Results 1 to 10 of 12
Thread: Old Ruger 22/45 vs. 22/45 mk III
-
July 23rd, 2006, 11:17 PM #1Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2006
- Location
-
Washington
- Posts
- 71
- Rep Power
- 18
Old Ruger 22/45 vs. 22/45 mk III
I've been reading a few threads that say that the ruger 22/45 pistols have had more feeding problems than the regular pistols due to the difference in grip angle and, therefore, the magazine angles. I'm wondering if the 22/45's they are talking about having the feeding problems are the old ones, and the new mk III 22/45's have that problem fixed, or is feeding still a problem in the mk III 22/45's?
Also, I've read that the regular pistols (not 22/45 versions) are more durable and more reliable when dirty than the 22/45's are. This true?
Thanks!Last edited by jcisbig; July 23rd, 2006 at 11:20 PM.
-
July 23rd, 2006, 11:57 PM #2
Mk lll
Originally Posted by jcisbigLast edited by Frenchy; July 24th, 2006 at 10:29 AM.
Skeet is a sport where you are better to hit half of each bird then completely blast one and miss the other completely.
The choice is yours, place your faith in the court system and 12 of your peers, or carried away by 6 friends.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit. 'Nobody provokes me with impunity'
ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
In this world there's two kinds of people, my friend. Those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig.
Clint Eastwood
The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
-
July 24th, 2006, 12:07 PM #3Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2006
- Location
-
Washington
- Posts
- 71
- Rep Power
- 18
So what you're saying is that the 22/45 is not as reliable as the mk III's, both for feeding and reliability-when-dirty, right?
I don't mind cleaning the gun on the outside and whatnot, but I don't want to have to strip it down each time I shoot it. Blued steel still okay for that?
Thanks!
-
July 24th, 2006, 12:33 PM #4
Take down
Originally Posted by jcisbig
We personally own a Neos for weight and grip factor, but if it where for me, it would be a Ruger Mk ll
Your post is Old Ruger 22/45 vs. 22/45 mk III where as it should be Ruger Mark series vs Ruger 22/45Last edited by Frenchy; July 24th, 2006 at 12:41 PM.
Skeet is a sport where you are better to hit half of each bird then completely blast one and miss the other completely.
The choice is yours, place your faith in the court system and 12 of your peers, or carried away by 6 friends.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit. 'Nobody provokes me with impunity'
ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
In this world there's two kinds of people, my friend. Those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig.
Clint Eastwood
The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
-
December 22nd, 2006, 06:44 PM #5Active Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
-
- Posts
- 187
- Rep Power
- 31
Re: Old Ruger 22/45 vs. 22/45 mk III
Found this looking at other posts. Five months later, would you say anything differently? I have a MKIII Hunter (stainless) and it is a joy to shoot. No problems I can't assign to ammo, stretching the cleaning interval. Didn't like the grip on the 22/45, but when Gander Mountain had the 5.5" blued model for $200, they set the hook and reeled me in. Straight from the store to the range (yea, no prefire cleaning), the 22/45 shot accurately and reliably. Haven't fired enough rounds from the 22/45 to judge reliability, but if you like the grip, the one I got for the price is well worth the money.
-
March 18th, 2008, 02:22 AM #6
Re: Old Ruger 22/45 vs. 22/45 mk III
I bought a .22/.45 MkIII recently and have had a ball with it. It's relatively easy to clean correctly and it is very comfortable to handle and fire. It has a 4" barrel and I really like the size and shape of the grip frame. Mayhap a bit smaller, (thinner), thatn a 1911...but comfortable and easily controlled. Ruger throws in a picatinny type rail and mounting screws and I added that and a nice little red-dot to mine.
-
March 18th, 2008, 10:07 AM #7
Re: Old Ruger 22/45 vs. 22/45 mk III
I absolutely love my MKIII 22/45. It shoots any ammo I put into it. No problems. It's one sweet shooter.
Μολὼν λάβε
-
March 18th, 2008, 10:34 AM #8
Re: Old Ruger 22/45 vs. 22/45 mk III
I also have a Mark III 22/45 and it shoots well. I shoot CCI copper jacketed and have no problems. It was right on from the factory I never even adjusted the sights. It feeds very well. I have heard not to use lead bullets because it might cause jams.
The truth shall set you free.
They can have my guns when they pry them from my cold dead hands
I can not wait until NJ sinks in the ocean and PA has ocean front property
-
March 18th, 2008, 11:10 AM #9Junior Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Location
-
State College,
Pennsylvania
(Centre County) - Posts
- 13
- Rep Power
- 0
Re: Old Ruger 22/45 vs. 22/45 mk III
Holy old thread. I'll put in my $.02 anyway. I have an older .22/45, blued, 4-4.5" bbl (I can't remember), and it shoots well. I haven't cleaned it in well over 1000 rounds , and although I do get the occasional malfunction, it's a .22, with cheap ammo...and it probably just needs to be cleaned. It's accurate and a blast to shoot.
I stick with Federal ammunition, as it seems to work the best. Stay far, far away from the "Golden Bullet" unless you want to look like you strangled Tinkerbell. Man, that stuff is messy.
-
October 26th, 2008, 04:09 PM #10Junior Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Location
-
pantego,
North Carolina
- Posts
- 1
- Rep Power
- 0
Re: Old Ruger 22/45 vs. 22/45 mk III
Excuse me for bringing this up, but I thought the original question was in regards to the older 22/45s vs the new MKIII 22/45s. The 22/45s are marked as MKIIIs, contrary to what responders in this thread have said. The subject seems to switched to a comparison b/w 22/45s and "non-22/45" MKIII.
Similar Threads
-
.22 Rimfire -- Ruger MkIII Competition
By Cole in forum GeneralReplies: 15Last Post: January 10th, 2008, 04:23 PM
Bookmarks