Mark II in 9mm: Ruger I'm begging you

Status
Not open for further replies.

HiWayMan

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2004
Messages
895
Location
NE Ohio
My shooting buddies have discussed it relentlessy for the last year and a half. Why oh why didn't Bill Ruger ever produce the Mark II in 9mm. The Mark II already has the classic lines of a Luger, and the blow back action would be perfect. The evolution of such a firearm seems so obvious.

I was just wondering if we were the only ones that yearned for this gun.
 
Such a creation would violate Ruger's central manufacturing tenet that all of their centerfire semi-autos must be blocky beasts completely lacking any semblence of grace and elegance.
 
I don't think you could get a Mk II-styled 9mm to work as a blowback (at least not safely), unless you went to a gas-retarded system like on the P7; you might be able to engineer a cam-retarded system where part of a two-piece bolt has to rotate to unlock, though :confused:
 
There has been a blowback 9mm, the astra 400 and 600. However it requires a VERY stiff recoil spring.The other one is the HK VP70 which eliminates the recoil spring problem by using rifling with grooves twice as deep as normal. This causes gas leakage around the bullet which drops the velocity about 150 fps.
 
Blowback can work with 9mm by heavily springing the slide, but the MkII doesn't have much of a slide mass to begin with so it becomes a moot point.
 
As has already been pointed out, a blowback would be impratical and unworkable with the existing MKll design. A blowback design in a high pressure cartridge like the 9mm would require a lot of slide mass and a really heavy recoil spring, ala Hi Point!----There ya go!! Get a Hi Point.
str1
 
I wonder why nobody ever came up with a Luger clone in the U.S.? I'd think that it would sell well. CZ-75 clones sure sold well even still now that the real '75 is available.
 
The Luger requires extremely tight tolerances to function correctly and is labor intensive to produce. The associated price would prohibit most buyers from considering it.
Mitchell produced a Luger clone years ago, but there wasn't much of a market for it to stay in production.
 
American Eagle ( I think ) made a luger clone about 12-15 yrs back, all stainless, the NRA mag did a write up on them a short eon ago.
 
stoeger made luger clones, they bought the rights to it when german property in america was auctioned off at the beginning of world war I.
http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976431244.htm
http://www.lugerusa.com/1923_AmEagleStoeger.htm
i nearly bought a Erma Werke .22lr Luger but as it was my first pistol i chickened out for lack of customer support and spare mags, parts. Got a Bersa Firestorm .22lr instead but i think i would have gone home happy either way.

Beretta nows own stoeger, they should do something with the rights. i think everyone would like a luger with better sights in 9mm or .22lr, that and get the plastic out of the model 92s.
 
There have been several Luger clones imported or made in this country, including one by Mauser. People who claimed they would sell like hotcakes didn't buy them in droves.

The simple fact is that a Luger clone, if made properly, will cost a good chunk more than an average decent Luger. With the real thing selling for $500 or so (East European import), who is going to pay $1500-2000 for a copy?

As to making a Ruger .22 work with 9mm, the idea is impossible. A stiff spring is not enough, you need breechblock mass. Attempts to use blowback with a light breechblock have always failed, since the spring has to be so stiff the gun can't be cocked without some kind of disconnect mechanism (like the S&W .35 and .32 pistols based on the Clement design).

The Luger is a locked breech, recoil operated pistol, just like the Model 1911, though the approach is different. If one wanted to make something like the Ruger .22 in a larger caliber, a better approach would be use the Nambu locking system rather than the Luger toggle. (FWIW, rumor has it that Ruger actually built a "Rumbu" in 9mm, but it was not a practical production item and, with the company selling all the guns they can make, not exactly necessary.)

Jim
 
It would end up looking more like an Automag than a Mark 2.

The recoil/mass issue is a problem, but not an unsolvable one. I often have thought the Mark1/2 could have been beefed up, but it's likely more of a complete redesign.

IE it might look similar, but it wouldn't work the same way.
 
I think a 9mm blowback is doable. The problem would be, how long would it last? I don't know about a cast one, but a forged one might stand up for a long time. As far as I know Ruger doesn't make any forged auto's anymore??? Not that they ever did, but I don't think they make any now.

I've never owned a Luger or even shot one. What is it about them that allows them to take the force better than a blowback gun?
 
They have a locked breach- they aren't blowback. Basically, the recoil pushes the barrel back, and the barrel presses on the bolt, which has a hinged mechanism attached to it. As the barrel reciprocates, it pushes bar back, and the hinge forms an upside down "V" shape. The bolt extracts the cartridge, and when the hinge is fully in its "V" shape, the mainspring returns the hinged part back down, the bolt goes forward, feeds next round, etc.
 
Jim hit it right on the head, you could make a Mark II with a Nambu lockup, but that would require as much complexity as a Luger. If you hold a Ruger and a Nambu or Type 14 next to each other you will see that Bill Ruger was inspired by the Nambu and not the Luger. If my memory is correct in Wilson's book on Ruger there is a picture of an experimental Ruger that is a dead ringer for the Nambu.
 
The Fins had one which looked just like a Luger but was a dropping block action, called the Lahti Model 35, and then the model 40. It was 9x19.
HiWayMan, have you ever seen a Walther P-1? It's the same as the old German P-38, and I have seen some around for around $250. I thought one of those might be fun to own.
 
Why not just use the frame and design an upper that looks similar to the Luger? I love the grip angle of the MKII and I think a 9mm would be sweet! I would buy one in a second.

Ruger has a tendency to not make what people really want. They have a bunch of heavy, blocky autos and their smallest revolver is an SP-101. Why don't they make a small auto and a light weight revolver? A cast alloy framed SP-101 would make sense. A single stack small frame 9mm auto would make sense also, I guess that would make TOO much sense.:rolleyes:
 
is there a good diagram of the mark II somewhere? i'd like to see how it works inside, rather than just trying to from memory.

(and i too would love a higher caliber mark II... )
 
The entire HI-POINT line of weapons -- up to .45 acp -- is blowback. Its doable, and Hi-Point are pretty durable.

Heavy as hell and top-heavy, too. Not a very elegant gun.

But its doable.
 
man, an exploded diagram... slightly more than i bargained for ;)

hmm. it looks like it MIGHT be possible to add, say, a buckling spring attached to the frame (sticking upwards into the unlisted barrel/housing/whatever) that catches the bolt just before the end of its travel, allowing a not unreasonable recoil spring to be used.

of course, a sufficiently stiff spring might prove to be nearly as loud as the initial firing ;) maybe a normal leaf spring would do.

how many pounds of pressure need to be resisted, anyway, for a 9mm?
 
Actually, you ought to check out the Kel-Tec Sub 2000 carbine. Its built a bit like the Ruger MK II -- a blowback design.

Its surprisingly reliable and accurate. (I had one briefly, obtained in a trade, and sold soon afterwards. I was impressed with just how accurate it was.)

That's probably the BEST way to have a blow-back design 9mm.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top