Ruger 22/45 v MkII or MkIII ?

Discussion in 'Semi-Auto Handguns' started by Wheelspin, Jul 7, 2010.

  1. Wheelspin

    Wheelspin New Member

    Got another question for those of you that have owned and shot some of the Ruger 22lr pistol range...

    I'm pretty sure my next purchase will be a 22lr pistol for some cheap fun range time and it'll also be a good way to hopefully get my wife interested in shooting.
    I've already searched through the forum and it seems the Ruger range of pistols seems to be the most popular in terms of handling and reliability so my question is would I be better to go with a MkII, a MkIII or the 22/45? Anyone owned or shot all 3? pros or cons of one over the other?

    The 22/45 is cheaper which would be a plus with the wife but for the same price of a new 22/45 would a used MkII or MkIII be a better buy?

    I've held all 3 and found them all comfortable. The grip angle of the 22/45 did fell a little more natural but the slightly heavier weight of the MkIII felt a little better. I'm looking at the 5.5" barrel versions BTW

    Like I said it'll be a range toy for cheap shooting and target practice and to hopefully get my wife behind a gun. She's already said she's got no interest in trying my rifle but she did show a little interest after I bought my Taurus PT92 home but to be honest she scares me. I'd much rather she shot herself in the foot with a 22 than a 9mm. I kid I kid but hopefully you get the idea, Start her easy then move on up. I'm also thinking a pistol like this with it build quality etc would mean it can be something I can teach my daughter to use when she's old enough so I want to get something I'm going to hold on to for some time.

    Opinions? options? sugestions?

    Thanks :)
  2. CA357

    CA357 New Member Supporter

    When I bought my Mk III, I also looked at the 22/45 because the grip angle mimics a 1911. While I liked the grip angle, the polymer frame felt terrible to me.

  3. NGIB

    NGIB New Member

    (Like most everything else), I've owned multiples of all three. My beef with the 22/45 is the grip feels very thin and not really comfortable. Overall, I prefer the Mk II to an unmodified Mk III as I really dislike mag disconnects. Having said that, it's not difficult to remove the crap Ruger "lawyered" into the Mk III and make it a Mk II. I've owned different barrel lengths but I prefer the 4" bull barrel. My sole remaining in this category is a Mk III Hunter that I just love to shoot...

  4. DrumJunkie

    DrumJunkie New Member

    One of the neat things about the 22/45 is the grip angle is almost exact to a 1911. Making it a good practice pistol without buying one of those conversion kits that I just don't like. I'd rather buy another pistol than have a gun and an half. But that's me. I still have the 22/45 and love it but I ended up converting it to a more target friendly weapon with a 9" barrel from Tactical Solutions. So my mild mannered 22/45 went from this

    To this! The longer barrel is actually lighter being it's aluminum with a steel insert for the areas that the bullet has contact. I found with the poly frame the steel barrel made it balance a little funny. So if I had it to do again I might have got a MKII or MKIII target model. But it's a real tack driver now. Even has a threaded barrel to add ...things to although the idea of a suppressor seems funny to me unless you are doing drive by's to small woodland creatures.


    About your question if what's better that all depends what feels better to the hand of the shooter. Any of the MK I, II, III pistols are a great choice.
    It's really hard to say what's better. All of them make a fine addition t any collection.

    You might want to check out the Browning Buckmark (I don't have a handy pic of mine..I'll have to make one tonight. The camper models are great and cost about the same as the Rugers. And personally I think the Browning has a better trigger to of the box. Some are even adjustable.
  5. Wheelspin

    Wheelspin New Member

    Thanks for the replies, keep em coming though:D

    The polymer frame of the 22/45 doesnt bother me but I did prefer the feel and weight of the steel MKII's and III's I've handled. So the differences between the II and II is the relocated mag release (which would feel more natural as it mimics my existing handgun) and the mag safety feature (which wouldn't bother me as I'd fire till empty anyway then just reload). Hmmmm

    I hadn't thought of the Browning Buckmark, i'll have to look in to those Drumjukie. I've looked at and handled the S&W 22A's and the Beretta Neos but neither of them felt quite right in my hand which is why I came back to the Rugers.
  6. utf59

    utf59 Member

    If you're trying to get your wife into shooting, I suggest you let her pick out the gun.
  7. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    i sold my 22/45 and bought a mk2. the one i had was one of the early ones and constantly stove piped regardless of ammo brand. i didnt get a mk3 cuz i dont like magazine safeties if i have a choice. nor do i ike loaded chamber indicators. just more parts to break and a vector for developing lazy gun safety practices.