https://ruger.com/dataProcess/markIVRecall/
Just saw this today. Ruger has a very good record with recalls and repairs for any safety issue.
Just saw this today. Ruger has a very good record with recalls and repairs for any safety issue.
RUGER Mk4 RECALL
- Thread starter Dr.Rob
- Start date
- Status
Carl N. Brown
Member
" ... if the trigger is pulled while the safety lever is midway between the "safe" and "fire" positions (that is, the safety is not fully engaged or fully disengaged), then the pistol may not fire when the trigger is pulled. However, if the trigger is released and the safety lever is then moved from the mid position to the "fire" position, the pistol may fire at that time."
Oh, darn, just when I thought the Mark IV was an improvement over the Mark II and Mark III.
I pulled the bullet and dumped the powder from a .22LR and tried to replicate the problem described for the Mark IV with my Ruger MkII with a chambered primed casing. Trying to get a position between "safe" and "fire" was difficult because the positive spring detent made a half-way position hard to set up. I could not get my MarkII to fire if my finger was off the trigger when I move the safety back to "fire" but if my finger was still spressing the trigger when I moved the safety down to "fire" Pop!. Lesson: If you have a malfunction, keep the muzzle down range while attempting to clear. #2 Muzzle discipline.
That Mark IV problem eerily sounds like the problem my friend had with his 9mm Bolo Mauser C96. With my full-size C96 the problem was harder to replicate. With the lighter Bolo Mauser, recoil could cause the safety to move off the "fire" position, pulling the trigger then would release the hammer to be blocked by the safety, moving the safety to "fire" with the finger off the trigger would release the hammer and fire the gun with my thumb on the safety in the way of the recoiling bolt (and that hurt -- broken nail, bloody finger). However in the same situation with the C96, moving the safety to "safe" reset the sear/hammer relationship allowing the safety to move back to "safe" without releasing the hammer.
Oh, darn, just when I thought the Mark IV was an improvement over the Mark II and Mark III.
I pulled the bullet and dumped the powder from a .22LR and tried to replicate the problem described for the Mark IV with my Ruger MkII with a chambered primed casing. Trying to get a position between "safe" and "fire" was difficult because the positive spring detent made a half-way position hard to set up. I could not get my MarkII to fire if my finger was off the trigger when I move the safety back to "fire" but if my finger was still spressing the trigger when I moved the safety down to "fire" Pop!. Lesson: If you have a malfunction, keep the muzzle down range while attempting to clear. #2 Muzzle discipline.
That Mark IV problem eerily sounds like the problem my friend had with his 9mm Bolo Mauser C96. With my full-size C96 the problem was harder to replicate. With the lighter Bolo Mauser, recoil could cause the safety to move off the "fire" position, pulling the trigger then would release the hammer to be blocked by the safety, moving the safety to "fire" with the finger off the trigger would release the hammer and fire the gun with my thumb on the safety in the way of the recoiling bolt (and that hurt -- broken nail, bloody finger). However in the same situation with the C96, moving the safety to "safe" reset the sear/hammer relationship allowing the safety to move back to "safe" without releasing the hammer.
AlexanderA
Member
Since the earlier Marks are not affected by this condition, the problem seems to be centered on the Mark IV sear, which is a new (and unnecessarily complicated) design. I have long since replaced the sear in my Mark IV pistol with a Volquartsen Mark II sear. No matter what I do, I can't get it to replicate the described behavior. Therefore, I won't be sending my pistol back to Ruger.
Hmmm, typical new model gun that lacked sufficient R&D and testing prior to going to market?! Ruger is a good company but definitely gets a black eye over this fiasco. At least they appear to be doing the customer right with how they are responding.
I got to feeling a little better about my MKIII ss comp target model after reading the email that Ruger sent me announcing the issue. (I did say "a little better". LOL)
I got to feeling a little better about my MKIII ss comp target model after reading the email that Ruger sent me announcing the issue. (I did say "a little better". LOL)
AlexanderA
Member
I would rate the recall over the Mark III loaded-chamber indicator as more serious than this one. Bumping the original loaded-chamber indicator would fire the gun. (It's interesting that that entire feature was dropped in the Mark IV.)
Sistema1927
Member
Illustrates the old adage: "Make something idiot proof and somebody will make a better idiot."
Panzerschwein
member
They are sending out boxes with pre-paid labels, claim they don't plan to have each gun in shop for more than a week, and are sending a free magazine back with the pistol.
That's a pretty darn good deal right there. I signed up for the recall last night. The way they explain it on their website they are trying to make it as quick and painless as possible for the customer. I have been quite pleased with my Mk IV so far and enjoy shooting it. Looking forward to getting it changed to the newer safety, if anything I think it will be important for later resale value (the new safety will have an "S" on the white dot) and can't beat a free magazine as well.
That's a pretty darn good deal right there. I signed up for the recall last night. The way they explain it on their website they are trying to make it as quick and painless as possible for the customer. I have been quite pleased with my Mk IV so far and enjoy shooting it. Looking forward to getting it changed to the newer safety, if anything I think it will be important for later resale value (the new safety will have an "S" on the white dot) and can't beat a free magazine as well.
AlexanderA
Member
If you have modified your gun with aftermarket parts (say, a Volquartsen accurizing kit), and send it in that way, you may not get your parts back. Ruger, after replacing the sear and safety, will send it back with the original lousy trigger pull. So, what you need to do is remove the aftermarket parts before sending it in, and reinstall them afterwards. What's the point of this exercise? Under these circumstances, sending it in accomplishes nothing.
This all has to do, at root, with the misbegotten "improved" magazine disconnector, and the new sear that went along with that. Savvy shooters have already gotten rid of these features. (The aftermarket tuneup parts reduce the factory 5 pound trigger pull to about 2 pounds, optimally.)
It seems to me that the lawyers at Ruger have more clout than the engineers.
This all has to do, at root, with the misbegotten "improved" magazine disconnector, and the new sear that went along with that. Savvy shooters have already gotten rid of these features. (The aftermarket tuneup parts reduce the factory 5 pound trigger pull to about 2 pounds, optimally.)
It seems to me that the lawyers at Ruger have more clout than the engineers.
Sistema1927
Member
Has anyone gotten theirs back yet? I received my box last week, and got it right back to Ruger in the mail on the same day.
valor1
Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 416
July 5 - Got an email with Ruger acknowledging I have registered for the recall
July 15 - Another email Ruger telling me a box is on the way (including instructions for the return label)
July 24 - Box came in at my mailbox.
July 25 - Sent the box at the post office. waiting begins.
I'm quite patient with it since I signed up last June. Hope they deliver the item immediately. Wouldn't want to go to Ruger and knock on their doors.
July 15 - Another email Ruger telling me a box is on the way (including instructions for the return label)
July 24 - Box came in at my mailbox.
July 25 - Sent the box at the post office. waiting begins.
I'm quite patient with it since I signed up last June. Hope they deliver the item immediately. Wouldn't want to go to Ruger and knock on their doors.
Sistema1927
Member
USPS tracking says that I will have mine back tomorrow. Exactly 7 days elapsed between sending it to them and getting it back (assuming USPS doesn't mess up tomorrow!).
R_P_K
Member
Love my Mark II. Ruger does deserve some credit though. Some companies will never announce a recall even if a problem exists
(cough, Glock gen 4,cough) but Ruger will bite the bullet and immediately offer a fair solution.
(cough, Glock gen 4,cough) but Ruger will bite the bullet and immediately offer a fair solution.
TimboKhan
Member
Boy, as a moderator I find that I can't be anywhere near as snarky and superior as I want to be on this thread!!!
(LOL, just kidding, but love my MkII)
(LOL, just kidding, but love my MkII)
RugerBob
Member
How do you know if you have a mk 3 or mk4? I have a 22/45 and it isn't on identified on markings either way.
Bought it used last fall.
Bought it used last fall.
Sistema1927
Member
Can it be disassembled by simply pushing the button on the back of the frame? If so, then you have a MkIV. It not, and you need to hold your mouth just right to reassemble, then it is a MkIII (or II or I or Standard Model).
It was really nice to get mine back in exactly one week, along with a free 22/45 magazine. Trigger pull seems to be just a tad better, but I might just be optimistic. It certainly isn't any worse than before.
Panzerschwein
member
Disappointing. I'll have to send in my target model. Not pleased but at least they're making it right. I heard they're coming back with a lighter trigger pull which is a good thing because the stock one is not good on my model.
- Status
