Ruger MKII vs MKIII continued
I have to disagree with the negative posts about the MKIII. I find the loaded chamber indicator a very useful device and does not interfer with reliable function. It's a great plus for safety. Mine is 100% reliable with all the high speed brands tried (about 10 so far) and all the standard vel stuff too ( but only a few tried ). The MKIII is more accurate than I am for sure, I can get 1" groups at 25 yards with many high speed brands but I know the pistol is much better than that as I wiggle a lot off the bags. Wish I had a machine rest for an hour. I find the MKIII much more than satisfactory in all respects. I have a few thousand rounds through mine now and have had only one faiure to feed of a mini-mag from the first round of the magazine.
0
-
quote:Originally posted by mbsams
I have to disagree with the negative posts about the MKIII. I find the loaded chamber indicator a very useful device and does not interfer with reliable function. It's a great plus for safety.
Well, to be clear, I don't think anyone is/was saying the loaded chamber indicator affects reliability or that the MkII is more (or less) reliable than the MkIII. The two guns are FAR more similar than they are different.
The issue was that the original design of the MKIII indicator used a piece of metal resting on the rim of a rimfire cartridge. A decent "whack" to the chamber indicator (eg if you dropped the gun) could set off a round. I think most people would say that's a safety "feature", they don't really need!
Now, in fairness Ruger has redesigned the chamber load indicator so that this isn't an issue anymore. But that doesn't mean people can't prefer the nicer lines and slightly simpler design of the MKII.
In general, I'm not against chamber load indicators, so long as you realize that they are neither necessary nor sufficient to ensure gun safety. So long as you always treat your gun as if its loaded, you shouldn't need a bright red flag hanging off the side of the gun to remind you that it is.0 -
I am glad your happy with it. I was not. I will still back the MKII. The MKIII is to the MKII, What an MAK 90 is to a true AK-47.
quote:Originally posted by mbsams
I have to disagree with the negative posts about the MKIII. I find the loaded chamber indicator a very useful device and does not interfer with reliable function. It's a great plus for safety. Mine is 100% reliable with all the high speed brands tried (about 10 so far) and all the standard vel stuff too ( but only a few tried ). The MKIII is more accurate than I am for sure, I can get 1" groups at 25 yards with many high speed brands but I know the pistol is much better than that as I wiggle a lot off the bags. Wish I had a machine rest for an hour. I find the MKIII much more than satisfactory in all respects. I have a few thousand rounds through mine now and have had only one faiure to feed of a mini-mag from the first round of the magazine.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
2 comments