|
|
Post by bushog on Dec 14, 2019 20:13:39 GMT -5
Mike has had some of the new 10" bull barrel MKIVs for sale over on the Ruger Forum.
They're about the same price as a used but look like great condition MKII guns in the same configuration.
Which one do I want? (I know both...that's a moot point).
I swear I remember a great post Dick made some time ago about his 10" MKII.
Wish I could find it.
|
|
|
|
Post by zeus on Dec 14, 2019 20:51:00 GMT -5
I’m a MK2 guy. I have a 10” MK2 that’s like new. Shoots pretty well  I have one 10” MK2 that is extremely quiet. 😂😂  Short Krieger barrel and about 8” of baffles along with that. Makes for a super quiet toy! |
|
|
|
Post by Ken O'Neill on Dec 14, 2019 21:02:09 GMT -5
My all-time favorite .22 semi autos are the Mk. II's. I've won Indoor League Bullseye matches with them, shot IHMSA 40X40's and 60X60's with them, and hunted small game with them. Far superior accuracy to the S&W 41 I owned, and 100% dependable, vs the alibi-prone High Standards I frequently shot against in Bullseye matches. I've owned the 5-1/4" tapered (very rare), 6" Standard (scoped), 5-1/2" bull, 6-7/8" tapered, 6-7/8" Bull and a couple of 10" versions, most of them since the Mk. II was introduced in the early '80's. All have been excellent. After a while, I did add Bowen rear Target sights to 4 of them, and Clark triggers to three that weren't going to be used in IHMSA matches. Nice upgrades, but not absolutely necessary. I rejected the idea of the Mk. III because of the silly loaded chamber indicators etc. and have no first hand experience with the MK. IV. My sense tells me the IV's should be excellent, but since my II's have served me so well for decades, I have no reason to try a IV. I think you should feel safe to smoke versions of the used II and new IV over closely, and make your choice. Obviously a new IV can be returned to Ruger for service should problems arise. Here are some Mk II's:  |
|
awp101
.401 Bobcat
They call me…Andrew
Posts: 2,757
|
Post by awp101 on Dec 14, 2019 23:36:29 GMT -5
I keep looking at those MKIVs but are they as nose heavy as they look?
|
|
|
|
Post by bradshaw on Dec 15, 2019 10:07:21 GMT -5
My all-time favorite .22 semi autos are the Mk. II's. I've won Indoor League Bullseye matches with them, shot IHMSA 40X40's and 60X60's with them, and hunted small game with them. Far superior accuracy to the S&W 41 I owned, and 100% dependable, vs the alibi-prone High Standards I frequently shot against in Bullseye matches. I've owned the 5-1/4" tapered (very rare), 6" Standard (scoped), 5-1/2" bull, 6-7/8" tapered, 6-7/8" Bull and a couple of 10" versions, most of them since the Mk. II was introduced in the early '80's. All have been excellent. After a while, I did add Bowen rear Target sights to 4 of them, and Clark triggers to three that weren't going to be used in IHMSA matches. Nice upgrades, but not absolutely necessary. I rejected the idea of the Mk. III because of the silly loaded chamber indicators etc. and have no first hand experience with the MK. IV. My sense tells me the IV's should be excellent, but since my II's have served me so well for decades, I have no reason to try a IV. I think you should feel safe to smoke versions of the used II and new IV over closely, and make your choice. Obviously a new IV can be returned to Ruger for service should problems arise. Here are some Mk II's: ***** Doesn’t surprise me the Ruger MK II has a serious following around here. I share with Ken a lack of experience with the MK IV, thus center my take on the MK II. No doubt, others here can better recount its history, while a bit if background may provide context. Drawing on war experience is arms manufacture, Bill Ruger commenced his gun manufacture of his iconic Standard Auto .22 Long Rifle in 1949. By mail order from a little red barn on the Old Post Road in Southport, Connecticut, Ruger sent forth to a hungry 2nd Amendment public an economical, nearly indestructible pistol chambered for the never-obsolete .22 Long Rifle. The pistol shared the rough shape of the Luger Pistole 1908, and it probably didn’t hurt that Ruger sounds a lot like Luger. The Ruger Standard Auto swiftly became Ruger’s toe in the door to the big league of American firearms manufacturing, to eventually stand beside the great names. Ruger’s intent was to provide the wage earner an honest product that would satisfy, and last and last and last. Too arm the NRA Bullseye crowd was not his intent. Yet, he released in short order a target version with heavier barrel and adjustable sights. Among many questions I never asked Bill, Did you really intend with the MK I to clear a space on the Firing Line against High Standard (and the occasional Colt Woodsman Match Target and S&W’s recent Model 41)? Top sharpshooters, especially Jim Clark, seized on the simple rigidity of the MK I to build rip-snorting competition guns. Something that just isn’t going to happen with inferior hardware. MK II improvementsThere were weaknesses in the MK I. In order of importance: 1) traditional split-finger magazine----springy feed lips; 2) absence of lockback on last shot; 3) 9-shot mag (although this is not a weakness). The MK II corrects 1st generation deficiencies. The heel clip magazine catch of the original is retained on the MK II, a feature this shooter ranks very high indeed. The heel clip is less likely than a thumb button to lose your magazine while rolling around in the dirt, scaling a sharp slope, etc. MK III The tactical crowd, always ready to camouflage a light switch, must have rattled Ruger’s cage to put a thumb-actuated magazine catch on the .22 auto, as it shows up on the MK III. Probably to distract attention from a phony safety feature called a “loaded chamber indicator.” The thumb catch sold the MK III and the loaded chamber indicator came along for the ride. MK IVAs I handled and shot the MK IV, not lived with it, so my observation remains conceptual. Takedown of first, second, and third generation Ruger autos require learning the drill. More often than not, the seating of upper receiver to lower receiver, and removal and replacement of the combination mainspring housing-receiver lock-bolt stop-disassembly latch makes disassembly/reassembly a bear. Bill Ruger was fascinated with design and to make one part serve two or more functions swam in his mind. Bill told me that John Moses Browning was a main instigator of this process, and modern manufacturing techniques permit further simplification. Design may be complex, but the part and its function should be simple. Bill Ruger died in 2002. The MK IV is all about ease of disassembly & reassembly. Whomever and whoever designed MK IV takedown, so far it seems well in the direction of an improvement of which Bill Ruger would approve. If I didn’t have the MK II, I’d be more curious to learn the MK IV over time. Going in cold, my advice is this: if you have the MK II, keep it, or all of them. If you feel the need for a MK IV, buy. I would not sell a MK II on speculation to rearm with the MK IV. For my trust, to displace the MK II, a .22 auto would have to thoroughly earn its place on the mountain. Those who lack patience to learn the drill may be better off with the MK IV. I would not be happy if looseness developed between hinged parts. I too would like to hear of hard experience with the MK IV. David Bradshaw |
|
awp101
.401 Bobcat
They call me…Andrew
Posts: 2,757
|
Post by awp101 on Dec 15, 2019 11:00:12 GMT -5
Obviously a new IV can be returned to Ruger for service should problems arise. Great looking set of pistols Ken! I know parts are abundant for the MKIIs and they're relatively easy to work on, but will Ruger not touch them anymore? MK IVTakedown of first, second, and third generation Ruger autos require learning the drill. More often than not, the seating of upper receiver to lower receiver, and removal and replacement of the combination mainspring housing-receiver lock-bolt stop-disassembly latch makes disassembly/reassembly a bear. The takedown system and button mag release are precisely why I decided to give the MKIV a try instead of getting another Buckmark. I have a soft spot for the look of the Standard/MKI/MKII but I swore off the design because of "the drill". They haven't been run hard or often (life keeps getting in the way!) but so far I like the 2 I have. I do keep thinking about picking up a II as a "Merry Birthday to me" present though... |
|
|
|
Post by bushog on Dec 15, 2019 11:24:29 GMT -5
Obviously a new IV can be returned to Ruger for service should problems arise. Great looking set of pistols Ken! I know parts are abundant for the MKIIs and they're relatively easy to work on, but will Ruger not touch them anymore? MK IVTakedown of first, second, and third generation Ruger autos require learning the drill. More often than not, the seating of upper receiver to lower receiver, and removal and replacement of the combination mainspring housing-receiver lock-bolt stop-disassembly latch makes disassembly/reassembly a bear. The takedown system and button mag release are precisely why I decided to give the MKIV a try instead of getting another Buckmark. I have a soft spot for the look of the Standard/MKI/MKII but I swore off the design because of "the drill". They haven't been run hard or often (life keeps getting in the way!) but so far I like the 2 I have. I do keep thinking about picking up a II as a "Merry Birthday to me" present though... Merry Birthday = Good! |
|
|
|
Post by contender on Dec 15, 2019 11:44:49 GMT -5
I own several MK series guns. Early Red Eagle, to a custom MKIV. All 4 models & several variations.
I learned early on how to disassemble & re-assemble the MK series guns. To ME,, it's a non-issue.
Yet,, I had the privilege to speak with the designer of the MKIV takedown system. He said his main motivation was the constant complaints about the disassembly/re-assembly process.
That said,, I haven't had the time behind the trigger of a MKIV to determine if it'll be "better" than a MKII. BUT,, I would hope that the general design & quality will prove it to be just as dependable as the MKII versions.
Since the OP was asking about the differences between the MKII & MKIV,, I left out info on the MKIII. But,, I will say this; I feel the LCI and the extra steps of disassembly & re-assembly of the MKIII has caused the values of the MKIII to be lower to most folks.
Like David,, I'd NOT sell any of my MKII's to replace it with a MKIV,, but I would easily add another MKIV if I had the need.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ken O'Neill on Dec 15, 2019 14:40:19 GMT -5
awp101: No, I'm rather sure Ruger would work on a Mk. II, but I'm equally sure they would work on a Mk IV free, which is what I meant to imply.
|
|
|
|
Post by bushog on Dec 15, 2019 14:59:33 GMT -5
awp101: No, I'm rather sure Ruger would work on a Mk. II, but I'm equally sure they would work on a Mk IV free, which is what I meant to imply. Does the barrel actually taper just a little on the 10" MKIIs? I don't think it does on the MKIVs... |
|
|
|
Post by mike454 on Dec 15, 2019 15:32:13 GMT -5
Dont forget why they designed the MKIV. all the previous guns are a bit of a PITA to take down for cleaning. Plus the 1911 style mag release is super nice. I have a MKIII and I'll be looking to trade up to a MKIV as soon as I get around to it. the MKII is nice but i'd rather have the 4.
|
|
cmh
.401 Bobcat
Posts: 3,745
|
Post by cmh on Dec 15, 2019 16:51:42 GMT -5
I pick up my new MkIV 10” stainless tomorrow ....... anxious to get it!!
|
|
|
|
Post by bullseye on Dec 15, 2019 17:10:59 GMT -5
I’m a MK2 guy. I have a 10” MK2 that’s like new. Shoots pretty well I have one 10” MK2 that is extremely quiet. 😂😂 Short Krieger barrel and about 8” of baffles along with that. Makes for a super quiet toy! Nice!...What kind of base do you have on that one? |
|
|
|
Post by zeus on Dec 15, 2019 17:16:27 GMT -5
Custom base made when the suppressor was made to work with the time and the factory ruger sight.
|
|
|
|
Post by bushog on Dec 15, 2019 18:46:13 GMT -5
I pick up my new MkIV 10” stainless tomorrow ....... anxious to get it!! Will you go shoot the devil out of it and report back? |
|
