Ruger Standard/Mark Series Pistols
Here is a thead for owners of Ruger's line of exceptionally accurate .22lr target pistols, the Ruger Standard, and the Mark series that followed (Mark I, Mark II, Mark III).
Which one of these do you own? What configuration do you prefer? How have you modified it over the years? Here we can compare notes, and get advice.
A few noteworthy posts from other threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Clem
The Army has what could be called a survival situation. It is called escape and evasion. It does presuppose that you are loaded down with other gear which could include a combat long gun, like an M4, and possibly a combat handgun, like an M9. For their somewhat specialized situation, for food gathering in an E&E situation, the instructors of the United States Rescue & Special Operations Group cadre recommend a long barreled .22 handgun with optics.
http://www.sererescuesog.addr.com/USRSOG-Firearm.htm
I have a Ruger MK II678GC set up this way with an Ultradot LT holosight. It is as accurate as most rifles, but obviously as a handgun, it is much harder to achieve that level of accuracy than with a rifle, but it may not be possible to carry a dedicated food gathering rifle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rat31465
My mother and I went in together and bought this MK-II 6 7/8" for my Dad back in the late 80"s. I also gave him at the time 10 bricks of Winchester Super-X .22's...which was shot up within 3 months.
We kept careful track of rounds fired through this pistol by saving the empty 50 round boxes until after we reached 50,000. I'm guessing conservatively that it has over 75,000 as of this date.
The gun still shoots extremely well and since Dads death back in Nov 2008 has been in my possession.
Between him and me we taught a lot of family members to shoot a handgun with this firearm and it is my intention to use it to teach my Grandson with when he gets a few more years under his belt.
As to why I prefer the MK series...If I am going to shoot a revolver I prefer to shoot double action...the magnum argument is mute as far as my experiences have shown. .22 mags from a handgun offer little velocity advantage over a good quality .22 LR Hi-Velocity round like the CCI Stinger. I have chronographed both and seen less than a 10% increase with the Magnum. Plus out of a revolver the .22 magnum is just uncomfortable to shoot without wearing hearing protection...Even for a few shots you might take out hunting.
http://www.wilderness-survival.net/f...&pictureid=891
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mountain Man
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SARKY
The MKIII accurizing kit is sooo well worth the money. I accurized my MKII 512 which my wife then proceeded to use as her own. when I got the MKIII hunter, I accurized that as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SARKY
The thing about the Mark III hunter model is it is not intended for precision shooting. The rear sight is a wide V and the front sight is a fiber optic insert(which you can change out to different colors). It is quicker on target than my Mark II but I can shoot tighter groups with my Mark II than I can with my Mark III
I'd like some clarification on this last comment, from SARKY. What makes the Hunter less capable of precision shooting? Is it specifically the type of sights it has? Or something in addition to that?
My choice of Ruger was a Mark III Competition, based partially on the USRSOG article recommending a slab-side barrel, and SARKY's opinion that the sights on the Hunter are less than ideal.
What is it about the Competition that makes it more accurate? I like the rear sight, but the front sight can be a bit tricky to pick up in the dark, and I am tempted to see about replacing it with one of the fiber optic high visibility sights that come with the Hunter. Opinions?
