Ruger SR22 vs New Ruger MkIV

[JellyJar]

I find it interesting that one company Ruger has two very different .22 semi autos. I have had experience with the Mark IIs but never with the SR22s so I would like to know which is better? Or are they so different from each other as to not really be comparable? If that is so then which on would be the best for teaching new shooters?

Thanks

JJ

 

[JO JO]

Hard to say the sr22 will mimic a service pistol and the mk1v is a target pistol
But to teach new shooters the safety rules and basic marksmanship training is the same I think they are different guns in my opinion

 

[71velle]

Apples and oranges.

 

[bannockburn]

To me they're two different guns in that the SR22 would be more of a plinker/kit gun while the Mk.IV would be better suited for target shooting at the range.

 

[C0untZer0]

I recall Ruger advertising verbiage that the Mark III was designed to mimic the feel of the 1911.

There are also the 22/45.

I think for young shooters who don't have the muscle mass to hold a heavy gun steady, the 22/45 Lite is a great option.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jstert]

To me they're two different guns in that the SR22 would be more of a plinker/kit gun while the Mk.IV would be better suited for target shooting at the range.

out of the box for a newbie the sr22 is better all around piece: easy to fieldstrip, magazines load quickly & painfree, lightweight & handy, can be ccw with a pancake holster, eats anything. as one moves up the firearm foodchain a mark or 22/45 becomes attractive.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Vern Humphrey]

What do you want? An understudy for your carry gun that allows you to practice with cheap .22LR ammo, or a serious target and small game gun?

If the former, get the SR22. If the latter, get the MKII, III or IV.

 

[Tenncvol]

Both would be fun for anyone including new shooters. The only thing I did not like about the SR was the manual safety that works the opposite of most pistols with safeties. I replaced the SR with an S&W M&P 22LR Compact which has a more conventional layout.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Olympus]

They are really two different animals together. The SR22 feels like a scaled down polymer pistol like M&P, Glock, Walther, etc. The Mark series pistols are all steel (aside from some 22/45 models). They are a classic "target" style pistol. Great for plinking, customizing, a target shooting. But they definitely have a learning curve when it comes to disassembly. They are heavier to hold.

I have both and I like the feel of the SR22 in my hand. It's more of a plinker whereas the Mark series guns can be used for more serious target shooting.

 

[roscoe]

If you are on walkabout, one advantage of the the SR22 is that it is very lightweight and handy-sized. But, yeah, I wish the safety were reversed. What were they thinking?

 

[X-Rap]

I guess I'd ask myself why I was carrying a 22 pistol
Myself, it's a forage tool or one used to cleanly dispatch trapped furbearers.
From what I've seen of the polymer 22's they leave much to be desired in the accuracy department so I don't see me giving up my MKI, Kimber Conversion or Revolvers any time soon.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[ritepath]

Love my MKII and really really like but not love my SR22. Two completely different pistols that's for sure. My kids like shooting the SR better and it's my kayak pistol because I don't mind getting it wet. My wife and I like the II better because it's a tack driver.

I'd really the looks of the new MK's, if ammo stays on the shelf I would add one to the safe.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Myself, it's a forage tool or one used to cleanly dispatch trapped furbearers.
From what I've seen of the polymer 22's they leave much to be desired in the accuracy department so I don't see me giving up my MKI, Kimber Conversion or Revolvers any time soon.

I'm with you there. To me, a .22 has two main functions, as a training gun and as a foraging weapon. For training, I have an Argentine M1927 with a Colt Conversion Kit mounted, and for foraging, a Ruger MKII with heavy barrel and target sights. To tell the truth, however, when I'm out in the woods with a .22 pistol, it's usually a Colt Woodsman.

 

[wally]

I find it interesting that one company Ruger has two very different .22 semi autos.

Why S&W has the Victory (and the M22 before it) and the M&P .22 and M&P compact .22.

One is clearly a target/hunting pistol, the other an analog for full power self-defense pistols for cheaper practice.

 

[Sistema1927]

I picked up a Mk IV 2/45 Lite this morning. I already had a Ruger Standard Model that has served me well for many years, but when I saw the new Mk IV in person I knew that I had to have one.

If the HPA passes I will probably buy a can for it. If the HPA doesn't pass, I may wait a bit, but I will probably buy a can for it.

 

[Bo]

The beauty of the new Mark IV Hunter, is something to behold.

 

[TimboKhan]

Its not that interesting, given that other companies have different models of .22 auto. I am immediately thinking of Beretta and Smith and Wesson, but I am sure there are others.

As far as the differences between the two pistols, I personally have a life long love affair with a MkII, and by extension every other Mk model. I love them. LOVE THEM!!!! I would even say generally I skew towards Ruger products. Still, I strongly dislike the SR22. My wife has one, and she likes it, but I just do not. I don't like the way it feels, I hate the trigger (which, traditionally, I never complain about triggers), and I generally feel like it is just a poor pistol. Its different strokes for different folks, but that gun just isn't for me.

 

[Varminterror]

I find it interesting that one company Ruger has two very different .22 semi autos. I have had experience with the Mark IIs but never with the SR22s so I would like to know which is better?

"Better" can objectively differ by application. Your context below is "teaching new shooters," in which case, the Mark IV is the "better" of the two.

A RECENT ANECDOTE OF MINE AS A DIRECT EXAMPLE:

A student in one of my Basic Pistol classes last fall was struggling REALLY badly to complete the qualification shoot for the course with her SR22. She'd owned the pistol for a couple years, but I noted she immediately was struggling even during the bench-support shooting string. By the longer range standing fire string, the wheels had completely come off. She was struggling to make contact on the 8 1/2" x 11" printed page, let alone the correct target circle within the page. After failing to qualify on her first time through on the Level 1 (5 shots per target, 4 targets of 4" dia, at 10ft), I offered one of my Mark III pistols for her to try. 60 shots later, she'd cleared all 12 targets (5 shots x 4 targets at 10, 15, and 20ft) without a single shot going astray.

Or are they so different from each other as to not really be comparable?

It's very easy to compare the two, despite their vast design differences, when you put them in a specific context - i.e. "teaching new shooters." So when you start comparing attributes for two in the context of instructing new shooters:

The Mark IV has a longer barrel and longer sight radius, which is an advantage for shooter forgiveness. The Mark IV is drilled & tapped for an included weaver rail, which would allow the installation of a red dot site, which is the easiest sight design for a new shooter to adopt (put the dot on the target, pull the trigger while the dot is on the target), offers a more precise aiming system than the conventional sight blades. and also offers a new shooter a more comfortable "open view" of the target compared to a 6 o'clock hold with iron sights. The trigger in the Mark IV is better than the SR22. The extra length and weight of the Mark IV offers increased stability with less muzzle bobble on target. The extra weight also reduces the felt recoil impulse; not that the SR22 has high recoil, but it has considerably moreso than the Mark IV.

The only advantages I have ever seen, minor as they are, for the SR22 are: 1) the diminutive size of the SR22 can be less intimidating to some of the more timid shooters, and 2) the lighter weight of the SR22, while less stable, can be an advantage for the smaller and weaker new shooter. So I often see the "quieter" women and younger guys in classes pick up the SR22 out of my rack, just as they might be drawn to a less intimidating LCP too - both being a poorer choice than a Mark IV.

If that is so then which on would be the best for teaching new shooters?

Read above - the Mark IV all the way.

 

[doubleh]

I have both. My SR22 has been completely reliable with any ammo I've loaded in it. My Mk IV is new but I've tried five different brands of ammo so far and it hasn't malfunctioned with anything yet. The SR22 isn't difficult to clean but I have never found another pistol that is as easy to clean as the MK IV. I am a much better shot with the Mk IV and should be. Like another poster said, apples and oranges.

The SR22 is a great gun for teaching young shooters with small hands, the MK IV not so much.