Ruger Mark IV styles -- thoughts? Opinions?

[OhioGuy]

I'm looking into the MKIV as a target pistol. Definitely want to run an optic on it, probably Vortex Venom. There are a ton of models! I don't want to spend a ton up front, also don't want to box myself in.

I think I'm most interested in the Target, Competition and Hunter models. From what I can tell, the major difference is that the latter two have all metal frames and longer (and cooler looking) barrels? I held the Target and Hunter in the store side by side, and the Hunter is definitely heavier and feels way more solid. Nice fiber optic sight! Also costs $200+ more.

Any recommendations? I'm sure I can upgrade the barrel, sights, grips, etc. with aftermarket parts, so would I be better served with the basic Target model and then upgrade over time?

I had an S&W Victory for a while. Nice gun, but I never fell in love with it and always had problems with it not fully going into battery, even with higher pressure ammo. The MKIV Target felt on par with the Victory, whereas the Hunter (and I'm guessing, also Competition) model felt much more solid.

[Areoflyer09]

It depends on your intended use. For precision, I like the weight. For speeds, I like the 22/45s.

The easiest to put a red dot on are the 22/45s that come with a rail. You can get a rail for the others though.

If you aren’t going to be using the iron sights, the standard target style with the shorter barrel would work just fine.

My favorite is my MKIII Hunter (I prefer the older safety style). With full VQ internals and a TK trigger, it’s a favorite for most who shoot it.

You really can’t go wrong with any of the models, but I highly recommend the VQ parts. The MkIVs have acceptable trigger from the factory (like the rest of theMK series), but they really wake up with the upgrades. Any more I buy will have the VQ order placed the next day.

[laytonj1]

I have the stainless target model which is all steel. The blued target model has an aluminum frame. The only difference between the three versions is the barrel (and sights on the hunter).
My target version is on the heavy side. It also had a heavy trigger. I replaced the internals with Volquartsen parts which greatly lightened the trigger pull and aided greatly for accuracy. With a red dot sight attached I shot a 10 shot group at 30 yards measuring just under 3/4 inch. While I’m happy with it, I still like my 58 year old Mark I better. Also, I think the hunter is the better looking of the three versions but it wasn’t available when I bought mine.

Jim

[Model12Win]

Might want to try the “Navy Luger”, the Standard with 6” bbl.

[OhioGuy]

What's the difference with the 22/45 model? It looks like it has a 1911 grip vs the "Luger" looking grip. Is that basically the difference?

[Spats McGee]

I have a 22/45 Lite and Mrs. McGee has a 22/45. Her 22/45 is definitely more accurate than my Lite. If you're going to "upgrade the barrel, sights, grips, etc. with aftermarket parts," with an eye to doing this over time, I'd go with a basic target model, either straight MK IV or 22/45, and go from there.

[Mobuck]

"I think I'm most interested in the Target, Competition and Hunter models. From what I can tell, the major difference is that the latter two have all metal frames and longer (and cooler looking) barrels?"
First you need to make the decision on the grip style you like. The alloy MK or the polymer 22/45 use similar internals so the difference is grip angle and material. I've had numerous variations of both and prefer the 22/45. I have 6 Ruger 22/45 pistols with 4.5-5.5" barrel lengths and Son has a couple including a LITE.
Optic mounting can be accomplished using a rail or by removing the rear sight and using a neat little dovetailed plate. I use both but the dovetail mount is less intrusive, lighter, and "cooler". It does negate the option of removing the optic and shooting open sights.
Barrel length is a personal choice but longer barrels give longer sight radius if using the open sights. No real diff if using an optic. A longer barrel adds a bit of velocity with HV ammo.
"upgrade the barrel, sights, grips, etc. with aftermarket parts," In a word, NO(well, maybe). The upgrade that produces the most satisfaction is the trigger/sear. The barrel is "non=replaceable" in the normal thinking. The top end can be replaced/upgraded but you're going to have some lofty requirements before that does much for you.
So, here's my experiences with several 22/45's ranging from an early product MK2 to a late production MK3(you can believe this or don't, I'm relating real world use). I bought a 4" threaded barrel MK3, added a 3x scope and after break-in shot some 3-4" groups @100 YARDS. After upgrading the fire control, this pistol shoots even better. We often shoot from a rest out to 150 yards with these guns so accuracy with the factory barrels is not a limiting factor.

[Areoflyer09]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

What's the difference with the 22/45 model? It looks like it has a 1911 grip vs the "Luger" looking grip. Is that basically the difference?

The standard frame runs a Luger like grip angle. The 22/45 is a 1911 grip angle.

The other difference is all of the 22/45s will have polymer frames.

[OhioGuy]

Originally Posted by Mobuck

"I think I'm most interested in the Target, Competition and Hunter models. From what I can tell, the major difference is that the latter two have all metal frames and longer (and cooler looking) barrels?"
First you need to make the decision on the grip style you like. The alloy MK or the polymer 22/45 use similar internals so the difference is grip angle and material. I've had numerous variations of both and prefer the 22/45. I have 6 Ruger 22/45 pistols with 4.5-5.5" barrel lengths and Son has a couple including a LITE.
Optic mounting can be accomplished using a rail or by removing the rear sight and using a neat little dovetailed plate. I use both but the dovetail mount is less intrusive, lighter, and "cooler". It does negate the option of removing the optic and shooting open sights.
Barrel length is a personal choice but longer barrels give longer sight radius if using the open sights. No real diff if using an optic. A longer barrel adds a bit of velocity with HV ammo.
"upgrade the barrel, sights, grips, etc. with aftermarket parts," In a word, NO(well, maybe). The upgrade that produces the most satisfaction is the trigger/sear. The barrel is "non=replaceable" in the normal thinking. The top end can be replaced/upgraded but you're going to have some lofty requirements before that does much for you.
So, here's my experiences with several 22/45's ranging from an early product MK2 to a late production MK3(you can believe this or don't, I'm relating real world use). I bought a 4" threaded barrel MK3, added a 3x scope and after break-in shot some 3-4" groups @100 YARDS. After upgrading the fire control, this pistol shoots even better. We often shoot from a rest out to 150 yards with these guns so accuracy with the factory barrels is not a limiting factor.

Thanks! That's really helpful information and experience!

Do you shoot with a suppressor attached, and does that do anything to improve velocity or accuracy by effectively making the barrel longer?

I'd probably go with a rail, so I can switch between open and optic sights depending on how/where I'm shooting.

Hadn't thought of a scope...but that's kinda awesome to shoot out to 100 yds with a pistol. That's a handheld rifle, right there!

I love a 1911 grip angle -- not especially concerned with whether the base is polymer or not. The Hunter model I handled was solid but quite heavy. Is the 22/45 grip compatible with most 1911 grip panels for customization?

It's a known fact that guns shoot straighter when they look cooler

[OhioGuy]

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

I have a 22/45 Lite and Mrs. McGee has a 22/45 Target. Her 22/45 Target is definitely more accurate than my Lite. If you're going to "upgrade the barrel, sights, grips, etc. with aftermarket parts," with an eye to doing this over time, I'd go with a basic target model, either straight MK IV or 22/45, and go from there.

I like the looks and the price of the 22/45 Target -- under $300.

[CDR_Glock]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

I'm looking into the MKIV as a target pistol. Definitely want to run an optic on it, probably Vortex Venom. There are a ton of models! I don't want to spend a ton up front, also don't want to box myself in.



I think I'm most interested in the Target, Competition and Hunter models. From what I can tell, the major difference is that the latter two have all metal frames and longer (and cooler looking) barrels? I held the Target and Hunter in the store side by side, and the Hunter is definitely heavier and feels way more solid. Nice fiber optic sight! Also costs $200+ more.



Any recommendations? I'm sure I can upgrade the barrel, sights, grips, etc. with aftermarket parts, so would I be better served with the basic Target model and then upgrade over time?



I had an S&W Victory for a while. Nice gun, but I never fell in love with it and always had problems with it not fully going into battery, even with higher pressure ammo. The MKIV Target felt on par with the Victory, whereas the Hunter (and I'm guessing, also Competition) model felt much more solid.

My background. I shoot freehanded always. All revolvers are Shot in double action. I shoot over 1500 rounds of centerfire pistol and 1000 rounds of 22 LR a month. I have my own backyard range but I belong to a club, too. I do mini IDPA competitions but I’m too lazy to drive more than 30 minutes to do the official IDPA at the moment.



The 22/45 is going to be nearly identical to what you have in the Victory. If that is what are considering, save your money or give it to us.

The target will be a little better than the victory for accuracy and distance but the competition is going to be a definite upgrade. The Hunter is just outright heavy so Forget it because you definitely won’t be shooting 300 - 500 rounds a range session with it.

I have NEVER heard of upgrading a barrel on these. It’s a blowback design so the only mod you can do is an INTEGRATED SUPPRESSOR BARREL.

My competition has tens of thousands of rounds through it.

My friend’s SS Target and my Slabside Target Competition are pictured.
I

I have a Ruger Mark II Target Competition. I found it in 2011 and outfitted it with an Ultradot Matchdot. So the sights that came with my gun are moot.

I don’t compete with it but I plink with mine. I have shot mine out to 100 yards at steel plates, hit golf balls at 25 yards, 4 inch rods at 50 yards, etc.

The Target Competition is perfectly balanced and weighted.
—
Ruger triggers are Crap. Across the board. But I’m strong so it doesn’t bother me on revolvers. You can modify a Ruger trigger to make it mediocre. But I have several super redhawks and I have adapted.


But in a precision pistol, triggers are everything. You will NEED TO REPLACE the factory Ruger trigger with a Volquartsen.

My only modification to my Ruger Mark II is the Volquartsen Trigger modification. It’s about 2.2 lbs.
——
I am in the process of getting a Mark IV SS Pistol with an integrated suppressor. I’m going to do the Volquartsen Trigger in it, also.

The hunter is good but it is a bit top heavy to be an enjoyable shooting experience for prolonged shooting sessions.
——
I bought a rail to mount my optic.

As for optics, the Venom is decent, as a 3 MOA sight. But it’s more of a tactical system. I do have it on a 9.5 inch Ruger Super Redhawk 44 Magnum. It’s great. It has a great warranty, and Vortex is a great company.

But for the money and versatility, plus a lifetime warranty, the Ultradot Matchdot or Matchdot II are amazing. You can adjust MOA in increments of 2, from 2 to 8 MOA. I have mine set for 4 MOA.

——
Now if you want all tactical, then by all means do a 22/45 Tactical with threaded Suppressor and a Vortex. You can add a compensator to the tip or get a suppressor. It would serve you well.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

I like the looks and the price of the 22/45 Target -- under $300.

My wife really doesn't shoot very often, but she loves her 22/45. TBH, I love it, too.

[Mobuck]

"Do you shoot with a suppressor attached, and does that do anything to improve velocity or accuracy by effectively making the barrel longer? "
The suppressor doesn't change the velocity that I can tell. It may reduce muzzle movement by it's forward weight which may affect accuracy. I shoot mostly sub-sonic with the muffler and that's what I use for most shooting. The 3" 100 yard groups were fired using a "muzzle extension" which provided forward weight and allowed the front sandbag to be several inches past the actual muzzle of the 4" barrel.
The LITE is simply too light out front for me to get good accuracy unless a muffler or muzzle extension is used. When using a fairly light suppressor, the LITE is about the same weight as a 5.5" heavy barrel pistol alone.
I've seen very inexperienced shooters hit the 8" gong @100 yards w/o difficulty using the red dot.

[dgludwig]

I used to compete in Bullseye matches and, over time, preferred a Ruger MKII Government model over two other fine target pistols I use, including a Smith & Wesson Model 41 and a Browning Medalist. I use only iron sights in Bullseye events.
Some, if not most, Ruger .22 auto pistols will benefit from some attention to the trigger pulls in my experience. Replacing the stock trigger with the affordable Volquartsen unit is certainly a viable option.

[Mobuck]

"Replacing the stock trigger with the affordable Volquartsen unit is certainly a viable option."

Both my bragging 22/45's are equipped with VQ kits.

[Spats McGee]

I will add this: The Mk IV series are almost disappointingly easy to clean.

[OhioGuy]

The 22/45 is going to be nearly identical to what you have in the Victory. If that is what are considering, save your money or give it to us.

The target will be a little better than the victory for accuracy and distance but the competition is going to be a definite upgrade. The Hunter is just outright heavy so Forget it because you definitely won’t be shooting 300 - 500 rounds a range session with it.

LOL I actually sold the Victory about a year ago. Kinda wishing I hadn't. See what it's done for me?

So if the Competition is a definite upgrade over the Target model -- in what ways? Clearly it's a heavier gun with a longer barrel and several reviews refer to it as "perfectly balanced."

I suspect I'd like the grip of the 22/45, cuz 1911's are awesome and always have been, and I can find the stock 22/45 Target for $300 or less.

I'd put an optic on it regardless, so that cost is a wash.

If I spent the roughly $250 price difference (22/45 Target vs. Competition) on VQ trigger upgrades would I have a better overall result with the cheaper gun?

I don't want to have buyer's remorse in a year, but for range and steel plate plinking, I'm guessing the 22/45 Target would serve me very well and give me plenty of room to upgrade and tinker.

Fair statement?

The "Tactical" model seems like a decent deal too, and I'll need the rail for the optic, but it kind of looks like it's trying to look cool... Plus I really don't think I'm going to mount any lights or lasers on my .22 plinker ...

If I kick in doors and start raiding drug houses, I may have to upgrade to at least a 9mm

[Mobuck]

"If I spent the roughly $250 price difference (22/45 Target vs. Competition) on VQ trigger upgrades would I have a better overall result with the cheaper gun? "

IMHO
ABSOLUTELY

[rt11002003]

I have all three Mk IVs you mention. Also have the Vortex red dot mounted on a S&W Model 41. Have a Simmons scope on my Competition ( and Government Target), a C-More on my Hunter (TALO, a short barrel) and my Target. IMO the shorter barrel Mk IVs are better balanced. Especially when using scopes on the long barrel guns. It also seems to be the same situation for me with iron sights, or a Vortex, a Burris, a C-More or an Ultra Dot on all the guns. I've tried every combination of sights when comparing the longer barrels vs the shorter barrels. I'm 80 now, so m/b I'm not strong enough to handle the heavier guns. I put Volquartsen kits on all four of my Rugers.

I rate the C-More red dot as best of the four mentioned. The Vortex is second, followed by the Burris. The Ultra Dot is last. But, again, my aged eyes are probably a factor there. They are all acceptable and beat iron sights.


I will also note I tend to pick up the Hunter more than the others. Don't have any idea why.

[OhioGuy]

Today I handled the Mark IV Target, Target with Ruger's wood laminate grips and the 22/45 Lite.

Agree that the short barrel seemed better balanced. The Target was front heavy. The heavy grips provided some more balance but they were way too chunky for my liking.

I swapped the Target upper onto the 22/45 frame for what I assume was equivalent to the 22/45 Target model (luckily the gun store guy was patient with me).

That seemed the most front heavy of any.

While I don't especially care about a suppressor, perhaps the Lite or Tactical 22/45 would be better balanced overall?

Honestly I liked them all. I learned I definitely prefer the 1911 style grip so at least that's narrowed down now.

Is there a way to improve the balance on that polymer lower? Metal grips, etc?

[Mobuck]

"Is there a way to improve the balance on that polymer lower? Metal grips, etc?"
If it's a grip frame with the 1911 style panels, then any 1911 grip panels should fit. There are weighted panels for specific uses IIRC.
I agree that adding a long, heavy barrel to a 22/45 makes it muzzle heavy. Many precision shooters prefer this as I do. I no longer do much off-hand pistol shooting so it's no much of an issue for me. One of my go to field positions is sitting using crossed sticks with the barrel/muffler junction in the X. With elbows on knees, this is a very stable position.

[Areoflyer09]

FWIW, I find my 22/45 Lite does not have the accuracy of the 22/45 Target. The lower upper weight will let the Lite balance better though.

As a whole, the 22/45s balance better with a loaded mag.

[Spats McGee]

I have to make a rather embarrassing correction. All this time, I've been saying that I got Mrs. McGee a "22/45 Target." I looked at Ruger's website and could find no such beast. Apparently, I got her a plain old Mk IV 22/45. There is no "22/45 Target."

That said, the only differences I can see between the Mk IV Target and the 22/45 are: (1) the grip frame; (2) the stamping of the word "Target" on the Target model; and (3) price.

[dontcatchmany]

I have a Mark IV 22/45 Target (model 40107).

From the git go and after approximately 1,000 rounds I have been extremely impressed. Not a single failure (except a CCI mini mag that had ?wax? where the case and bullet are together). It has been extremely accurate and a fantastic training pistol for my other semiautomatics and cheaper, of course.

I am getting old and since I have added the 22/45 my shooting with all of my handguns has gotten better. I am learning to mostly overcome the vagaries of aging by being able to shoot the 22/45 more and without failures.

I also have an SR22 and a GSG 1911-22 but they are inconsistent in their performance and that breaks the concentration. The 22/45 has eaten any High Velocity or Standard Velocity ammo I have tried.

So far I have not even wanted to entertain putting any type of scope on the Mark IV 22/45.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by dontcatchmany

I have a Mark IV 22/45 Target (model 40107). . . .

That comes up on Ruger's website as the Mk IV 22/45, but I see no "Target" designation. Does yours say Target on it?