work out the issues they have with the current productions.

[cecILL]

I may be odd, but Mark II.

[Smoke & Recoil]

I'm with cecILL, but the MK III...than again, I'm a mechanical wizard .

[Prndll]

Personally, I'm not all that fond of the Mark IV design. After mastering the Mark III, it just seems a bit cheesy. Could be just me I guess. My Mark III is currently being fit with custom made grips and I should be getting it back in about a month (smith has alot of work to do after Harvey). From the moment I saw it in the glass case, I knew I had to have it. The only real issues at this point is with certain ammo. But that's ok, .22LR is cheap enough.

-----------------------

ms6852:
I love the signature line. I only ask for forgiveness from them both for growth as a man with a few things in life to work on while being humbled by the things they both do.

[Don P]

MK II,

[kraigwy]

I dont know about the difference between MK II, III, for IV.

I have the Mark III 22/45 and love it. Its reliable and accurate. Only problem I've had wasnt the gun but the odd dud 22 rounds.

However, I would love wider grips, I dont kwow if its possible to add grips to the MK III, hopefully if there is some one would chime in.

But its not a big enough problem that I would trade it off, but wider grips would be nice.

[bassJAM1]

I'd go for the Mark II. I couldn't justify spending over $100 more for the newer model, even if it is easier to clean.

[Bottom Gun]

I have no experience with a MKIV but I have had a MKIII and presently have a MKII. I found the MKII trigger to be better than the MKIII trigger in a side by side comparison. Also the overall quality of the MKII is better compared to the MKIII. The MKII front sight is machined better, etc. Overall, I shot better with the MKII than I did with the MKIII.
I've learned that newer doesn't necessarily mean better. Many design changes are made to make parts more economical to produce rather than to increase performance. I saw examples of this in the MKIII.

[223 shooter]

I would and did pick the MKII series 22/45. Bought two this year - one a 4" blue and the other a 5.5" stainless. The 5.5" is one of the most accurate handguns I have ever owned.

[straightshooterjake]

I highly recommend getting the guns in hand before making the choice. To the best of my knowledge, Ruger has made the polymer 22/45 frames in three distinct styles. The earliest style, which is probably on the Mk II does not have replaceable grip panels and is moderately thick. Later, during the Mk III era, they introduced a new style of frame with fixed grip panels, but the frame is much thinner.

More recently, they introduced a 22/45 grip frame with replaceable grip panels. Some Mk III models use this frame, and as far as I know, all Mk IV 22/45 models use this style. The only 22/45 frames that I like are these recent models with the replaceable grip frames, and I like these frames a lot. In my opinion, these are the only 22/45 frames that really feel like a 1911. These frames feel good to me with the stock grip panels they come with, and the grip can be changed according user preference. I should note however, that standard 1911 grips will not fit these pistols without modification.

Neither of the earlier style 22/45 frames with entire grip made of one piece of plastic feel right in my hands. And due to their design, they are not easily modified to change the feel. However, some people like these grips quite well. So if you are offered a good deal on one of these pistols, you should get it in hand and see what you think.

Aside from the grips, I like Mk II pistols quite well. Many people prefer the easier disassembly of a Mk IV, but I have not found the Mk II pistols difficult to maintain. And I think the current market may have some good deals on Mk II and Mk III pistols.

[Green Lantern]

Bought one today.

Went with the Mark II 22/45 at $229.

[Green Lantern]

Love the stainless

[AzShooter]

You did great. The Mark II is the best of the lot. Good trigger from the factory and no magazine disconnector.

[brian33x51]

Interesting to see the mk2 holds up it value so well compared to a new mk4. I have a mk3 which functions just fine but would be nice to have an all metal stainless. Really though my mk3 didn't get much use until after I got married and now with growing kids. I really do need to get a 10/22...

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by straightshooterjake

...To the best of my knowledge, Ruger has made the polymer 22/45 frames in three distinct styles. The earliest style, which is probably on the Mk II does not have replaceable grip panels and is moderately thick. Later, during the Mk III era, they introduced a new style of frame with fixed grip panels, but the frame is much thinner.

More recently, they introduced a 22/45 grip frame with replaceable grip panels. Some Mk III models use this frame, and as far as I know, all Mk IV 22/45 models use this style.

You are correct about the MkII and MkIV (my emphasis in boldface).

I like the non-22/45 MkII better than any other Mk-series variant, but regarding the MkII 22/45, you either like the fat slippery plastic one-piece "Unigrip" or you don't—and I don't. IMHO a major plus of the MkIV and most MkIII 22/45s is the replaceable grip panels. YMMV.

[SGW Gunsmith]

There is a fella, has his own web-site, who will mill the sides of the Ruger 22/45 flat where the molded in place Zeytel grip frames have what appears to be grips. He will then insert grip bushings so that any, and all, 1911 style grip panels will be accepted.

Google "Kingshouse Grip Modification".



Here's what his modification looks like empty of grip panels.

[Green Lantern]

Thanks for that.

[john in jax]

I think you need both. Only reason I would go with a new MkIV is if you wanted to go threaded bbl and silencer.