What think you of this Ruger?

1
This is the version of the MkII that I've been wanting to add to my safe for a couple of years. A couple of decent-looking ones are available now. For some reason, this one has an asking price $100 less than any I've seen for a while. It has a little bluing wear, but otherwise looks good to me. I asked the seller yesterday for a photo of the chamber mouth and a better one of the barrel crown yesterday, but no response yet. What I can see of the crown looks OK...

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/882718798
IMR4227: Zero to 900 in 0.001 seconds

I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.

Image
Image

Re: What think you of this Ruger?

2
I owned one of those longer pencil barreled target models in a MKIII once. Balanced well in the hand and fun to shoot using the adjustable sights. I sold it for much less than that asking price in the auction though... which makes me sad for many reasons.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." -Gandhi

Re: What think you of this Ruger?

4
Rickoshay wrote: Wed Nov 04, 2020 7:04 pm From my cold dead hands. Found it at a friends gun shop 30 years ago. Shoots as well as my 10/22’s.
Nice! Does the base for the red-dot just screw into the original dovetail? If I get the 6-7/8" tapered barrel, I'm tempted to put a red-dot on my 5.5" barrel gun to cover the "optics" niche.
IMR4227: Zero to 900 in 0.001 seconds

I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.

Image
Image

Re: What think you of this Ruger?

6
Buck13 wrote:
Rickoshay wrote: Wed Nov 04, 2020 7:04 pm From my cold dead hands. Found it at a friends gun shop 30 years ago. Shoots as well as my 10/22’s.
Nice! Does the base for the red-dot just screw into the original dovetail? If I get the 6-7/8" tapered barrel, I'm tempted to put a red-dot on my 5.5" barrel gun to cover the "optics" niche.
Yes sir, Burris has a base for just such an emergency.


https://www.opticsplanet.com/v/410329-b ... plate.html


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Fortuna Peratus Renumerat

Liberal Condescension or Conservative Paranoia; A hell of a way to run a democracy.

Re: What think you of this Ruger?

8
I just put an accurizing kit in a 22/45. I kept dropping the sear pin out over and over and over and over, until I realized I could just tape the sides to keep it in. From there, it went pretty quickly.

Haven't taken it out yet to see how it works, but the trigger is a TON lighter.

That said, after taking apart a Mk4, I would never go back to a Mk2.

Re: What think you of this Ruger?

10
NegativeApproach wrote: Fri Nov 06, 2020 8:48 am That said, after taking apart a Mk4, I would never go back to a Mk2.
Yeah, but I like a challenge!

Also, it's my arrogant opinion that most people clean their guns WAY too often. When using smokeless powder and non-corrosive priming, they don't have to be spotless (although I'll admit I've never lived where the dewpoint is over 60° regularly, if ever). The MkIIs I have seem to do fine with a boresnake or a couple of patches pulled through the barrels every few hundred rounds, a spray of CLP on the extractor spring, and a little spritzing and sponging through the ejector port to get the worst of the glop around the feed ramp.

I've handled MkIIs that had the receiver/barrel assembly wobbling around slightly on top of the frame, presumably due to wearing down the mating surfaces by compulsively breaking down and cleaning every damned day. This probably had only a modest effect on the accuracy, since the sights, receiver and barrel are still one solid unit. If I had to bet, I'd wager only a Ransom Rest or a VERY good bullseye shooter could prove the difference. Still, not a quality I'd want in my gun.
IMR4227: Zero to 900 in 0.001 seconds

I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.

Image
Image

Re: What think you of this Ruger?

12
Bucolic wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 11:36 am I agree in re your cleaning regimen with one addition: I scrub the chamber every couple hundred rounds to avoid development of a carbon ring. I use one of these.

https://gunsmithertools.com/shop/ols/pr ... -tool-gl1p

I only strip the pistol down once a year or so. I do run mostly CCI SV, which is pretty clean.
Nice tool. I've thought of making something similar by just bending a standard brush and screwing it onto a short piece of cleaning rod for a handle, but this is prettier.
IMR4227: Zero to 900 in 0.001 seconds

I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.

Image
Image

Re: What think you of this Ruger?

14
So, I purchased a similar gun over a month ago, rather than the one in the original link. $500 but no visible wear in the photos. FINALLY got to handle it yesterday! I drove the 30 minutes to the FFL three weeks ago and their computers were down that day. Then I got The Cov a few days later, which put a crimp in the weeks of Xmas and New Years. Got back up there yesterday afternoon and did the 4473.

Among the many provisions of an annoying initiative passed in WA since the last time I bought a gun is a waiting period on semi-auto rifles and all handguns, so I won't be able to bring it home and post photos for a couple more weeks. The gun looks like it's barely been fired. Sad to think of a nice little pistol laying around neglected for over 30 years, but their loss/my gain!
IMR4227: Zero to 900 in 0.001 seconds

I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.

Image
Image

Re: What think you of this Ruger?

16
I laid out all three Mark IIs today and dry-fired for a few minutes. The "new" one's trigger is marginally the best of them: about the same weight as the 10" but with less egregiously long take-up, and perceptibly lighter than the 5.5". Good enough for my pitiful skills. Not equal to my Dan Wesson 1911, but they're not playing in the same league. I guess if I'm going to put an optic on the 5.5", I should also get some kind of trigger upgrade for that one.

I hope the new one shoots as well as it feels like it should. The barrel crown looks OK to me, but I'm probably no judge of that.

D71_6245 copy.jpg
IMR4227: Zero to 900 in 0.001 seconds

I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.

Image
Image

Re: What think you of this Ruger?

18
Buck13 wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 10:53 am
NegativeApproach wrote: Fri Nov 06, 2020 8:48 am That said, after taking apart a Mk4, I would never go back to a Mk2.
I've handled MkIIs that had the receiver/barrel assembly wobbling around slightly on top of the frame, presumably due to wearing down the mating surfaces by compulsively breaking down and cleaning every damned day. This probably had only a modest effect on the accuracy, since the sights, receiver and barrel are still one solid unit. If I had to bet, I'd wager only a Ransom Rest or a VERY good bullseye shooter could prove the difference. Still, not a quality I'd want in my gun.
It's not actually necessary to detach the receiver from the frame to clean a Mk 2 or 3. Once that thing in the back is removed, the bolt just slides out.
Yet she persisted.

Re: What think you of this Ruger?

19
Deep13 wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 1:30 am
Buck13 wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 10:53 am
NegativeApproach wrote: Fri Nov 06, 2020 8:48 am That said, after taking apart a Mk4, I would never go back to a Mk2.
I've handled MkIIs that had the receiver/barrel assembly wobbling around slightly on top of the frame, presumably due to wearing down the mating surfaces by compulsively breaking down and cleaning every damned day. This probably had only a modest effect on the accuracy, since the sights, receiver and barrel are still one solid unit. If I had to bet, I'd wager only a Ransom Rest or a VERY good bullseye shooter could prove the difference. Still, not a quality I'd want in my gun.
It's not actually necessary to detach the receiver from the frame to clean a Mk 2 or 3. Once that thing in the back is removed, the bolt just slides out.
That's true, but once you pull out the mainspring assembly, "in for a penny, in for a pound" is my motto. Or more like "in for a pound, in for a penny," since the replacement of the mainspring assembly is usually the worst part. Once you've pulled that, you're committed.

I go beyond the boresnake or home-made patch puller only rarely, so by then removing the receiver for unfettered access to all the gunk down there is nice to have. Also, my favorite step in the process is whacking the back of the receiver with a softwood 2x4 to pop it off! I suppose fancy people use a rubber mallet.

Since I wrote the above, I found a post elsewhere saying that the loose fit of the frame/receiver is probably more due to tolerances in the original stamping and welding together of the halves of the frame than wear. In any case, it said that VERY gradual clamping of the sides of the frame in a vice could be used to restore the fit to snugness. Sounds plausible, but I'm glad I don't need to do that to any of mine.
IMR4227: Zero to 900 in 0.001 seconds

I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.

Image
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest