22lr Pistols: Field vs Target Models

[Wendell]

...I would strongly consider a Ruger Mark II Target as people abandon them for the new Mark IV...

I never could understand why people make the disassembly -or rather the reassembly - into such a big deal, when it really isn't...

I agree with both statements. When making recommendations to others, however, one thing we should keep in mind is obsolescence and parts availability. Brownells, for example, doesn't have any MKII recoil spring assemblies; they're marked 'out of stock/discontinued'. Sure, there are probably thousands of them out there, somewhere, but - in my opinion - a potential issue like parts availability should be is a pretty important factor in whether or not something should be recommended.

[farscott]

I agree with both statements. When making recommendations to others, however, one thing we should keep in mind is obsolescence and parts availability. Brownells, for example, doesn't have any MKII recoil spring assemblies; they're marked 'out of stock/discontinued'. Sure, there are probably thousands of them out there, somewhere, but - in my opinion - a potential issue like parts availability should be is a pretty important factor in whether or not something should be recommended.

That is because the part was replaced by first the Ruger Mark III assembly, then (presumably) the Mark IV assembly. One can also buy replacement assemblies through Volquartsen. https://www.volquartsen.com/inventor...gurations/1086

I can still get parts for my Ruger Standard pistol that was made in 1961. Parts for any of the Ruger Standard and Mark pistols are readily available and will be for many years to come. Plus you can buy two Mark II pistols for the cost of one Mark IV and have spares for every part.

[JSGlock34]

I never could understand why people make the disassembly -or rather the reassembly - into such a big deal, when it really isn't. (Sample size of three, two Mk III 22/45's and the ex's Mk II.) Sure it has its quirks, but just how often are people taking these things apart for it to matter that much?!

Sent from my Infernal Contraption using Tapatalk

Well, my Ruger 22/45 is the only firearm in my safe that requires the use of a rubber mallet in the field stripping procedure. Per the manual. So while the field stripping procedure didn't dissuade me from purchasing one, given the choice I'd buy the MkIV.

[johnson]

Does Ruger have a straight 1" diameter barrel with no stepping? All I could find are the LITE models with ugly as sin cuts/flutes or a replacement TacSol Pac-Lite upper which is $$$. The reason is for aesthetics with my 1" diameter suppressor.

[randyflycaster]

Thanks for all your wonderful replies. As it turned out, I stopped by the gun shop and ended up buying a Ruger Mark III 22/45. (I'm spending so much money on skeet I felt I couldn't pass up the $300.00 price tag.) The salesman said that I shouldn't have to field strip the gun as cleaning the bore and the breech with a toothbrush will be enough. Don't know if he's right though.

Randy

[SLG]

.22'S DON'T REALLY NEED TO HAVE THEIR BORE CLEANED. If you do clean it, I would not use a toothbrush, but that's me.

Sorry, hit the caps.

I have never cleaned a 22 bore and my guns shoot lights out. I do wipe out the actions, and relube as needed, but that's about it. Others likely do a better job than I do.

[Al T.]

Don't know if he's right though.

I don't think Tamara has ever cleaned her .22/45. I have a MKII that I stripped down after 5k of CCI blazer, bought it used and was curious about fouling. Waste of time. I do run an oily patch down the barrel if it's going to sleep in the safe for awhile, but that's more due to the humidity down here than fouling issues.

[farscott]

I clean my .22 pistols with a .22 bore snake and CLP, and I only do that when it is time to put up the gun for the season. I rarely disassemble a .22 pistol, usually when they are first purchased or for maintenance checks before using a gun.

The exception to that is my integrally-suppressed Mark II, which gets disassembled and dunked in Kroil after a brick or two of sub-sonic ammo. That is to keep the baffles clean and the gun quiet.

To give an idea of how durable the Ruger pistols are, the 1961 Standard I own was purchased used as it is a bit older than I am and definitely led a tougher life. It was disassembled, cleaned, inspected (all of the parts look original), put back together, and fired with its original magazine and a Mark II magazine with the button flipped. Two bricks later, only a few dozen stoppages that I attributed to ammo as most of them did not fire when tried a second time. After that, it was refinished in CeraKote, so it is ready for the next fifty years.

[peterb]

After a few more minutes of reflection, I did come up with one caveat on the used Mk 2. As I move into the bifocal years, I'm contemplating putting an optic on my Mk2, to make those bunny head shots more of a sure thing. My Mk2 predates Ruger's practice of drilling and tapping the receiver, so many of my scope mounting options are a little clunky.

After a certain point, they did start drilling and tapping Mk2 receivers, so that's something to look for. The later models had more concessions for mounting an optic as well.

My "old eyes" solution for an older MkII was a Fastfire III dot installed with the matching mount that uses the rear sight dovetail. Very pleased with the ease of installation and the results.

[peterb]

There is a kit that allows bolt removal without disassembly: http://www.majesticarms.com/id10.html