Ruger Mark iv 22/45 target vs. mark iv 22/45 lite

[c_brutsche]

Hi All,

Just wanted to get input on your opinions of the ruger mark iv 22/45 target vs. the mark iv 22/45 lite. The target model I found at my local gun shop for about $330 and the lite is also there for about $130 more. I’ve felt and handled both and I like them both. I do eventually plan on getting into rimfire challenge with it but possibly no optics. Does anyone have a weigh in if they feel the lite over the target is worth the $100 plus more? Thanks in advance!

[gghbi]

IMO for the lite model you are paying a premium for a gaudy outside, and a lighter pistol. I would go with the target model, unless you really feel the need for the color or patterns on the lite models and/or the 10 or 15 ounce weight difference is significant to you.

[marinville]

I bought the lite to suppress it and I've been happy with it. If I wasnt going use a can, I might get another model. I think the hunter is a real looker.

Edit: Looking at their catalogue online, the 10" bbl target also caught my eye.

[Orive 8]

My wife sold her Ruger MK IV stainless target model to my sister a few months ago. She is interested in picking up either the Ruger MK IV Lite with a threaded barrel or the Glock 44 and also pick up a threaded barrel. She wants a suppressor.

She also owned a MK II in the past, and while she likes the Ruger .22s, she is a Glock shooter and after renting and liking the Glock 44 a while back is thinking of going that route.

Light weight is a priority for her. The price of the MK IV Lite vs the Glock 44 & additional threaded barrel are pretty close so that isn't an issue.
Time will tell.

[scruff]

I have the Lite. I like the gun, but it's still fuckin impossible to assemble.

[triplebike]

I believe you're referring to the 22/45 MKIV 5.5 in bull barrel which sells for little over $300, it has the same lower as the MKIV Lite. If that's the case I have both and I really enjoy them both equally. The Lite came with a much better trigger out of the box, but that was easily solved with a Voltquartsen hammer & sear. If I have to absolutely pick one it would be the Lite. It's a joy to shoot, incredibility accurate , reliable and because it's lightweight it can be shot for hours on end. Both eat any ammo (99% bulk) I feed them without a single hitch.

[hunterdan]

I've got the mk iv tactical with the aluminum frame and 4.4" threaded bull barrel. Was going to get the lite, but preferred the weight and feel of the heavier gun and solid frame. I got it for the same reason, and have since put a red dot on it. It shoots amazing and haven't had any issues. The tactical and lite were both the same price at my shop, so that was a non-issue.

[Orive 8]

Ruger MK IV 22-45 Lite.JPG

My wife picked up the Ruger MKIV 22/45 Lite in Purple today from Duke's Sport Shop in New Castle. Range day is scheduled for next Monday.

[c_brutsche]

Thank you all for the replies! I*ve felt both and decided to go for the 22/45 lite. Now just on the hunt to get one. Thanks again everyone!

[triplebike]

I have the standard 22/45 , and while the grip is not really great feeling by any stretch , I've shot silhouette with it and once left handed to give the wife a "fair?" chance , accurate pistol for sure , too bad the grip wasn't like my buckmark though.

Two different grip angles. I have owned a buckmark and the grip of my Rugers 22/45 is much better IMHO. I don't own a Glock for that very same reason. The grip is in the eye of the beholder. Some folks like the Glock angle and some folks like the 1911 type. It's a personal preference.