Ruger 22 Automatic - An American Classic

Status
Not open for further replies.
10s.jpg
There they are. All three 10" barrel .22 pistols that I have. One is currently using a Tacsol lw upper, but you can see the barrel above it.
 
The MKII was the best of the series, though I don't own a MKIV. A bud who has one is very happy with his. He is a Bullseye shooter. I have shot my MKII's in Bullseye competition and I do better with with my M46/M41. I think it is due to ergonomics and the trigger. I really hate cleaning the Ruger as each time I have to relearn how to put the thing back together. It is not intuitive, the parts are blind, and the hammer strut and mainspring never line up the first time. Sure, once I figure it out, it is all obvious. Everything is obvious in hindsight. But then, I forget all the little tricks inbetween cleanings. The S&W M41 design is simple and straight forward to disassemble and reassemble.

I do see a lot of Rugers on the Bullseye firing line, some with a lot of Volquartsen parts. The guys shooting stock box and Volquartsen often kick my butt in competition, so, I think it is a good pistol. It is highly reliable, can shoot an enormous amount of ammunition before anything wears out. Based on my rifle ammunition tests, you don't need a match barrel in a pistol. The factory barrel is good enough. The greatest source of error is the person shooting the gun, ammunition makes a difference, but it is more important to have ammunition that reliably functions the mechanism as alibis will ruin your score. I have been using CCI Std Velocity, the stuff shoots well enough for me and I only have the occasional malfunction. Really good shooters show up with Lapua, Eley Red Box, stuff that you can see accuracy differences in a rifle, but in a pistol, I doubt it. The ten ring is four inches at fifty yards in Bullseye Pistol. I think it is less than an inch in Smallbore Prone. That is a huge difference and few pistol shooters clean the fifty yard target.

Paid the factory to drill and tap this MKII

H3zQPWb.jpg

Paid Clark to drill and tap it. Has a new Ultra Dot on top.

XDe298d.jpg


Ruger out lived the High Standard. Older shooters loved their High Standards, now magazines for the things are worth their weight in silver. In a couple of years, it will be Gold.

The guys shooting this Ruger regularly kicks my butt in competition. I think he had a trigger job, but otherwise, it is stock box. He is shooting well enough to get bumped up a class, and that is my hope for him!

YaP8Rba.jpg
 
MKII-1.jpg

Stock except for grip. Government Target.


MKII-2.jpg

Stock except for grip. Found this in a pawnshop just as you see it. It's my only stainless MK pistol.

MKII-3.jpg

Grip and comp. The comp does make a difference.

buckmark.jpg

Hey! How did this imposter get in here? I've had the TacSol barrel on if for years. I may just put the 10" tube back on it for giggles.


I wish I could shoot to the potential of any of these pistols. Even that little 4" shoots like a laser.
 
The MKII was the best of the series, though I don't own a MKIV. A bud who has one is very happy with his. He is a Bullseye shooter. I have shot my MKII's in Bullseye competition and I do better with with my M46/M41. I think it is due to ergonomics and the trigger. I really hate cleaning the Ruger as each time I have to relearn how to put the thing back together. It is not intuitive, the parts are blind, and the hammer strut and mainspring never line up the first time. Sure, once I figure it out, it is all obvious. Everything is obvious in hindsight. But then, I forget all the little tricks inbetween cleanings. The S&W M41 design is simple and straight forward to disassemble and reassemble.

I do see a lot of Rugers on the Bullseye firing line, some with a lot of Volquartsen parts. The guys shooting stock box and Volquartsen often kick my butt in competition, so, I think it is a good pistol. It is highly reliable, can shoot an enormous amount of ammunition before anything wears out. Based on my rifle ammunition tests, you don't need a match barrel in a pistol. The factory barrel is good enough. The greatest source of error is the person shooting the gun, ammunition makes a difference, but it is more important to have ammunition that reliably functions the mechanism as alibis will ruin your score. I have been using CCI Std Velocity, the stuff shoots well enough for me and I only have the occasional malfunction. Really good shooters show up with Lapua, Eley Red Box, stuff that you can see accuracy differences in a rifle, but in a pistol, I doubt it. The ten ring is four inches at fifty yards in Bullseye Pistol. I think it is less than an inch in Smallbore Prone. That is a huge difference and few pistol shooters clean the fifty yard target.

I don't feel that there's anything wrong with the Ruger Mark III that a few aftermarket parts and a bit of tuning and smoothing can't rectify. The Ruger Mark III introduced versions that were not available in the Ruger Mark I & II pistols. This is my walk-about pistol I pack along when traipsing around out back:
OIKmBT2l.jpg
I had a blast shooting silhouette with these two Rugers. Too bad they were never offered as a Ruger Mark III, and so far, not the Mark IV:
9MbGki1l.jpg
byoQ2bzl.jpg
 
No reason to buy any of the previous versions with the Mark IV out.

1. Slingshot enabled
2. No ridiculous button slide stop/safety selector
3. No loaded chamber indicator
4. Last round bolt hold open
5. Breeze of a takedown and reassembly (even if one has it figured out on the older models, the ability of switching uppers around in 5 seconds is a rather nice feature.

Give me a Mark IV with a stainless lower, threaded barrel, no magazine disconnect, Tandemkross victory trigger with pre/post travel adjustments, with Volquartsen internals, doesn't get any better currently.

I'm with the others that have said, in order of preference: IV, II, I, III
 
No reason to buy any of the previous versions with the Mark IV out.

1. Slingshot enabled
2. No ridiculous button slide stop/safety selector
3. No loaded chamber indicator
4. Last round bolt hold open
5. Breeze of a takedown and reassembly (even if one has it figured out on the older models, the ability of switching uppers around in 5 seconds is a rather nice feature.

Give me a Mark IV with a stainless lower, threaded barrel, no magazine disconnect, Tandemkross victory trigger with pre/post travel adjustments, with Volquartsen internals, doesn't get any better currently.

I'm with the others that have said, in order of preference: IV, II, I, III

Well...

My Mk II Target 6-7/8" has:
- Slingshot bolt release.
- Conventional slide-stop.
- No loaded chamber indicator.
- Last round bolt hold-open.
- No magazine disconnect.

It is also bone stock, polygon rifled, and cloverleaf accurate.

And, unless you are afraid of breakin' a nail, or you ride to school in a little yellow school bus?

...a snap to field-strip/reassemble.

:D




GR
 
Well...

My Mk II Target 6-7/8" has:
- Slingshot bolt release.
- Conventional slide-stop.
- No loaded chamber indicator.
- Last round bolt hold-open.
- No magazine disconnect.

It is also bone stock, polygon rifled, and cloverleaf accurate.

And, unless you are afraid of breakin' a nail, or you ride to school in a little yellow school bus?

...a snap to field-strip/reassemble.

:D




GR

I can change uppers in 10 seconds. :neener:

And I can do it without breaking a nail, I did ride a bus but it was full length.
 
Last edited:
I can change uppers in 10 seconds. :neener:

And I can do it without breaking a nail, I did ride a bus but it was full length.

Do you use a shot-clock for that?

:D

The Mk II is easy to field strip. (Course, it's only done for cleaning, not racing)

Just use the loop on a paperclip to grab the point on the take-down lever and pull it out, pull the mainspring housing and bolt, and then un-clip the receiver.

Snap.

The only trick to reassembly is to hold the pistol rotated back to ~ 30 deg. from level when inserting the mainspring housing - so that the main spring arm seats properly.




GR
 
Last edited:
The Mark II’s are the second best in my book. I don’t know what Ruger was thinking with the Mark III’s.
 
Never heard that before; learn something every day I guess. :scrutiny: My MKII "Government" model has conventional rifling.[/QUOTE]


Mine does too. And...........my KMK 678 Target also has a conventional button rifled bore.
I have never heard of, nor seen a Ruger Mark II MK678, or KMK 678 that was produced with "polygonal" rifling, in the 49 years I've been working with and on these pistols. I'd like to see where that information came from. I currently have all of the reference books available on the Ruger Mark pistols and those have no reference to what was posted above. Please enlighten us.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to see where that information came from.

1. My freezer.

index.php

2. Ruger MK II
"The MK II target model(KMK-678) had polygon rifling where other models had traditional land and groove riling."

:D




GR
 
That’s ftom Wikipedia... it may be accurate... or it may not.

My KMK678G has standard rifling. I would think that there would be something, somewhere written on the (at the time) rather unique rifling of that particular model...

In any event and whatever the rifling, the KMK678 is a great pistol .

Stay safe!
 
I just realized that lead bullets don’t work well with polygonal rifling, which is why Glock doesn’t recommend them in their polygonal barrels... Since .22 LR ammo is almost always lead, or lead with a very thin coppery wash, wouldn’t these lead bullets wipe lead into the polygonal grooves and quickly ruin accuracy?

Just wonderin...
 
The Ruger MKII variant was produced between the years 1982 to 2004. Because it seems so odd that Ruger might have made a polygonal bore for just one model (the MKII KMK 678) and because I have all the Ruger catalogs for those 22 years (except the years 1985 and 1995), I took the time to peruse the catalogs, looking for some verification of any Ruger .22 auto pistol having polygon rifling. My search revealed no mention whatsoever of any of these pistols ever having polygon rifling barrels; all were described as having "button rifled" bores.
So, at the risk of appearing presumptuous or argumentative (I'm neither), I have to ask Garandimal if he's ever actually examined the bore of his Model KMK-678 target pistol? :scrutiny:
 
Last edited:
I’m thinking that if the barrel looks to the owner like it has “Microgrooved” (like a Marlin), polygonal, or even worn out rifling, the bore may be leaded really badly making the bore look different/smoother than standard Ruger land-and-groove rifling.

I’ve seen where “shot out, inaccurate” Rugers are bought cheaply, cleaned well, and then shoot superbly on several different occasions.

The leaded bore was the culprit and a good scrubbing was the cure.

Stay safe!
 
The Ruger MKII variant was produced between the years 1982 to 2004. Because it seems so odd that Ruger might have made a polygonal bore for just one model (the MKII KMK 678) and because I have all the Ruger catalogs for those 22 years (except the years 1985 and 1995), I took the time to peruse the catalogs, looking for some verification of any Ruger .22 auto pistol having polygon rifling. My search revealed no mention whatsoever of any of these pistols ever having polygon rifling barrels; all were described as having "button rifled" bores.
So, at the risk of appearing presumptuous or argumentative (I'm neither), I have to ask Garandimal if he's ever actually examined the bore of his Model KMK-678 target pistol? :scrutiny:

Well...

1. Yes, had the Mk II Target (KMK-678) out the other day just to check.
2. Yes, am familiar w/ polygonal rifling - as all my GLOCKs are rifled that way.
3. No, it's not "shot out", even though it's a very early '83 product and was bought NIB.
4. No, it's not leaded, as I only shoot jacketed ammo and don't shoot this one much, as it is mostly a field pistol, and it gets cleaned after every trip.
5. "Button rifling" is a manufacturing process, not a rifling type.
6. No, it's not "microgrooved" like a Marlin, although the polygons are separated by a very small groove.
7. Academics - is the pursuit of knowledge. Religion - is the belief in (and defense of) things unseen.
8. I have one, you do not. (I mentioned that, right?)
9. Just because You do not understand, it does not automatically make Me confused.
10.

2188b4073f4d96b42918c3e38644db15--hippie-quotes-so-true.jpg

index.php

:D


GR
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top