Ruger Mark II/III Differences

[Serum556]

My family's due to be CCW-approved any day now, and since Christmas is almost right around the corner, we've been thinking that a .22LR autoloader, a Ruger Mark II/III would be a nice "communal" gift. Since it'll be our first pistol, and its *probably* only going to get used at the range or on our property, a .22LR seems ideal since it's so cheap to shoot and easy to handle, and a Ruger autoloader also seems fitting since they've such a good reputation and handling characteristics (we've shot a few before and have had nothing but good experiences.)

Now, my question - aside from the loaded chamber indicator on the Mark III (I've heard about the unintentional discharge problem - what's Ruger done about this?), what's the difference between it and the Mark II? The 5.5" stainless bull versions appear to be identical, except for the prices. I've heard something about different magazine releases and safeties, but haven't been able to really verify any of it (I've only handled a Mark II before), does anyone know? Which would you recommend for us first time pistol owners?

Thanks a lot.

 

[farscott]

Differences:

1) Loaded chamber indicator on Mark III

2) Magazine disconnect safety on Mark III

3) Different magazine release location. Mark II has heel release, and Mark III has 1911-style release. Magazines are not compatible between the two.

4) Mark III has integral scope mount

While the loaded chamber indicator gets lots of attention, the magazine disconnect safety of the Mark III is really an annoyance during assembly and disassembly since the trigger needs to be manipulated so often during these processes.

I would get a Mark II since the loaded chamber indicator and the magazine disconnect safety leave me cold.

 

[albanian]

"Magazines are not compatible between the two."

Of course not! That would make too much sense for all the people that spent all that money buying all those mags. I am not going to touch a MKIII now that I know the mags are not interchangeable.

And that mag safety sounds like a great idea as well. Just what we need, more mag safeties on guns.

The 1911 style mag release is a good idea but I can live with my heel release because once you get used to it, it can be just as fast as the regular style.

I hope they are still going to be selling the MKIIs as well as the MKIIIs and let people make up their own mind which they prefer. I am going to be mad if all my MKII mags are going to phased out because they made a minor change in the MKIII!

 

[Rival]

"Magazines are not compatible between the two."

Of course not! That would make too much sense for all the people that spent all that money buying all those mags. I am not going to touch a MKIII now that I know the mags are not interchangeable.

Well, with 1911-style mag release they couldn't make old mags compatible - such release requires a cut in the magazine for mag release catch.

 

[Serum556]

Seems like a Mark II might be a better buy if the magazine-disconnect safety is an annoyance, and the loaded chamber indicator is unsafe. I'm sure we can get used to a heel magazine release. Assuming they both shoot the same, then the cheaper price and more spartan arrangement of the Mark II looks promising, thanks a lot!

 

[another okie]

While the Mark III does indeed have some annoying downsides, the Weaver rail on top of the gun would make it possible to easily mount a red dot or other scope, and few things are more fun than bouncing a tin can around with a red-dot mounted .22 pistol. If you're going to be introducing some new shooters to the sport, you will find that some don't do well with sights but love the optics.

 

[Serum556]

Actually, according to Ruger's website, starting with 2004, the Mark II models are drilled & tapped and come with a weaver scope rail as well, so the qhole question of optics, red-dots, etc, looks like a non issue. The loaded chamber indicator as a safety hazard on the Mark III really turns me, and my folks off to it, so in all likelihood we're going to be picking up a Mark II.

 

[Standing Wolf]

My Ruger Mark II was a complete waste of money. I'll never buy anything from Ruger again.

 

[Rival]

My Ruger Mark II was a complete waste of money. I'll never buy anything from Ruger again.

Why is that? What bothers you that much? As a MarkII owner I am concerned - I had an opportuinty to compare my Ruger to Beretta Neo and Browning Buck Mark and MkII is, in my opinion, better then these two. If you start talking higher end .22s that cost two-three times more than MkII then you can see the difference, but my target MkII can still give em hell.

Is this about field stripping? Don't get me started on that. One rubber mullet from Home Depot for 8 bucks and no problems.

 

[Penforhire]

There's plenty of scope solutions for the MkII. Look at SoLow for one no-drill answer that plenty of folks like. The heel release is only annoying after adding larger (VQ) grips. Eventually I'll have to add a release extension.

 

[Serum556]

Ruger Mark II, 5.5" Blued Bull Barrel is going to be mine really soon, I can't wait, thanks for the help.

(Out of curiosity though, why was your Ruger a "complete waste of money?" Care to elaborate?)