Ruger MKII vs MKIII

[glocke12]

Just looking to see what others feel about the differences between these two.

I've had the chance to handle and shoot the MKIII, and just cant get over that stupid loaded chamber indicator that sticks out. I know it can be disabled, and I know that some people are making pieces of metal that you can put in there to replace it with, but even with those modifications that part of the gun is still an eyesore. I think anyway.

[The_War_Wagon]

Meh... you get used to it. I tend to rely on using my brain - to check & RE-check as necessary, if I'm not SURE of the loaded/unloaded status!

[brian]

it also adds a step or two to the already juggling act of re-assembly. mkI or II for me.

[PennsyPlinker]

Just looking to see what others feel about the differences between these two.

I've had the chance to handle and shoot the MKIII, and just cant get over that stupid loaded chamber indicator that sticks out. I know it can be disabled, and I know that some people are making pieces of metal that you can put in there to replace it with, but even with those modifications that part of the gun is still an eyesore. I think anyway.

I've got both. I did the bushing mod to get rid of the magazine disconnect, and added in the LCI metal filler on my Mk III 22/45. It does not bother me. What I do like is being about to pump bulk load through a suppressed .22 semi without having to worry about it going supersonic. But if it bothers you that much, just look for a Mk II. They aren't all that uncommon. You will just have to do some hunting and waiting.

[ar15jules]

For me, the mag release on the MKIII is worth the "eye sore" of the LCI.
Jules

[PA Rifleman]

I bought a MK III Hunter earlier this year, and did a complete disassembly. The loaded chamber indicator (LCI) is retained by a blind pivot pin. Since it's stainless, I easily pulled the pivot pin out with a magnet. The gun will function fine without the LCI installed, but I left the LCI installed on mine.

I have two older Mark IIs (MK-678G & one KMK-678G), at some point I'll compare the Mark III to the 678s on the range.

The Mark III Hunter is better suited in several respects for general outdoor use for several reasons:

• The receiver is factory drilled & tapped for a scope mount, and the MK III example I bought came with a factory mount*. The Mk IIs were not factory drilled.
• The front sight is a fiber optic self-illumination sight, which is very easy to see.
• The magazine release is on the side of the receiver a-la M1911 style, the MK II is a heel catch.
• The barrel fluting on the MK III does make it feel a little less muzzle-heavy than the comparable. MK II 6 7/8"

Also, the mag disconnect doesn't seem to affect trigger pull weight, so that isn't a dealbreaker for me. The trigger on the MK III example I have breaks clean at three pounds on the spot.

MK III drawbacks (IMHO) - the rear sight is V shaped, and after using 678Gs it leaves a certain ambiguity in my estimation where the front sight should be in relation to the rear sight. Short of this, if I were looking for my first Ruger rimfire auto, I wouldn't have the slightest hesitation to buy the newer MK III.

MK III magazines are not interchangeable with MK IIs due to the relocation of the mag release. I can post pics of the two side-by side if anyone's interested.

* I'm not a big fan of telescopic sights on handguns, but I admit I have a cheap holographic sight I'm itching to try on this MK III.

[rwb1500]

I bought a MK III Hunter earlier this year, and did a complete disassembly. The loaded chamber indicator (LCI) is retained by a blind pivot pin. Since it's stainless, I easily pulled the pivot pin out with a magnet. The gun will function fine without the LCI installed, but I left the LCI installed on mine.

I have two older Mark IIs (MK-678G & one KMK-678G), at some point I'll compare the Mark III to the 678s on the range.

The Mark III Hunter is better suited in several respects for general outdoor use for several reasons:

• The receiver is factory drilled & tapped for a scope mount, and the MK III example I bought came with a factory mount*. The Mk IIs were not factory drilled.
• The front sight is a fiber optic self-illumination sight, which is very easy to see.
• The magazine release is on the side of the receiver a-la M1911 style, the MK II is a heel catch.
• The barrel fluting on the MK III does make it feel a little less muzzle-heavy than the comparable. MK II 6 7/8"

Also, the mag disconnect doesn't seem to affect trigger pull weight, so that isn't a dealbreaker for me. The trigger on the MK III example I have breaks clean at three pounds on the spot.

MK III drawbacks (IMHO) - the rear sight is V shaped, and after using 678Gs it leaves a certain ambiguity in my estimation where the front sight should be in relation to the rear sight. Short of this, if I were looking for my first Ruger rimfire auto, I wouldn't have the slightest hesitation to buy the newer MK III.

MK III magazines are not interchangeable with MK IIs due to the relocation of the mag release. I can post pics of the two side-by side if anyone's interested.
[I]
* I'm not a big fan of telescopic sights on handguns, but I admit I have a cheap holographic sight I'm itching to try on this MK III.[/I]

Do it! Do it!

It makes plinking mucho fun. Great thing about the MKIII, if you decide not to use an optic you can pop it and the rail right off.

[PisnNapalm]

Just looking to see what others feel about the differences between these two.

I've had the chance to handle and shoot the MKIII, and just cant get over that stupid loaded chamber indicator that sticks out. I know it can be disabled, and I know that some people are making pieces of metal that you can put in there to replace it with, but even with those modifications that part of the gun is still an eyesore. I think anyway.

Really? I've got a MKIII 22/45 and it's never bothered me at all.

[PisnNapalm]

Do it! Do it!

It makes plinking mucho fun. Great thing about the MKIII, if you decide not to use an optic you can pop it and the rail right off.

Agreed!! A $30 cheapo reddot on my MKIII is a hoot to shoot.

[PennsyPlinker]

Do it! Do it!

It makes plinking mucho fun. Great thing about the MKIII, if you decide not to use an optic you can pop it and the rail right off.

I was helping the five year old daughter of a friend of mine shoot this Mk III 22/45 this past weekend, and she hit the cans on the berm 9 out of 10 times using the red dot. She was standing about 12-15 feet away.