Which Ruger .22 is better overall for survival applications, and why?

[sgtdraino]

I currently have an ever-popular Ruger 10/22, but I am tempted to get a Ruger Mark II or Mark III, because I hear they are quite accurate and reliable, as well as being considerably lighter and more compact than the 10/22.

Which of these two Rugers do you think is better overall for survival applications, and why? I am particularly interested in hearing the reasons why you feel the way you do.

[tsitenha]

Being limited to either of these firearms I would get a 10/22 for the following reasons:
1: longer sight radius using iron sights
2: adaptable for telescopic use, or peep sights
3: steadier shooting platform (4 points of contact: shoulder, cheek, pistol grip and forearm)
4: easier to acquire shooting skills vs pistols
5: greater variety of aftermarket accessories (especially stocks)
6: slightly higher velocity
7: depending on shoulder stock could store : ammo, survival equip. etc..)
8: still could use both hands with the use of a sling
9: ease of legal use, in most settings
I do use a Ruger 77/22 with iron sights and scope in an all weather configuration for these same reasons

[Blood Groove]

Before I saw what the others said I was also going to say the 10/22. It's fairly light and short, and the semi autimatic part can also come in handy. PLus it's got all the power you need to take down good food like squirrels or rabbits....who knows, maybe even a deer if you were a good shot. Plus from everything I've heared it's also really durable.

[crashdive123]

If those are the 2 choices I have, I prefer the 10/22. For me, better accuracy and more reliable.

[Sarge47]

I currently have an ever-popular Ruger 10/22, but I am tempted to get a Ruger Mark II or Mark III, because I hear they are quite accurate and reliable, as well as being considerably lighter and more compact than the 10/22.

Which of these two Rugers do you think is better overall for survival applications, and why? I am particularly interested in hearing the reasons why you feel the way you do.

1st, I just visited the Ruger site & the Mark III is a PISTOL which is a vamped up version of the Ruger Standard. The Mark II is a high-powered center-fire rifle so we're talking about apples to oranges here. In this case I cannot comment. However, if you want the best of both worlds & have about an extra $370 to throw around check out the new Ruger .22 "Charger"!

http://www.ruger.com/Firearms/FAProd...=4901&return=Y

[tsitenha]

Sarge47, if I may, the markII pistol is also the updated version of their excellent markI .22lr pistol
The mark I had a 9 rd mag, no bolt hold open device and a full dia rear body to the cocking eared bolt. 1949-1982
The markII had a 10 rd mag, bolt hold open lever and a recessed inlet (both sides) at the rear to allow for an easier cocking grasp. 1982-2004
The markIII 2004-present
They use the nomenclature mark II also for their rifles but in this case I presume he meant the pistols in .22lr.
But I may be wrong.

[klkak]

If you can shoot a pistol then get one. If however you are not very good with a pistol then I suggest you keep using the rifle. I have a Browning Buckmark pistol. It's a very nice little weapon at about half the price of the Mark-III.

[sgtdraino]

Yes, I am talking about the Mark II (or Mark III) pistol.

And yes, I am good with a pistol. However, even those good with pistols are probably even better with rifles. I think the main issue is one of reliability between the two (equal?), lightness/compactness (Mark II and III), versus bigger/heavier but somewhat better range (10/22).

[tsitenha]

The 10/22 is an exceedingly reliable rifle, the standard by which other rifles of the same genre are gauged by, it is a good choice.
The mags are well built, easy to grasp, although slightly "blockish" to store on your body.
As you said most people, even those competent with a pistol, are more so with a rifle and with the criteria of a "survival" firearm where that shot may really be a matter of life and death the rifle will edge out in the end.
If compactness is the issue then of course a MarkII or III pistol can be carried (discreetly) better than a rifle.
Under stress can you make that one shot?

[Pict]

If we're talking Ruger's as survival guns my vote goes to the Single Six. It will handle anything from .22 CB caps to the latest .22 magnum.

The main difference between the 10/22 and the Pistol is whether or not you can hit with a pistol and if you're already carrying another long gun. On my Alaska trip I carried a .30-06, S&W Model 57 .41 magnum and had either a Walther P-22 or a High Standard 9 shot .22 in my daypack. Those little .22 handguns took a few spruce grouse and ptarmigan during the hunt. The whole time I was kicking myself for not taking the Ruger along as it was actually sighted in. The High Standard had fixed sights and needed a good bit of Kentucky windage. The Walther we found on the floor of my Brother-in-law's truck when he dropped us off and we asked if we could keep it as a pack gun. It was the more accurate of the two. Mac

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

[chiye tanka]

If you're looking for lightness, the Mark III 22/45 has a poly frame. If you're looking for something lighter, Walther's .22 pistol is lighter and easier to tote. It's a good weapon as well and costs around $300.

[trax]

sgtrdraino, I'd say stay with the 10/22 for reasons already posted, no point in repeating them.

[zaebra]

i have a mark i and love it, but my rifle is actually an armalite ar-7 scout rifle. i think any rifle would be better because of range and accuracy, but the portability of a pistol is undeniable. the ar-7 combines the best of both worlds.

[Bibow]

the pistol would be good if you were carrying a rifle for big game and needed something to help out grouse and rabbits. but if i had one it would be the rifle more i think it's more accurate and even if i wanted the pistol i could'nt legally in canada

[sgtdraino]

If we're talking Ruger's as survival guns my vote goes to the Single Six. It will handle anything from .22 CB caps to the latest .22 magnum.

I have an old Single Six I inherited from my grandfather, but I'm pretty sure it only shoots .22 LR.

sgtrdraino, I'd say stay with the 10/22 for reasons already posted, no point in repeating them.

Yes, it sounds like the response is pretty definite on this one. The only person that voted for the Mark was me, and I only voted so I could see the poll results without having to click on them every time.

I appreciate the opinions, guys. You have probably saved me money, as I was tempted to go get a Mark, but probably will not now.

[Pict]

"I have an old Single Six I inherited from my grandfather, but I'm pretty sure it only shoots .22 LR."

If you didn't inherit the .22 magnum conversion cylinder that they are shipped with then I would hunt around at your grandma's house until you find it. They normally have the .22 lr cylinder installed and the extra in a little red felt pouch. The magnum cylinder is serial numbered to the gun. It is easy to swap between the two, just pull the cylinder pin and make the change.

With the .22 magnum cylinder in place the Single Six turns into a different gun. Some people claim that long range accuracy isn't as good with the magnums. I think there are several reasons for this. Most people normally only shoot high volumes of .22 lr through their gun and it is sighted in for their pet load. They take the time to find a decent load that their gun likes in .22 lr and sight in, and practice alot with that load. Occasionally they buy a box of magnums and try the gun, the power level goes way up but they don't re sight the gun nor do they buy enough different brands to find the one load that works best. If you do the work you can find a good magnum load that will significantly extend the capability of the Single Six to take larger game.

If you can't find that extra cylinder then I would write away to Ruger and tell them what happened. I'm sure they will fit a new magnum cylinder to your gun, though you may have to pay for it. I would say it is worth it to have the option. Mac

[Ole WV Coot]

I kinda like Rugers. I would go for my 10/22 with a fixed 6X scope, I use the Single Six mostly for snakes, 22mag CCI shot. I have a Mark I with a Leupold 4X fixed, bull barrel Mark II, 357 Blackhawk and the 44mag Redhawk. Can't beat the 10/22 and a few extra mags plus the scope now, the eyes ain't what they once were is all I need, But my CCW is a Beretta 45 or the Beretta Mini Cougar in 40cal. I don't like the Ruger 9mm so it seldom comes out to play. Personal choices only. My S&W Mod. 60 is a nice carry wheel gun also.

[rebel]

With so many variations of the 10/22 which do you feel is the one to get and why?

http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=1103

[Ole WV Coot]

My Ruger 10/22 has only a carry strap and scope. Everything else is stock and it's one I have had for several years with a walnut stock. It serves my purpose and the two additions are self-explanatory. The pic PICT posted showed a High Standard Sentinel Deluxe, looked familiar and I found one with a 4" bbl in the gun safe, had forgotten about it also. Beretta 22 still MIA.

[nell67]

My Ruger 10/22 has only a carry strap and scope. Everything else is stock and it's one I have had for several years with a walnut stock. It serves my purpose and the two additions are self-explanatory. The pic PICT posted showed a High Standard Sentinel Deluxe, looked familiar and I found one with a 4" bbl in the gun safe, had forgotten about it also. Beretta 22 still MIA.

Hey Coot?? is it finders keepers on the Beretta?