Posted: 10/5/2004 8:23:15 AM EDT
|
Thinking of getting one of the new Mk3s. Wondering whether to get a regular or 22/45 version. Is one version easier to clean than the other? Whats your general opinion of either? |
|
I would rather have the MK III. I think the 22/45 was designed for competion shooters who are required to shoot BOTH .22 and .45 to obtain a similar feel. Thus all of the .22 conversion kits for the more popular 1911 clones. I think the MK feels better. The III has some cool features over the II's. I especially like the mag release. Jules |
I don't see how, as the MKII magazine has no provision for the side mag catch. It looks like the MKIII magazines may work in the MKII, with just a notch cut in the side as the only modification. I'm not overly keen on the loaded chamber indicator, the magazine disconnect or the internal manual lock of the MKIII...Maybe OK for someone's first gun. I do like the mag release and the fact all adjustable sighted Rugers will be tapped for scope mounts. |
|
I realized after I asked that that was a stupid question.... I did some more checking and the mags at the same price as the Mk1....at least they didn't inflate the price for the specific mags. I hate a mag disconnect...this can probably be modified my the customer...maybe not supposed to, but never stopped me before:) I Kinda like a loaded chamber indicater...got used to that on my XD. The mag release is the main reason that I may buy one. |
|
There's a possible safety issue with the MK III's loaded chamber indicator, which was pointed out to me in my thread in the Handgun Discussion forum. ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=5&f=4&t=11454 |