Ruger MK 1 vs Ruger MK II

can i add something to your question?

for the Ruger gurus, when you talk about the differences between Mark I and Mark II can you also include MkIII in the comparison?
 
The Mk I holds 9 rounds and has a magazine release on the heel of butt
The Mk II holds 10 rounds, has the magazine release on the heel of the butt and is scalloped at the end of the receiver so that the bolt can be grasped easier
The MK III holds 10 rounds and has the magazine release on the side of the frame. It also has a loaded chamber indicator and will not fire when the magazine is removed

There is some more slight mechanical differences but I cannot recall them at the moment
 
If memory service the MK1 will not lock open on the last shot and the MK2 will. You can lock the bolt on the MK1 back by pulling the bolt back and engaging the safety.
 
Ruger .22

slicknick said:
The Mk I holds 9 rounds and has a magazine release on the heel of butt
The Mk II holds 10 rounds, has the magazine release on the heel of the butt and is scalloped at the end of the receiver so that the bolt can be grasped easier
The MK III holds 10 rounds and has the magazine release on the side of the frame. It also has a loaded chamber indicator and will not fire when the magazine is removed

There is some more slight mechanical differences but I cannot recall them at the moment
Click to expand...

The MK III also has a keyed lock on the left side.
IMO, a MKII with a MKIII mag release would be the best of the bunch. The other MKIII added gimmicks are annoying, unnecessary and just add to the cost and complexity of the gun.
 
and you can buy a speed loader for the mkII & mkIII but not the mkI. I hope that im wrong because I would love one for my mkI but I dont think that I am.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom