What's the difference between a Ruger Mark II and a Mark III?

[Will Carry]

I bought a used Ruger Mark II today. I wasn't looking for one but a very old friend of mine was out of work and needed the money. So now I have a Mark II and a Mark III. I was wondering what the difference between the two was. Thanks

I just Googled it. The Mark III seems to have a few useless extras. With the acception of a Weaver style scope mount tapped into the barrel. The loaded chamber indicator on my Mark III has been removed.

The magazine safety is new, and the mag release was moved from the butt to the left side. Maybe the Mark IV will be easy to dissassemble.........

Edited January 10, 2011 by Will Carry

[kieefer]

I copied this and saved it in my files for future reference. At the time I was shopping for one but ended up getting a S&W .22A.

I think this came off the THR forum. Credit goes to the writer who I failed to save.

Pre MARK I/Standard:

Drift adjustable sights and tapered barrel.

No last shot bolt hold open.

Bolt can be manually locked back using the safety.

Heel mounted magazine latch.

9 round magazine.

MARK I:

Heavy tapered or bull barrel and target sights.

Trigger has adjustable stops.

No last shot bolt hold open.

Bolt can be manually locked back using the safety.

Heel mounted magazine latch.

9 round magazine.

There are also "old and "new" model MKIs (and standards). The A100 frame was introduced in 1971 and the magazine follower button moved to left side.

MARKII:

Standard has drift adjustable sights and tapered barrel.

Target Models have heavy tapered or bull barrel and target sights (also the trigger has adjustable stops).

Trigger pin retention method changed.

Last shot bolt hold open via added bolt stop.

Safety no longer used to lock bolt back.

Heel mounted magazine latch.

New 10 round magazine.

MARK III:

Standard has drift adjustable sights and tapered barrel.

Target Models have heavy tapered or bull barrel and target sights (also the trigger has adjustable stops). There is also a Hunter version with fluted bull barrel.

All Mark III pistols with adjustable sights are drilled and tapped for a Weaver-style scope base.

Last shot bolt hold open via bolt stop

Loaded chamber indicator added.

Magazine disconnector added.

Internal lock added.

Magazine latch moved to left side of the frame behind trigger guard.

Moved latch requires different style 10 round magazine.

There are also some differences with the early pre-MK1 pistols (there was no Standard moniker until the MK I was introduced) and latter production ones.

Rifling twist rates were changed during the production of the MARK II to the current 1 in 16".

There are also some differences in the bolt ears on MK II and III pistols.

I also believe there have been some bull barrels made with drift adjustable sights fitted.

22/45:

They incorporate a different grip angle, polymer frame with the magazine latch located on the left side behind the trigger guard (both version 22/45s have a magazine base plate different from the steel frame versions).

The original 22/45 upper is very similar to the MARK II; having different markings and possibly differences in the lug area.

The new 22/45 has a redesigned frame (less bulky than the earlier versions) and incorporates the MARK III magazine disconnect and internal lock. The upper also has the MARK III loaded chamber indicator.

Some parts will interchange.

Accuracy is about the same for all the MARKs; varying more pistol to pistol rather than MARK series. It would take a lot of shooting to degrade the accuracy of these pistols, so old ones should be fine (abuse aside).

I like the last shot hold open, but dislike the loaded chamber indicator and magazine safety; so I prefer the Mark II version. I also like the MARK I and have one made in 1953 that is a great shooter. I have no love for the MARK III.

[eapking]

Maybe the Mark IV will be easy to dissassemble.........

LOL...that would get my vote. I'd sell my MKIII for a IV pretty fast.

[Guest Big-A]

IMO Quality was a lot better on the I and II's i had a mark II traded it for a shotgun and bought a III brand new the rail was the only plus about the gun my II was not ammo picky and seemed to shoot better finish was better

[graycrait]

I've tuned up the trigger's on both MKIIs and MKIIIs. There are some differences, but MKIIs make great training pistols, plinkers and in some cases with some action and trigger work, a pretty decent target pistol. If you have a friend who will drill and tap the MKII cheap then I would opt for a MK II anytime over the MKIII because I think the MKII is a bit easier to slick up the action and trigger over the MKIII.

MKIIIs have slightly more "fiddley" innards with Loaded Chamber Indicator and mag disconnect safety. But the plus with the MKIII is that it is already drilled and tapped. In a pistol like this mag release position really doesn't matter to me. Last shot hold open is nice, but again with this pistol design I have not found it to be cause for overwhelmingly placing the MKIII ahead of the MKII. I replaced my MKIII trigger assembly with MKII spare parts I had on hand so that I could do away with the mag disconnect aparratus. I still may cut the tab off the LCI which intrudes into the receiver.

[I_Like_Pie]

Just as an FYI....many mark II guns also have factory taps and scope base. After 1996 if I remember correctly.

If yours doesn't have the factory holes...it is VERY easy for even a novice gunsmith to put them there. MKII is better than the III simply because of all the extra crap.