User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/19/2017 5:44:36 PM EDT
[#1]
The Tactical has a steel receiver and all steel barrel, the Lite has an aluminum receiver and an aluminum shrouded barrel.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2017 7:19:11 PM EDT
[#2]
The better question to me would be, what is the point of the Mark IV?
I have owned Ruger Marks for over 40 years. Really, seriously, is it that difficult to follow directions on re-assembly of these pistols. I'm not trying to be a hardass here, but I am 100% seriously asking............what in the hell is so damn hard about putting these guns back together. IMO Ruger has ruined the lines of one of the best all around pistols ever made. All ya'll with those horribly Neanderthal, backward ass Mark 1s-3s, drop me a line. I'll be glad to relieve you of your burden. Hell I'll even pay for shipping. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2017 8:21:51 PM EDT
[#3]
Well for me personally... I don't own a Ruger Mark of any type yet. Figured I may get one to help train new shooters with and the Mark 4 isn't that much more than the older ones.
Is there any longevity issue with the aluminum barrel or receiver? Wondering why they felt the need to go with steel on the tactical. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2017 8:33:01 PM EDT
[#4]
Practice shooting a 1911 grip with a .22 cost. That's it in a nutshell. Everything else is Ruger squeezing the profit out of it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2017 9:13:08 PM EDT
[#5]
They did not feel the need to go with steel for the tactical, the non Lite MK series has been steel since the 50's. The Lite came out in 2012 by Ruger after they noticed the popularity of aftermarket lightweight receiver barrel combos for the MK.
I have not heard of any longevity problems with the aluminum receivers and many guns rimfire or otherwise have aluminum receivers. The Lites have a steel bolt and breach face. I find that the Lite is harder to hold as steady compared to a steel bull barrel, and the tensioned barrels in the aluminum shroud can have there own accuracy and leading problems. So the Lite is nice to carry around all day but the Tactical will be easier to shoot, have less felt recoil and muzzle rise and in general be more accurate. I have the MK3 Tactical and the MK3 22/45 Lite but no MK4 yet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2017 9:29:59 PM EDT
[#6]
In my opinion, the worst aspect of the new MKIV series is the trigger.
With a new Buckmark, you pull it out of the box, take off the top rail and remove the slide, flip the sear spring, remove the grips and pull the connector bar off the mag safety, clean the gun, and reassemble to enjoy a nice 2-2.5 lb trigger. With the new MKIV 22/45 Lite series, one is looking at $100 on top of the initial out lay to get the trigger of a decent shooting pistol. YMMV |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2017 7:58:19 AM EDT
[#7]
The Tactical is simply the updated MKIV version of the 22/45. Polymer frame, steel bull barrel. I, for one, hate the Lite models. If the MKIV safety was hinged at the proper end like a 1911, I'd be all over the Tactical model.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2017 10:32:30 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Tactical has a steel receiver and all steel threaded barrel, the Lite has an aluminum receiver and a threaded Stainless Steel barrel w/aluminum shroud. Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Tactical has a steel receiver and all steel threaded barrel, the Lite has an aluminum receiver and a threaded Stainless Steel barrel w/aluminum shroud. Quoted:
I, for one, hate the Lite models. I have both an MKIII Lite model and a MKIV Tactical model that I just picked up a last weekend. Overall I was happy with the MKIII Lite model but hated the take down/reassembly so that's the main reason I wanted an MKIV. I debated between getting the Lite version or the Tactical and went with the Tactical because... Without a suppressor mounted, the Lite version is almost too lite. Its not a problem but it does kind of make it feel a tad toy like? The other reason is I already had a Lite version so I wanted to try the all steel version. Oh, and that was the only model the LGS I was at had in stock at the time! 
I took them both to the range on Monday with my also new to me Dead Air Mask suppressor. They both ran fine suppressed and unsuppressed and were fairly equal accuracy wise. Without the suppressor mounted, I do slightly prefer the feel of the all steel model but with the suppressor mounted, I prefer the look, feel and balance of the Lite model much more. As an FYI though, they are not that far apart weight wise. I took both rails off the tactical model and weighed them both and the all steel tactical model was only ~9oz heavier than the Lite version. I'm going to take them both out to the range a couple of more times before making a final decision but right now I'm leaning towards selling them both and replacing them with an MKIV Lite model. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2017 7:59:30 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fixed it for you And why is that? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The Tactical has a steel receiver and all steel threaded barrel, the Lite has an aluminum receiver and a threaded Stainless Steel barrel w/aluminum shroud. Quoted:
I, for one, hate the Lite models. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2017 9:48:00 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The better question to me would be, what is the point of the Mark IV? I have owned Ruger Marks for over 40 years. Really, seriously, is it that difficult to follow directions on re-assembly of these pistols. I'm not trying to be a hardass here, but I am 100% seriously asking............what in the hell is so damn hard about putting these guns back together. IMO Ruger has ruined the lines of one of the best all around pistols ever made. All ya'll with those horribly Neanderthal, backward ass Mark 1s-3s, drop me a line. I'll be glad to relieve you of your burden. Hell I'll even pay for shipping. It's never been that hard. However, even if you only cleaned it once a year and never remembered how to put it back together, you just had to refer to the manual in the pre-internet era. In the internet era, a manual is available on line from Ruger and you can be looking at in in under a minute. The lines on the new pistol are horrible, but worse, one way or the other, the fit between upper and lower will suffer as the pistol ages and wears. While the older design may have needed a rubber mallet when new, it was still rock solid even after tens of thousands of rounds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2017 9:56:22 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well for me personally... I don't own a Ruger Mark of any type yet. Figured I may get one to help train new shooters with and the Mark 4 isn't that much more than the older ones. Is there any longevity issue with the aluminum barrel or receiver? Wondering why they felt the need to go with steel on the tactical. Some folks feel that an all steel .22 LR pistol is too heavy so the Lite model is supposed to appeal to them. Other people prefer a heaver pistol that more closely replicates whatever they are shooting for a center fire pistol. The tactical probably has more appeal to them. Target shooters and bullseye competitors tend to prefer a heavier pistol in general, so they'll stay with the all steel Mk IV target and Hunter Models. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2017 10:01:20 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Practice shooting a 1911 grip with a .22 cost. That's it in a nutshell. Everything else is Ruger squeezing the profit out of it. It doesn't feel very 1911 like. To be fair however I didn't like Kimber's 1911 in .22 LR either. Between the aluminum slide and the aluminum frame it was ridiculously light and did not emulate a center fire, steel frame 1911 very well at all. Consequently, I put a Kimber conversion on a dedicated steel 1911 frame to bring the two a little closer together in weight. I like the Ruger MK I and Mk II pistols in their target forms as they are accurate and heavy enough to hold well on the target - but I have no use for the 22/45 series pistols. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2017 2:43:07 AM EDT
[#13]
My first thought is that the bottom rail is perfect for mounting a small IR laser for suppressed low light shooting.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2017 7:21:47 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The better question to me would be, what is the point of the Mark IV? I have owned Ruger Marks for over 40 years. Really, seriously, is it that difficult to follow directions on re-assembly of these pistols. I'm not trying to be a hardass here, but I am 100% seriously asking............what in the hell is so damn hard about putting these guns back together. IMO Ruger has ruined the lines of one of the best all around pistols ever made. All ya'll with those horribly Neanderthal, backward ass Mark 1s-3s, drop me a line. I'll be glad to relieve you of your burden. Hell I'll even pay for shipping. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2017 8:01:56 PM EDT
[#15]
I hate the look of the rails, but I bought it because I liked the weight better than the lite.
The guy at the shop told me that they added the bottom rail, because people are doing some sort of night shooting competition. 
I got Ruger to send me the shorter screws, so I can take both top and bottom rails off. They were also kind enough to send me a new barrel washer, to replace the one that's somewhere under the seat of my Land Cruiser... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2017 10:58:52 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hate the look of the rails, but I bought it because I liked the weight better than the lite. The guy at the shop told me that they added the bottom rail, because people are doing some sort of night shooting competition.
I got Ruger to send me the shorter screws, so I can take both top and bottom rails off. They were also kind enough to send me a new barrel washer, to replace the one that's somewhere under the seat of my Land Cruiser... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2017 8:47:02 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I took the rails off my mine too. You got short screws for yours? Is there any reason you did that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2017 7:51:11 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I read here that the ones that come with it are too long to seat, once the rail is removed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I took the rails off my mine too. You got short screws for yours? Is there any reason you did that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2017 11:24:05 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry, I should have been more specific. I meant to ask why you decided to put filler screws in the hole at all? I was just planning on leaving them open. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I took the rails off my mine too. You got short screws for yours? Is there any reason you did that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2017 10:47:40 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
What does it offer over the Mark IV 22/45 Lite? Only difference I can tell is it offers you the ability to mount a light lol. From the spec sheets, it weighs in around 1/2 a pound more! 25 to 33.3 ounces or so. That's where the market is. You could fill a sack with dog poo and write TACTICAL POO on it and people will buy it. Add some vague reference to SEALS or DELTA TEAM and you can jack the price 15%. Only a tiny percentage of people that are buying all the tactical gear currently on the market are actual (military/police) users or competitors, the rest are....not. Ruger just wants their piece of the pie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2017 10:49:45 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
What does it offer over the Mark IV 22/45 Lite? Only difference I can tell is it offers you the ability to mount a light lol. From the spec sheets, it weighs in around 1/2 a pound more! 25 to 33.3 ounces or so. I would help explain if you posted a picture. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2017 12:10:20 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would help explain if you posted a picture. 
It is definitely heavier than the Lite, but I feel that it's the perfect weight. Similar to, or maybe a little lighter than my buckmark camper. The rails are completely removable, for those like me that order a more traditional look. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2017 2:07:43 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
However, even if you only cleaned it once a year and never remembered how to put it back together, you just had to refer to the manual in the pre-internet era. In the internet era, a manual is available on line from Ruger and you can be looking at in in under a minute. If you have to ask what the bottom rail is for, then it's not for anything you'd ever need. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2017 1:04:45 PM EDT
[#24]
What had me buy one finally IS the MKIV Lite. The single button take down / break down and better controls (imo) with it weighing less is what sold me. I did look at a Victory pretty hard though. Walked around the store an hour thinking about it. The only thing that bugs me about the pistol so far is the trigger reset. It also comes with the part to remove the stupid ambi safety.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2017 1:54:30 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Tactical has a steel receiver and all steel barrel, the Lite has an aluminum receiver and an aluminum shrouded barrel. The standard 22/45 has a steel grip frame and is drilled & tapped to add rails like the Tactical if desired. It just does not have a threaded barrel: Ruger MK IV 22/45 standard Click on Spec Sheet... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2017 2:29:22 PM EDT
[#26]
There is one other thing. The 22/45 Lites do have one nasty little thing that can bite a person. The Tactical does not have this problem. On the Lite, the barrel nut can come loose.
Brand new Mk IV 22/45 lite-barrel nut came off?! . |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2017 6:05:10 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is one other thing. The 22/45 Lites do have one nasty little probably that can bite a person. The Tactical does not have this problem. On the Lite, the barrel nut can come loose. Brand new Mk IV 22/45 lite-barrel nut came off?! . |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2017 2:11:41 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The tactical actually has a polymer grip frame: Ruger MK IV 22/45 Tactical The standard 22/45 has a steel grip frame and is drilled & tapped to add rails like the Tactical if desired. It just does not have a threaded barrel: Ruger MK IV 22/45 standard Click on Spec Sheet... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The Tactical has a steel receiver and all steel barrel, the Lite has an aluminum receiver and an aluminum shrouded barrel. The standard 22/45 has a steel grip frame and is drilled & tapped to add rails like the Tactical if desired. It just does not have a threaded barrel: Ruger MK IV 22/45 standard Click on Spec Sheet... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2017 9:46:26 AM EDT
[#29]
I really like my Mark IV Tactical.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2017 7:57:49 PM EDT
[#30]
I just finished installing a volquartsen accurizing kit in my 22/45 tactical.
I ended up with a leftover spring  but it seems to function fine. I don't know that it was a $105 improvement, but losing the mag disconnect was great! The trigger over travel screw is a little too long, it sticks out enough to rub my finger. I may take it off and grind a little off. The screw that takes up the slack in the trigger was just right.
I also removed the rails and put the shorter screws in the holes, that Ruger was kind enough to provide free of charge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2017 1:06:13 PM EDT
[#31]
Who has these tacticals for the best price?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2017 5:28:20 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The better question to me would be, what is the point of the Mark IV? I have owned Ruger Marks for over 40 years. Really, seriously, is it that difficult to follow directions on re-assembly of these pistols. I'm not trying to be a hardass here, but I am 100% seriously asking............what in the hell is so damn hard about putting these guns back together. IMO Ruger has ruined the lines of one of the best all around pistols ever made. All ya'll with those horribly Neanderthal, backward ass Mark 1s-3s, drop me a line. I'll be glad to relieve you of your burden. Hell I'll even pay for shipping. I quite enjoyed raw meat, and then Ungh had to go invent fire. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2017 1:53:03 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Who has these tacticals for the best price? Best price I found on GB. Cheap shipping ($15.00), and no CC fees. Bought one today. He's selling them at the rate of 1 a day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2017 2:08:10 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The standard 22/45 has a steel grip frame... Ruger MK IV 22/45 standard Click on Spec Sheet... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 2:05:23 PM EDT
[#36]
Are the factory sights on the MKIV tall enough to see over a suppressor?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 2:18:50 PM EDT
[#37]
Yes, the sights are plenty tall.
With stoner grips. 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
