Ruger MkIII?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tecolote

Tecolote

Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2003
Messages
904
Has Ruger worked out all the kinks from the MkIII design? I'm considering buying a MkIII Target to save money on ammo.
 
yep. It's called the MK II.

seriously, try to find an older MKII in good condition. they are accurate, and simpler than the newer MK III, no mag disconnect, no loaded chamber indicator, less plastic.
 
My MK III hunter with the 6 7/8" barrel hasn't had a single hiccup in a few thousand rounds. It's been dead accurate and a fun one to shoot.

Mine has functioned without an issue, but I would reiterate the suggestion for a MKII. If anything, cleaning that loaded chamber indicator is a pain in the rear. And disassembly can be a little confusing at first having to take the magazine in and out.
 
Mine has worked great, after I removed that small metal plate attached to the loaded chamber indicator, which rests against the cartridge round when in chamber. Loaded chamber indicator doesn't work amymore, but it sure is 100% more reliable, after I removed it, I would seldom get through a magazine without having a FTE. It's been a great shooter now. LM
PS. don't remove the entire loaded chamber indicator, as you don't want that opening in the frame, in case if an out of battery discharge.
 
Last edited:
It is also very simple to remove the magazine safety if you wish. My MKIII 22/45 gets no complaints from me. Extremely reliable, just like my MKII.
 
The Ruger .22 is a gun everyone should have. I have one in my 72-hour/bugout bag. I can carry a lot of ammo in it and it's as reliable as any gun can be.

Some years ago I saw a video of one of the stainless Mark IIs destroyed after it was confiscated in South Africa. Barbarians!


Confisc.gif

.
 
PS. don't remove the entire loaded chamber indicator, as you don't want that opening in the frame, in case if an out of battery discharge.
Click to expand...
There's a much bigger hole in the other side, you know. Removing the LCI does nothing to reduce actual safety, and can in some cases enhance reliability by removing a obstacle to proper feeding or ejection.
Removing the magazine interlock removes the need to have any magazines present for cleaning, which involves multiple trigger manipulations ... seems more safe to me but some would disagree.
The internal lock is useless but non-offensive ... just ignore it.
The US-style magazine release is nice, I can work with a heel release but I prefer the button. (actually I prefer the Walther/HK flipper under the trigger, but the only .22 with that is the P22, which has limited usefulness unless you want a trainer for a P99/pk380/PPS/SW99 type gun.

I have and like two Ruger mkIII pistols, they're great guns with few problems if you understand the internal workings. I wouldn't turn down a mkII, though.
Either model will get good support from Ruger if anything does manage to go wrong, and either model is tough enough to buy used with no worries so long as someone hasn't been into them with a Dremel or something awful like that.

Any rental range will have a mkII or mkIII, go try one out, I can't pick a gun for you, do it yourself by actually shooting one or twelve.
 
I have a stainless MK III Hunter 6 7/8" barrel, and I have fired around three thousand rounds through it.


For the first two hundred rounds it was very finicky about what ammunition it would fire. It only liked CCI Mini-Mags and Winchester bulk. With Federal or Remington bulk, it refused to fire more than one or two rounds. After a couple hundred rounds through it, it started improving, and now it eats anything I feed it without any malfunctions. I have not modified any of the safeties. Yes, the LCI is hard to clean, but I have never found that it inhibited function in anyway.
 
Ruger MK III 22/45

Im looking forward to trying my new
MK III 22/45 out at the range
I have a 22/45 with a 6 7/8
that I put together from a MK II
and my bull barrel 22/45
so now I have 3
I hope my new one shoots as reliably
as my old ones
DS
 
The things people complain about with the Mark III is usually the LCI (loaded chamber indicator) and the mag disconnect safety.

In my experience the gun functioned just fine with both features but the LCI detracted from the looks and was one more moving part that could prevent proper feeding if it gets really gunked up.

I have the 22/45 model and shaved down the raised grip area on the frame and added 1911 style grips...feels much better than the thinner stock frame.

While I was at it, I replaced the LCI with a filler plate and used a Clark aftermarket bushing for a Mark II that removes the mag disconnect safety. Others have simply used stainless steel washers to replace the mag disconnect.

So I don't think these things are a deal breaker, but yeah...if you can find a clean Mark II that might be a good choice.

Hope that helps.

Mine:

DSC05309800.gif
 
Yeah, the LCI is ugly. But on the bright side the safety stamp is on the bottom of the barrel, not plastered all over the left side of the barrel.

What did you use for a "filler plate?" Is that available as an aftermarket part, now?

As for kinks, I think any maker can put out some lemons. But mine is all good. I left the LCI alone. Other than the slide not locking back a couple of times, I have had zero failures right from out of the box, shooting ~2k rounds of mostly Federal bulk. No light strikes or dud primers, either.

I removed the magazine safety, using a couple of washers.

There was only 1 thing that bugged me about the mkIII. If you insert the mags just so, they get stuck on the bottom of the mag latch and will not advance unless retracted and twisted. I ground the mag latch on mine to prevent this.
 
I left the LCI spot unfilled, you can actually see the rim of a .22 without it. I also removed the mag disconnect, the safety lock screw, honed the sear and put a home made shoe on the trigger that effectively reduces perceived trigger pull even more. The gun was a gift from a friend. Oh, I also reduced the mainspring power to also help reduce trigger weight.

It's an exceptionally accurate gun.
 
That filler plate is genius. I knew it was only a matter of time. But that dude doesn't even list any contact info under his member name, so what gives? I'm not joining that forum just to pm him. :(
 
Ah, thanks. I missed the 2 lines about money orders and mailing address. I'm a bit disappointed he couldn't do paypal for a buck more. I guess I'll have to stop by the post office soon. :)
 
I Have a MK1 Target that I bought new in 1971. I can't vouch for the MK11 or 111 but my MK1 is absolutly reliable and very accurate. I cannot estimate how many rounds have been through it-got to be many thousands.
 
Dentite - Did you order the stainless or the bead-blasted stainless version?

I like the looks of your MK, will any 1911 style grips fit that now?
 
Bri,

I have the regular stainless LCI filler. You would only want the bead-blasted version if you had an aftermarket bead-blasted barrel (matte finish).

Yes, it will take any 1911 style grips. The cutouts for the 1911 grips will not completely match up and may need some tweaking but they will work.

Hope that helps.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
Ruger MKIII???
Replies
9
Views
935
51Cards
5
DMK
  • Locked
Anybody know anything good about the new Ruger MkIII and 22/45 MkIII?
Replies
12
Views
1K
Cortland
C
M
  • Locked
Tips on Ruger MKIII Hunter detail strip
Replies
14
Views
2K
mauiglide
M
N
  • Locked
Ruger MKIII bolt release question
Replies
2
Views
290
bigfatdave
B
G
  • Locked
Ruger MKIII magazine selection
Replies
18
Views
1K
RyanM
R
Back
Top