Ruger Mark II and Mark III .22 Pistols - Well-Made Or Cheap Junk?

Lonesome Donkey

Lonesome Donkey

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Location
Central Alberta
Recently, I read a post on a thread declaring that a Ruger Mk. III had a garbage frame, because it was made by stamping and welding.
The poster complained also that it was hard to disassemble because it required a punch and a hammer to get it apart, the first few times.
Also, he complained that the frame seemed to have been finished with a belt sander.
In general, his assessment was that it was accurate but poorly made, and difficult to disassemble.

I stated that my experience was different. The Ruger pistol that I owned (a Ruger Mark I) had none of these faults.
It was well-finished, easy to strip, and I felt that the heavy gauge steel frame was excellent and very strong.
Admittedly though, it was an older gun.

So, now I'm curious about whether this well-made old pistol has deteriorated in quality.

What is your experience and opinion of the Ruger Mark II and III pistols?
 
Here's what I wrote, so we're not taking someone else's paraphrasing at face value. I will also state that I am a machinist by trade, so maybe I notice things in manufactured goods that others don't.

Agent Law said:
James1873 said:
Agent Law said:
Get a SW22 Victory. It's a better gun than the Ruger Mark.
Click to expand...

They look pretty sweet
Click to expand...

I have a Ruger Mark III, and it's an accurate pistol (though not very hard to do when you have a fixed barrel), but the cheap, welded sheet metal grip frame is garbage, and it's a pain in the ass to take apart. The SW22 is one screw to disassemble, in contrast.
Click to expand...

Agent Law said:
Lonesome Donkey said:
Agent Law said:
I have a Ruger Mark III, and it's an accurate pistol (though not very hard to do when you have a fixed barrel), but the cheap, welded sheet metal grip frame is garbage, and it's a pain in the ass to take apart. The SW22 is one screw to disassemble, in contrast.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, I disagree. That sheet steel grip frame dates back to the original Ruger Standard Auto in 1949, and it isn't cheap at all.
It's very thick steel, carefully made, well-finished, and not the least likely to ever wear out.
Click to expand...

It is cheap. The principle reason it was done was because it costed less to stamp and weld a frame than machine one out of a casting/forging/billet at the time of its conception. It's not even well-finished. The deburring was done on a belt sander, and to get the lower-to-upper fit, the assemblers just bash the upper with a ball-peen until it collapses the pocket enough to fit snugly with the lug in the front of the lower.

Of course it's not likely to wear out; it's just shooting .22. Provided you don't strip the threaded holes in the frame because the grip screws only engage one and a half turns.

Lonesome Donkey said:
In fact, today, with the wide acceptance of pistols made with polymer frames, and high quality and expensive centerfire pistols using stamped and welded frames and slides, it seems an odd criticism to me.
Click to expand...

Examples?

Lonesome Donkey said:
The Pre-1996 Sig-Sauer P226 used a slide assembly made from a heavy gauge steel stamping, with a welded-in breech section, and uses a lot of stamped internal parts even today. I hardly think that anyone would call a Sig-Sauer P226 "garbage".

And of course, the PPSH and AK47 all use(d) steel stampings in their receivers and action covers and were extremely well-made and very reliable firearms. And, lets face it, there are numerous other high-quality pistols that use stamped-steel technology. Heckler and Koch being just one example.
Click to expand...

I never said stamped guns were crap. However, that doesn't mean all stamped guns are good, either. Stamping was historically a cost- and material-saving technique compared to machining (in mass-production). You can do it well, or you can do it not so well.

It has gone the other way now, with automated machining and low material cost driving more things to be machined from solid.

Lonesome Donkey said:
And, as far as the disassembly being difficult, that's debatable.

You drop the magazine and clear the pistol and drop the hammer.
You flip open the lever in the mainspring housing, tilt out the housing and pull it down and out.
You push the barrel/slide/bolt group forward off the frame.
You dump the bolt and recoil spring out the rear.
You're done, and no screws to unscrew, and no tools needed.

Look at some You-tube videos like "Ruger Mk. II & III - Diassembly/Reassembly EASY" and see for yourself.
Click to expand...

Yours obviously didn't require a drift and hammer to get out the first few times because the stamped hole in the frame didn't quite line up with the drilled hole in the upper.

Lonesome Donkey said:
The main thing, I think, is that it's an old school design, which in the jaundiced eyes of many younger shooters, makes it automatically crap. And, nothing could be further from the truth.
Click to expand...

Wow, really? Them youngins dunno whats good for 'em, huh? I bought one because of its long history, but what I got left a lot to be desired.
Click to expand...
 
Thank you for your assistance, Agent law.

Basically, I think that it can be seen that I did state what you said accurately.

Apart from my final comment, about the opinion of younger shooters thinking it might be crap, which is only my opinion.
I did not want to prejudice replies with that opinion, which really is not relevant to the discussion.

I wanted this to be an impartial discussion, so can we keep it that way?

========================================================================

Anyway, I really am interested to know what people think about their Rugers, good or bad.

I think that this will be useful information for a lot of shooters contemplating buying a Ruger .22 Auto.

I was thinking of buying another one myself, but if the quality has gone down hill, maybe not.

So, to get the thread back on track, what's your opinion of the Ruger mark II or III?
 
Last edited:
The only thing I don't love about my MkII is that it's ridiculously difficult to strip for cleaning for anyone who hasn't done it several times.
 
Great guns, built to last almost forever as JD said. They can be tricky to disassemble and reassemble, but after e few thousands rounds they start to broken in and after 10-20 disassembly they are smoother to do.

Probably one of the best .22 pistol under 1000$
 
They are difficult to disassemble if you do not know what you are doing. Built to last and accurate and Mark3 is a very good pistol.
 
great guns with a great aftermarket support
I have shot a mkII for almost 30 years and its still is great - a bit of a pain in the butt to disassemble until you get used to it but solid and reliable and feeds almost any ammo.

In my opinion you have to go high standard or walther or hammerli to get a better or more accurate gun
 
I like my MK II. Just wish I could legally carry it in the woods when I'm trapping, running slips, big game hunting, etc...
 
I have a Mk.III 22/45 and have owned a standard Mk.II but didn't like it as much as the 22/45. They are excellent firearms, shoot laser accurate and will last a lifetime or two. Certainly not cheap junk at all. They are a nuisance to strip down for maintenance, but that is not a major problem, IMO, since I spend way more time shooting it than cleaning it and you can learn how to correctly strip it with a bit of effort.


Mark
 
Last edited:
Great pistols all around. Everyone has one or two that I know. Given a choice. I'd buy a Mark 2 over a Mark 3. I've had both. Mark 2 has fewer parts and easier to strip and doesn't have that silly plastic LCI. Loaded Chamber Indicator. Only advantage of the Mark 3 is the Mag Release Button location.
 
I have two MK2's and i would never part with them. Amazing shooters. Easy to field strip... after youve paid your dues the first time ;)
 
Andy said:
The only thing I don't love about my MkII is that it's ridiculously difficult to strip for cleaning for anyone who hasn't done it several times.
Click to expand...

As an example, if you recall the High Standard take-down, with the push-button barrel release, that was much simpler, and brilliant design.
Very easy to strip and reassemble.

However, unless you have a really tight pistol, the disassembly take-down on a Ruger is also pretty easy IMHO.
It is the reassembly that screws new owners up.
You need to get the hammer strut back into the little recess in the top of the mainspring housing.
That takes a little practice, but once you figure out the simple procedure, it also easy and quick from then on.

Anyway, it isn't a combat pistol, where rapid take-down and reassembly is necessary.
It's a target pistol and a plinker, where take-down and reassembly do not need to be fast.

I'm sure that many people find stripping and reassembling a 1911A1 a PITA the first few times.
But, once you figure it out and know the tricks, it's easy.
 
There's a thread on under/overrated guns.

Ruger Mk.1 or Standard .22 pistols are underrated.

I see thread after thread after thread about Mk. 2's and 3's. Meanwhile, Mk. 1's and Standards are overlooked.

And for the record, they are a brilliant design that allowed Ruger to produce a quality product far cheaper than any other method.

Well made. Not junk.
 
They are easy to reassemble if you can remember the steps involved. Extremely difficult if you can't.

Edit:
Reassembly:
Insert Bolt and Thing into receiver with hammer horizontal
Pull trigger
Push Thing mostly closed
Point 45° up
Shake pistol (the secret)
Close Thing (there should be springy resistance).

Write this on a card and stick it to the inside of the door of the gunsafe.

Ruger calls the Thing the Mainspring Housing, but what do they know?
 
Last edited:
Juster said:
They are easy to reassemble if you can remember the steps involved. Extremely difficult if you can't.
Click to expand...

I would like to think that gun owners are intelligent people, and will remember those few steps after they perform them a few times.
Like I said, it's like the 1911A1.
Easy to strip and reassemble after you do it a few times.
But, a little difficult the first few times.

But, as the OP I'll try to keep out of this now, and refrain from undue influence.
 
I recently picked up a 6" MII Standard. I'm very impressed with it. More so than the Buckmark hunter I had.

Very well made.

M
 
A couple of comments regarding Mark II and Mark III Longevity...

My home range where I volunteer, host new shooter nights twice a week, and runs private groups as well. We have a fleet of Mark III's to accommodate new shooters. We used to have a fleet of Mark II's By best estimate some of the Mark III's have *at least* 400,000 rounds through them. No idea how many rounds have been through to old Mark II's, but best guess is over half a million rounds.

They haven't had exactly a nice life. We tend to run them until they won't run anymore, douse them in oil, and send them back out on the line. (Nobody, nobody wants to clean a fleet of 10 or 12 Mark III's after every shoot.) Usually they gag completely around 5000-7500 rounds fired.

Clean them up, and they back into service like it never happened.

Most of them will still shoot a 1" group out of a rest at 20 yards.

Even when they were new they would cycle most anything reasonable for ammo-- The only thing that changes a whole lot is the interval between deep cleanings.

That being said, the triggers are kinda crunchy, compared to their betters, Strip and Clean is a bit of a pain in the spleen, until you do it a 30 to 40 times, And the magazine safety is just a royal pain in the rectum. And yeah the factory grips are a short-term item at best.

But no other modern-production, buy it today, reasonably-priced .22 pistol will take the same kind of abuse.

Browning Buckmarks wreck the side of the frame where the slide-lock seats disturbingly quickly
S&W 22a's Have a nice trigger, but the frames crack, and the slide peens itself into the chamber.
GSG's just can't take the volume, cracked slides, cracked frames, sights fall out, self-destructing slide locks, self-milling slide locks, extremely ammo sensitive, etc, etc.
S&W model 41's are a great shooting pistol, but ammo-sensitive, and do not tolerate being dirty well at all. (Way easy to strip and clean though)
Most anything "replica" or "Conversion kit" usually a.) Shoots poorly or b.)Runs poorly, sometimes both. :D

That all being said, I'm speaking mainly of durability/Reliability. Likely no-one is going to put the same round count through their own pistol as we do our fleet. There are many things out there that shoot better, smoother, looks cool, etc. But the Rugers are rediculously tough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom