Ruger Forum banner

MK-II and MK-III comparison

15K views 8 replies 6 participants last post by  Jason D 
#1 ·
I am a MK-II fan and have been for some time. I have never shot a MK-III, but, have held and looked at a few at the gun shops. Most experianced dealers I know seem to prefer the MK-II. I did a little checking and found that the MK-III 5.5 inch barrel target model has the same weight as the MK-II. So, besides the obvious things like mag release and chamber indicator how are they differant. One thing I did notice is that the finish of the stainless models are much brighter. They almost look chrom plated (I know they arnt) to me. I also notced that the two seem to have a differant barrel to grip frame ballance. Are they basicaly the same pistol or what?
 
#2 ·
Lee ... The only additional significant differences beyond the ones that you have already mentioned would be the addition of the magazine disconnect on the MKIII and the fact that the MKIII is pre-drilled for the addition of a scope base. Accordingly, to the best of my knowledge and experience, there should not be any significant difference in the balance between similar versions of the MKII & MKIII.
 
#3 · (Edited)
I kind of think that the MKIII lower frame is exactly the same as the MKII, but with the addition of the frame mounted magazine release. There is a plastic spacer on my MKIII that looks like where the heal release would have went.

Primary differences between the two as as follows.

1. Loaded chamber indicator. MKIII
2. Magazine Release. MKIII
3 Locking mechanism in mainspring housing assembly. MKIII
4. Magazine disconnect. MKIII
5. They failed to keep the Ruger logo on the bolt face. MKIII
6. Drilled and tapped for scope base. MKIII

There really isn't anything that has been changed, that could lead to a balance difference between the two generations of pistols.
 
#4 ·
The MKII is no longer in production. Consequently they are percieved to be more desirable.

Aside from that, the six differences that Jason lists are supposed improvements to justify the gun's being less lawsuit prone. To me they're big negative, not unlike the locks on a new S&W.

I guess future buyers can determine their value. To me, it's just more stuff to go wrong.

Just my opinion ...
 
#5 ·
i personally want buy any auto with the ruger/springfield/(some)taurus style loaded chanber indicator. they are ugly and obtrusive.
Glocks is perfect (tiny shelf on the extractor), otherwise i hate them.
they are deal breakers, in my opinion, on a carry gun.

i could deal with on a MkIII though, i suppose.



another difference on the MkIII is the barrel warning info is on the bottom of the barrel, rather than the side.
 
#6 ·
I had an older KMKII-512 and sold it so I could buy a new KMKIII-512. The finish, weight, and balance are identical. The features I wanted were the new style magazine release button that works like a 1911 and the scope mount. I really enjoy these features and for me, it was well worth trading because I detested the magazine butt release on the MK I and MK II.

I think many people are overly sensitive to changes ... especially if they are safety related. I really didn't have an issue with having a magazine disconnect because this gun will not be used for self defense. However, I did have an issue with the "Band-Aid" engineering Ruger did to modify the MK II design. The magazine disconnect lever drags on the magazine so when you press the release button, the empty magazine does not fall free like a 1911. I removed the magazine disconnect, spring, hammer, and hammer bushing and installed a MK II hammer and bushing. It now works the way it should when you press the mag release button. BTW, this modification makes it easier to disassemble because you don't need to insert a magazine to dry fire.

My next problem came when I tried to field strip the MK III. I don't have an issue with having the lock because it is out of sight and I would not use it anyway. The phony lock is just a screw that interrupts the mainspring strut and again is a classic case of Band-Aid engineering. Rather than redesign the gun for a lock, Ruger modified the existing mainspring housing and Safety Switch. With my MK III, I could not remove the mainspring housing without farting around to center the lock screw. Additionally, the safety switch was flaky and did not hold the sear tight like in the MK III. Another major issue with the lock .... before you can lock the gun, the hammer must be cocked and the Safety switch must be in the SAFE position. This doesn't make good sense to me. It should lock with the hammer down. Fortunately, it only takes a few minutes to remove the lock. I also installed a MK II Safety Switch that holds the sear tight, like it should.

At first, I did not like the loaded chamber indicator (LCI) but after shooting my MK III quite a bit, I got used to it. I like the fact that you can "feel" the LCI to detect a loaded chamber. My only complaint about the LCI is ... it's totally fugly. FYI, the early production MK IIIs were recalled for the LCI. Seems the solid metal ones on the first couple thousand guns would cause the gun to fire if the LCI was struck or the gun was dropped and hit the LCI. Again .... more Band-Aid engineering. The current spring loaded LCIs work fine but I think Ruger engineers could have come up with a more cosmetic solution.

So now I call my MK III a MK 2.5 because it has the best features of both models.

Just a few minor corrections to the above posts. During the last few years of MK II production, all adjustable sight models WERE drilled and tapped for a scope and included a Weaver style base.The Slabside MK II models had the Ruger steel base that works with conventional Ruger steel or stainless steel rings. Not all MK IIIs are drilled and tapped for a scope .... only the models equipped with adjustable sights.

Here's my MK 2.5 with the Ruger steel base and rings. BTW, this is one shooting machine. The only gun I've found that is more accurate is my $1200 S&W Mod 41.

 
#7 ·
Not all MK IIIs are drilled and tapped for a scope .... only the models equipped with adjustable sights.
I stand corrected ... I forgot all about the MKIII standard with fixed sights and the 22/45 slabside with fixed sights :eek:. Thanks for the clarification :)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top