what is the difference between a ruger mark II and mark III?
- Thread starter toomb
- Start date
kristop64089
New member
MKIII has a loaded chamber indicator, and mag release on the frame.
MKII has no LCI, and a "Heel" type mag release.
There may be something else, I can't remember
MKII has no LCI, and a "Heel" type mag release.
There may be something else, I can't remember
Those are indeed the differences in the new and improved Mark III.
Having a Mark II, I am no doubt biased. I like the idea of a push button, standard kind of magazine release on the Mark III, but that comes at the expense of new magazines. All of the many hundreds of thousands of Mark II magazines that were built and distributed between 1982 and 2003 will not work in the new pistol.
I don't really have a problem with the heel-type latch on my Mark II. For sure, if you wanted to practice in the same fast shoot-and-reload style that many competition shooting games require, the new release is a big, important upgrade, but IMO, I'd rather have the magazine availability.
Internal lock... like most gun guys, I hate the very idea of it. If you don't know why, I won't take the time to explain it. Frankly, I don't blame Ruger. I blame politics in this day and age and places like the State of California for the very existence of these things.
Having shot many different Ruger Mark I's and Mark II's, I think they are durable as hell and given my familiarity with the Mark II, I'd definitely look for one lightly used at a discount before purchasing a new Mark III for more money, but either will give satisfaction.
A new Mark III is a fine purchase, I just want don't you to think that you are missing out if you settle on a nice Mark II.
Having a Mark II, I am no doubt biased. I like the idea of a push button, standard kind of magazine release on the Mark III, but that comes at the expense of new magazines. All of the many hundreds of thousands of Mark II magazines that were built and distributed between 1982 and 2003 will not work in the new pistol.
I don't really have a problem with the heel-type latch on my Mark II. For sure, if you wanted to practice in the same fast shoot-and-reload style that many competition shooting games require, the new release is a big, important upgrade, but IMO, I'd rather have the magazine availability.
Internal lock... like most gun guys, I hate the very idea of it. If you don't know why, I won't take the time to explain it. Frankly, I don't blame Ruger. I blame politics in this day and age and places like the State of California for the very existence of these things.
Having shot many different Ruger Mark I's and Mark II's, I think they are durable as hell and given my familiarity with the Mark II, I'd definitely look for one lightly used at a discount before purchasing a new Mark III for more money, but either will give satisfaction.
A new Mark III is a fine purchase, I just want don't you to think that you are missing out if you settle on a nice Mark II.
skydiver3346
New member
Which one is best funtioning?
Mk I, Mk II or Mk III, which one would you prefer if you had a choice. With regards to reliability and functions the best? Thanks
Mk I, Mk II or Mk III, which one would you prefer if you had a choice. With regards to reliability and functions the best? Thanks
A few internal differences between Mark I and Mark II, and most obvious differences are the cut-outs on the Mark II to make it easier to grab the bolt at the rear. Also, Mark I magazines hold 9 rounds, Mark II hold 10. Think of the Mark II as a more refined Mark I.
The Mark III has all the updates detailed in this thread.
If I had a choice (and I did) I would choose the Mark II. I say this because it's long, long proven (Mark III hasn't been around nearly as long) and there are many of them to be had. Not as many Mark I's out there to buy given that they haven't made them since 1982.
If I found a Mark I for cheap, I'd likely pick it up, because it's a good pistol. But I like the Mark II more. The Mark III, IMO, isn't worth purchasing new given the availability of a decent, used Mark II.
Just my opinion.
The Mark III has all the updates detailed in this thread.
If I had a choice (and I did) I would choose the Mark II. I say this because it's long, long proven (Mark III hasn't been around nearly as long) and there are many of them to be had. Not as many Mark I's out there to buy given that they haven't made them since 1982.
If I found a Mark I for cheap, I'd likely pick it up, because it's a good pistol. But I like the Mark II more. The Mark III, IMO, isn't worth purchasing new given the availability of a decent, used Mark II.
Just my opinion.
Citizen Carrier
New member
There is another difference I don't think others have mentioned.
All the Mk IIIs have an adjustable trigger for overtravel. Of all the models of Mk II, only the "slabside" target models had the overtravel adjustment.
Of course, it is probably the most inconvenient overtravel adjustment I've ever encountered. You have to disassemble the pistol to get at the adjustment screw inside the trigger (it is not like a M1911 adjustable trigger where the screw is merely through the front of the trigger face itself and easily accessible).
You adjust a little, then test it, then adjust it a little more and test it again.
Kind of hard to explain so that you can visualize it. I swap my factory triggers out with Volquatsen adjustables anyway. They are easy as heck to adjust.
Frankly, I'm not partial to the new push buton mag releases on the Mk IIIs. It's a small button. An extended mag release lever on the Mk II gives you just as much speed and your hand is probably going to be down there anyway to catch the magazine.
I don't dislike the Mk IIIs. They just seem more "lawyerified" than the Mk IIs. Bill wouldn't have made a pistol like this.
All the Mk IIIs have an adjustable trigger for overtravel. Of all the models of Mk II, only the "slabside" target models had the overtravel adjustment.
Of course, it is probably the most inconvenient overtravel adjustment I've ever encountered. You have to disassemble the pistol to get at the adjustment screw inside the trigger (it is not like a M1911 adjustable trigger where the screw is merely through the front of the trigger face itself and easily accessible).
You adjust a little, then test it, then adjust it a little more and test it again.
Kind of hard to explain so that you can visualize it. I swap my factory triggers out with Volquatsen adjustables anyway. They are easy as heck to adjust.
Frankly, I'm not partial to the new push buton mag releases on the Mk IIIs. It's a small button. An extended mag release lever on the Mk II gives you just as much speed and your hand is probably going to be down there anyway to catch the magazine.
I don't dislike the Mk IIIs. They just seem more "lawyerified" than the Mk IIs. Bill wouldn't have made a pistol like this.
I had no idea -- thanks for this info!
Couple of comments... with regard to over travel stops on triggers... I like the idea, but I don't understand why they really have to be adjustable. I guess if the gun goes out of tune maybe it doesn't break at the same point years later, but it seems to me with any trigger-stop equipped firearm, you get it "right" then you never, ever change it. Anyone not agree?
Does seem like a silly way to employ one on this design, though.
Here's another question if you are closely familiar with the Mark III (I am not). Does the mag disconnector safety alter or otherwise ruin the normal trigger pull that Mark II users are accustomed to? I know that's a common argument of another mag-disconnector equipped pistol, the Browning High Power.
A genius and a great man in the annals of firearms history, but not perfect. I think, in fact, he would have made the Mark III, if it meant being able to sell them in California.
Couple of comments... with regard to over travel stops on triggers... I like the idea, but I don't understand why they really have to be adjustable. I guess if the gun goes out of tune maybe it doesn't break at the same point years later, but it seems to me with any trigger-stop equipped firearm, you get it "right" then you never, ever change it. Anyone not agree?
Does seem like a silly way to employ one on this design, though.
Here's another question if you are closely familiar with the Mark III (I am not). Does the mag disconnector safety alter or otherwise ruin the normal trigger pull that Mark II users are accustomed to? I know that's a common argument of another mag-disconnector equipped pistol, the Browning High Power.
I get what you are saying, but not sure I agree. First off, there's a lot Bull Ruger wouldn't have made... the LCP is right at the top of the list, and the Charger, and lord knows what else in the future. But whether or not Bill would have made it is not the same as saying, "Bill was right, I'm with him." Bill Ruger made a lot of gun owners unhappy with his position on magazine limits.
A genius and a great man in the annals of firearms history, but not perfect. I think, in fact, he would have made the Mark III, if it meant being able to sell them in California.
Good post Sevens. I was just about to ask about how the trigger was affected by the mag disconnect safety, then decided I should just finish reading the thread.
I'm also with you on the Bill Ruger position. I think he would have made the Mk. III, and probably the LCP too. He wasn't against concealed carry too, was he? Why would he have been against the Charger? With all that bulk and the 22 caliber, it is not exactly the idea gangster's assault rifle...
As for practicing for combat pistols, the 22/45 has the push button for the mag release, AND the more common grip angle of non-22 pistols. (and without the mag disconnect and internal lock)
I'm also with you on the Bill Ruger position. I think he would have made the Mk. III, and probably the LCP too. He wasn't against concealed carry too, was he? Why would he have been against the Charger? With all that bulk and the 22 caliber, it is not exactly the idea gangster's assault rifle...
As for practicing for combat pistols, the 22/45 has the push button for the mag release, AND the more common grip angle of non-22 pistols. (and without the mag disconnect and internal lock)
http://www.guntalk-online.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=934. BTW, the MKIII lawyered up features can be easily removed if one chooses to do so.
XNavyflyer
New member
I have what I think to be the best of both worlds. I have a MKII 22/45 with the thumb magazine release, no magazine disconnect and no loaded chamber indicator. It's a variant you might want to look for. It took me a while to find mine
Citizen Carrier
New member
I'm not sure, but you may be thinking of the "adjustable trigger" in an incorrect manner.
I get that impression. It is not adjustable in the sense you can tune it to have a 4.5 lb pull rather than a 3.5 pound pull by turning a screw. The overtravel stop merely eliminates unnecessary trigger movement after the pistol has fired. And yes, once you have it adjusted you should not really have to adjust it again.
It is not a silly thing to consider, as these pistols are mechanically capable of match-winning accuracy. Master-class shooters in rimfire bullseye leagues in Columbus, OH use Rugers.
Well, some of them do.
With a new Volquartsen trigger, which you can install sitting at your kitchen table with essentially no tools, you can adjust not just the overtravel, but also the pretravel. Eliminate all unnecessary movement of the trigger before and after the shot breaks.
And yes, the safety features of the Mk III can be deactivated with very little difficulty. I had a Mk III and did this. It is essentially just removing the little spring mechanism of the safety disconnect and installing a Mk II hammer and hammer bushing in place of their Mk III counterparts.
I like the looks of the Mk III Hunter with the fluted barrel. It would be perfect if they would just put a plain black front sight on it in place of that fiber optic gimmick thingy.
I get that impression. It is not adjustable in the sense you can tune it to have a 4.5 lb pull rather than a 3.5 pound pull by turning a screw. The overtravel stop merely eliminates unnecessary trigger movement after the pistol has fired. And yes, once you have it adjusted you should not really have to adjust it again.
It is not a silly thing to consider, as these pistols are mechanically capable of match-winning accuracy. Master-class shooters in rimfire bullseye leagues in Columbus, OH use Rugers.
Well, some of them do.
With a new Volquartsen trigger, which you can install sitting at your kitchen table with essentially no tools, you can adjust not just the overtravel, but also the pretravel. Eliminate all unnecessary movement of the trigger before and after the shot breaks.
And yes, the safety features of the Mk III can be deactivated with very little difficulty. I had a Mk III and did this. It is essentially just removing the little spring mechanism of the safety disconnect and installing a Mk II hammer and hammer bushing in place of their Mk III counterparts.
I like the looks of the Mk III Hunter with the fluted barrel. It would be perfect if they would just put a plain black front sight on it in place of that fiber optic gimmick thingy.
varoadking
New member
Some of my MKII's...
All of them have Volquartsen triggers, sears and extractors...among the more obvious features...
Trigger pulls range between 1 pound 13 ounces and 2 pounds 3 ounces.
I don't own any MKI's or MKIII's.
All of them have Volquartsen triggers, sears and extractors...among the more obvious features...
Trigger pulls range between 1 pound 13 ounces and 2 pounds 3 ounces.
I don't own any MKI's or MKIII's.
Overtravel is easily fixed. Get a stainless set screw, 6-40 I think. Remove the aluminum trigger and drill an appropriate size hole for your set screw. Tap the hole for the threads. Reinstall trigger. Put screw in trigger far enough so it won't fire. back it out slowly until it fires. Test fire several times then put a drop of blue loctite on the screw. No overtravel. Oh, does anyone know if a MKII upper will go on a MKIII lower? I'm thinking yes but not sure.
I have a MkI and really enjoy it. I agree that a MkII is a refined version of the MkI with no added defects, but the MkI was available at a good price when I was a poor college student trying to get back into shooting, so I bought it. Turns out it was old, but not obsolete!
I don't know that I would want to jump straight to the MkIII, although I've had a 22/45 on my wish list for awhile. Now that I have a 1911 .45, it makes even more sense, but even at that, I think I might just pick up a MkII 22/45 version.
I don't know that I would want to jump straight to the MkIII, although I've had a 22/45 on my wish list for awhile. Now that I have a 1911 .45, it makes even more sense, but even at that, I think I might just pick up a MkII 22/45 version.