Is this gun worth getting?
Thoughts on the Ruger brand, etc.
>>30518036
It is a nice pistol. downside is the asinine take down and reassembly.
>>30518144
Agree, though you hardly will ever need to detail strip it. I use a bore snek maybe every 300 rounds? The bolt comes back far enough that you can clean and lube it. I like my 22/45; can't quite hit the gong at 100yds, but that's more of a 22lr - 4in barrel issue.
Ruger MK and Browning Buckmark series are the standard against which all other self loading .22LR pistols are judged.
I appreciate the advice, fellas. I think it'd be a nice addition. It looks so sleek too.
Never owned a Ruger.
>>30518036
Yes. The reassembly is tough until you learn "the trick" but you'll be hard pressed to find many better pistols.
>>30518144
>downside is the asinine take down and reassembly
It's easy once you've done it 500 times. I can do it blindfolded now.
>>30518563
>The reassembly is tough until you learn "the trick"
You mean, until you read the instruction manual, which tells you exactly what to do.
The only people who have problems putting this gun back together are idiots who didn't read the manual. The weird dangly bit situation is annoying, but if you actually pay attention to what the manual tells you to do, it is impossible to get wrong.
>>30518582
I agree. And you're right. But until you do it once or twice it feels tricky despite just needing to rtfm.
>>30518639
>>30518582
>>30518571
A Browning Buck Mark is intuitive to strip and assemble. If you blue loctite the rear sight. Then you don't even lose zero when you take it down.
Liked it enough from rentals that I bought it as my first gun. Second hand MkIII Comp. Target, and I'm an Ausfag so it was probably overpriced (900 inc red dot)
At least 1500 rounds through it in 6 months, had a handful of stove-pipes and nothing else. I just bore snake every other shoot and lube the action a bit.
>>30518144
Came her to post this, but I'm actually a S&W shill so the S&W victory would be okay too.
>>30519341
fuck thats sexy. pretty rare that you get a handgun as a first firearm
fellow ausfag here, ive been wanting a Ruger mkIII for ages, but i really just want to play with it, and shoot some cans and shit, i dont care for competitions at all. shits me off that i cant even fire it on my own fucking land
>>30518036
Yes, but for the love of all that is holy get a mark 3 not a 22/45. As a competitive shooter, ive owned many rimfire handguns, pretty much every rendition of the rugers and a few buckmarks as well. The 22/45 magazines never sit right the first time you insert them, they tend to be more ammo picky than the others, and are definitely more difficult to deal with than the original mark series. Ive only had jams with the original mark series due to squibs and non-discharging ammunition, with the 22/45s ive seen more kids and adults lose competitions to less skilled shooters due to their 22/45's being picky. I currently use the buckmark ive linked with a trigicon, seriously the thing is more accurate than my old remington takedown rifles. flip the spring and it takes the already light trigger down at least a pount, swap the trigger as well and youve got yourself a fine plinker that is the most fun .22 ive ever owned. But if you do go with a ruger, go with a mark 3 hunter. The mark 3s have the magazine release on the grip like a normal handgun, yet are the same gun as a mark 2 otherwise, and are tried and test by myself and thousands of shooters before us. trust me, you wont be disappointed with whichever you go with as long as you dont get a 22/45.
>>30519840
Living in Perth, there's a pistol club down the road from me. Nice and close, they're decent blokes, and I'm one of those weird bastards who enjoys doing ISSF comps which they focus on. Which is pretty much the only way to (legally) get one
>>30519848
Damn, I originally wanted a 22/45 since I love the 1911 grip. Good to know I lucked out with mine. The only issues I have is the trigger snatches a little, and it has a thumb rest grip which partiality blocks the mag release so I need 2 hands to eject it.
Otherwise, can recommend. I do well enough at comp, and I've let some nogun mates try it with much success
OP here.
Sorry, I was asleep, and didn't expect the solid discussion.
I think I'm going to purchase the Mark 3 three this weekend, very excited. I'll report back with how much I dig it.
>>30519848
This was very helpful. Thank you.
And again, thank you all. This was great.
>>30518036
MK3 a shit, MK2 is where it's at.
Standard (AKA MK1 but they didn't call it that yet unless I'm confused which I probably am because Ruger has fucktarded naming conventions) is good too but not quite as accurate in my experience. Also annoying heel release.
>>30520175
I mean obviously not all 22/45s will act this way. its just from experience, the guns i've seen jam are always 22/45s or glock/1911 conversions. There are good 22/45s as well :)
>>30521705
Hey, this is my hobby. I love rimfire comp, and i love helping people pick the handgun they'll get the most enjoyment out of!
>>30524049
I enjoy the mark 2s, it was my first handgun. Reliability as well as simplicity make these my all time favorite. However, from a practicality standpoint, they are less functional than a mark 3. They too have a heel release just like the original marks, and can come at a hindrance during a match. It takes more time to drop a mag on a mark 2 than a 3, and magazine availability is less than mark 3.
>>30524551
Well, I really do appreciate you taking the time to help me out. I'm getting really amped, going to pick it up Friday afternoon. Ordered a nice little holster for it from the Ruger site.
>>30520175
Get the mkIII. It's closer to the standard Glock angle.
Actually I love my ol beat to shit mkII I picked up at a gunshow cheap. Sweet guns.
