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.
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
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.
If those are the 2 choices I have, I prefer the 10/22. For me, better accuracy and more reliable.
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"!Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtdraino
http://www.ruger.com/Firearms/FAProd...=4901&return=Y :cool:
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.
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.
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).
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?
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
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/960...evolverdo8.jpg
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.
sgtrdraino, I'd say stay with the 10/22 for reasons already posted, no point in repeating them.
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. :)
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
I have an old Single Six I inherited from my grandfather, but I'm pretty sure it only shoots .22 LR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pict
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by trax
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.
"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
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.
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
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?:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Ole WV Coot
If it is, no joy here. Looked in my gun safe for it just the other day.....not there.
The "Delux" part must have been why it shot about a foot high. Very accurate gun just way high. Mac
Yer link is messed up.Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel
The one I would really like to have/get is one that cannot be had/got. I would like a 10/22 with a barrel the same length as the Charger (10.5" I think), but with sights on it, and a folding stock. Unfortunately, this would classify it as a "short rifle," and thus would run me into all sorts of bureaucratic red tape.
I wish you could get the Charger with sights.
My 10/22 presently has the Ram-Line folding stock and an 18" barrel. I reckon I would eventually like to get as short a barrel as I can get away with having (16 1/8")
You could use Tech sights. They have a bolt on front sight for bull barrels.
Charger is not a bad option. I'd go with a 2.5x scope not a red dot on one of those.
Personally I'd go with a 10/22 in a Hogue stock
I would opt for the 10/22 but I'm with Pict on the single six. The conversion cylinder gives you some additional options. It's light and a wheel gun is generally pretty reliable.
I used mine to practice point shooting and trigger control. I never used the sights and the 9 rounds was nice. DA action wasn't good but the heavy pull served my purpose. I moved on to heavier handguns but it is still tight after thousands of rounds. I don't think it can compare to any Ruger. I still run 50 rounds a day thru some handgun but would carry the Single Six & 10/22 in a survival situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pict
I've got a 22/45 its very accurate how ever my single six with 6" barrel
would be my first choice in a survival situation two for one 22lr & 22mag. But I really prefer my ruger
41mag with my 12g moss. and sometimes the 7mm rem.then there are days I want to shoot my 40cal springfield but for plinking you can't beat a 10/22 or the savage pump then there's my 410 twice barrel but shells cost as much as the gun!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I really really tried to keep my FLN 7.62 the F.F.L. said no you can't keep it your a civilian now go home! So I went.
OK I just voted for the 10/22 if I had to choose one it would be the rifle.
Wooooooow!!!
http://www.kel-tec-cnc.com/su22.htm
This looks exactly like the sort of .22 rifle I'm looking for. Just the sort of stock I'm talking about. I wonder how it's reliability and accuracy stacks up to the 10/22?
Wait for the second generation. That's what I'm doing.
If you went to the 10/22 there wouldn't be no wondering.
Don't be swayed by looks only by deeds and accomplishments
Ruger its the real deal :)
Having used both Rugers for over 40 years, in a survival situation I'd take the 10/22 rifle every time.
Have both. In a survival situation the rifle would be my choice. My MK-512 is awful accurate though.
Ideally, I'd have both. Forced to choose between the two, I'd go with the 10/22. However, either one would be good to have in a SHTF/TEOTWAWKI situation... though the MarkII (or III) would be my personal choice for ...ummm... close quarter anti-personnel use. I once owned a MarkII, "bull barrel" (sold after my ****ing divorce cost me pretty much everything); that little gun was so accurate it was scary...
I have 2 10-22s one is set up as a .22lr the other is a dedicated .17 mach2 gun. I also have a mkII 512 (5.5 inch bull barrel Blued) and a mkIII hunter (7.5 inch fluted bull barrel stainless) . All four of these guns have been fitted with Volquartsen trigger kits, which makes a tremendous improvement in the trigger pull. I also have a super single six stainless 7.5 inch barrel no work has been done to this gun as it doesn't need it. some of my other .22s are the walther p22, the Sig mosquito and the H&K HK4. these last 3 make good plinkers but unless I'm close, i wouldn't want to bet my life on aquiring food with them. The 10-22 all day long any day of the week it will put meat on the table, the same with the mkII and III.
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.
The ruger 10/22 gets my vote. And why? Because I have owned one for 23 years. During that 23 years, I can count the number of misfires on 1 hand. Its reliable, accurate, inexpensive (when considering the decades of service you will get from it), and its one of the most popular rifles in the USA. Its popularity means that you can find modifications and spare parts easily.
10/22 it's smaller and lighter.
While I'm a fan of the 10/22, I'm willing to bet that it is not smaller and lighter than the MK2 or MK3.Quote:
Originally Posted by tacticalguy
oh never mind i don't know what i'm talking about.