Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/12/2001 2:40:27 AM EDT
I'm thinking of buying a new .22 handgun in the near future. I had a blued Ruger Mk 2 (bull barrel) in the past but ended up selling it a few years back. From what I remember of the pistol, it was quite accurate and ate pretty much what I fed it. The only problems I found were that the front sight screw would shoot loose (fixed with a drop of locktite) and that a small pin in the rear sight would also tend to drift out the more I shot it (again fixed with a little bit of super glue). Despite the negatives, I'm presently considering buying a new Ruger .22 to replace the one I sold. Anyone have any experience with the stainless version of the Mk 2? I've heard that they are a little bit more finicky than the blued ones are. Is this true? What about the 22/45? Anyone have any good reviews or experiences with this particular model? hsld.
Link Posted: 10/12/2001 3:32:38 AM EDT
This has benn covered before, but, I prefer the Mark II. I find it much more accurate, so unless you are using it just to get the feel of a 1911, skip the 22/45.
Link Posted: 10/12/2001 3:41:55 AM EDT
I like my MKII bull barrel. Never tried a 22/45 as they just looked to "cheesy" for my palate.
Link Posted: 10/12/2001 4:12:23 AM EDT
the 22/45 feels way too top heavy for my tastes... I love me some MK2's though... I don't think that the stainless MK2s are any more finicky than the blued... none of mine like those little "stepped" bullets that federal makes... My MK1 eats em up though...
Link Posted: 10/12/2001 8:31:21 AM EDT
FWIW, I am very happy with the 22/45. It is lighter, and while I haven't had a chance to wring out the 22/45 for accuracy yet, it hammers clay pigeons pretty easily up to 50 feet, even with the rudimentary sights that come with the thin contour barrel. No jams yet either. I don't really see why the 22/45 ought to be markedly less accurate, unless the feeding pattern is different than the MkII. The top ends are pretty much the same right? My stainless MkII actually DID have jamming problems, which caused me considerable irritation. I don't think that all stainless ruger pistols are like this though. One of my friends who unlike me is actually a legitimate shooter had the idea that Ruger QC was a little looser than other manufacturers for many of their products. Looking at the finishes and some of the inelegant lines, I would kind of agree, but have no proof that ruger QC is lower. For a tough, inexpensive 22 autoloader, ruger has yet to be exceeded.
Link Posted: 10/12/2001 8:34:57 AM EDT
I bought a Mk. II Target model in stainless (KMK-678), and I'm very happy with it. Feeds reliably and very accurate. No problems yet.
Link Posted: 10/12/2001 8:39:13 AM EDT
We have two Ruger slab sides in the 5 7/8 stainless barrel. They are the target models with the funny grip. They are SUPER accurate and fun to shoot. The only thing I don't like about them is the back thumb rest on the grip.
Link Posted: 10/12/2001 10:19:16 AM EDT
I have the 22/45, and love it. It is more accurate than I am, but I can still cover the holes at 25 yard with a silver dollar size sticker. In the 1000 rounds I have put through it, I only recently had one fail to feed. And I honestly attribute that to about 300 rds without cleaning. Other than the obvious take down for cleaning troubles everyone has, I only have one complant, and that is with the slide lock being difficult or impossible to release with an empty in the gun.
Link Posted: 10/12/2001 11:06:51 AM EDT
For all intents and purposes, they're more or less the same gun. I have a MKII in stainless with the 5 1/2" bull barrel and my Dad has its equivalent in the 22/45. They both shoot about as well, but if you prefer the 1911-style controls as my Dad does, then you've decided. Otherwise, flip a coin or take whatever's available. I added a Bowen all steel rear sight to mine and had Clark install one of their famous triggers. Of course these same accessories are available for the 22/45.
Link Posted: 10/14/2001 1:56:11 AM EDT
Thanks for the replies guys! I'll probably go with the Mk11. Like I said, I've had one in the past and kinda missed it when I sold it. I also prefer the look of the Mk11 over the 22/45. As far as the problems that I've heard about the stainless versions vs. the blued ones (re. feeding), I guess every brand has it's share of lemons from time to time. Now I just hope I'm not one of the poor bastards who ends up with one... hsld.
Link Posted: 10/14/2001 1:59:01 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/14/2001 5:39:34 AM EDT
I was working as range master yesterday and a fellow with a SS Ruger slab barreled .22 with a factory mounted red dot sight was regularily smacking a 5" gong from 50 yrds. from a standing position. He let me try and I did well too. That is a very good looking rig! I love my 22/45 P-4. If you shoot a 1911 too, it makes sense. The heavy barrel gives it more heft like a .45 and the 4" barrel I think gives it more of a perceived "pop".
Link Posted: 10/14/2001 5:45:05 AM EDT
go with the mk2, the mags are less $ and they look and hold thier value better than the 22/45[sex]
Top Top