Old Ruger 22/45 vs. 22/45 mk III

**jcisbig** · July 23rd, 2006, 11:17 PM

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!

**Frenchy** · July 23rd, 2006, 11:57 PM

Originally Posted by jcisbig

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!

JC, the Mk lll and the 22/45 are not the same, basically the MK ll (2) was pretty well a work horse, the Mk lll is supposed to be an improvement to this,

and it should be equally a work horse, the 22/45 is supposed to immitate the 1911 grip, but generally not as well liked as the Mark series, You can see in these 2 pictures how the grip and grip angle is not the same.

what ever Mark series you get, your looking at a long lasting gun if as you say you dont like cleaning, get a ss model. (other then the 22/45)

**jcisbig** · July 24th, 2006, 12:07 PM

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!

**Frenchy** · July 24th, 2006, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by jcisbig

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!

Once you do the takedown a few times, you will actually be able to do it blindfolded, its not that rough, just need timing, and practice.... Blue is ok also, but I personally prefer SS in my "work" guns. The trick to putting it back together is knowing when to pull the trigger. ( make sure you understand how to do it before leaving the store. If they cant teach you, change stores!) My experiances (or more like the experiances i have seen with people who own 22/45) has not been good. But the Mark series, the original to the MKlll have been.

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 22/45

**greener** · December 22nd, 2006, 06:44 PM

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.

**aryfrosty** · March 18th, 2008, 02:22 AM

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.

**PisnNapalm** · March 18th, 2008, 10:07 AM

I absolutely love my MKIII 22/45. It shoots any ammo I put into it. No problems. It's one sweet shooter.

**bert304** · March 18th, 2008, 10:34 AM

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.

**sspiff22** · March 18th, 2008, 11:10 AM

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.

**bolts4rivers** · October 26th, 2008, 04:09 PM

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.