High Standard Victor vs. Ruger MKII

[gas_gunner]

I'm thinking of trying conventional bullseye pistol. I would like to select a pistol that I can use. I've been looking at the Ruger MKII, particularly the Target Model that they made which has the flat sided barrel. I've also been looking at older High Standard Victors. They are getting to be a collector's item. Would the Ruger give up much, if any to the Victor? Are there other choices I should consider?

Thanks,

Danny

[Isabel1130]

The Ruger is a very heavy gun. The Victor can be heavy too compared to some of the more light weight euro 22s used for Bullsye. What is your price range and what do you like about any guns you already own? If you have a gun that you shoot well you might find yourself more comfortable with a gun that is similar in weight and balance to one that you already like to shoot. There are several different 22s you will find in regular use for Bullseye. The Pardini, the Benelli, the Feinwerkbau AW-93, the Hammerli 208s, the Ruger, the High standards, the Smith and Wesson Model 41, the Walther GSP are all popular for different reasons. What is your budget and are you going to shoot with a dot or iron sights? Any of these factors may push you towards one gun and away from another. Isabel

[gas_gunner]

Isabel,
Thank you for your response. I'm familiar with a Ruger MKII. I like the idea that I can get a Ruger in Stainless Steel (my hands seem to be very hard on metals) and that the Ruger has a rigid receiver, should I decide to go to an optical sight at some point, but I probably would prefer to start out with iron sights first, to save some money, and to see how well I do. Stainless is not a must and won't be a deal breaker. I don't know if I'd ultimately shoot irons or optical sights, so other than starting out with irons, I can't answer that completely. I'd probably spend up to $1000.00 or so, but the Ruger at the price is a very attractive option. I do like the more "classy" autos such as the High Standard and the Smith & Wesson 41. I've handled the High Standard but not the Smith & Wesson 41. I don't know anything about the more exotic European Autos suitable for Bullseye Competition.

Danny

The Ruger is a very heavy gun. The Victor can be heavy too compared to some of the more light weight euro 22s used for Bullsye. What is your price range and what do you like about any guns you already own? If you have a gun that you shoot well you might find yourself more comfortable with a gun that is similar in weight and balance to one that you already like to shoot. There are several different 22s you will find in regular use for Bullseye. The Pardini, the Benelli, the Feinwerkbau AW-93, the Hammerli 208s, the Ruger, the High standards, the Smith and Wesson Model 41, the Walther GSP are all popular for different reasons. What is your budget and are you going to shoot with a dot or iron sights? Any of these factors may push you towards one gun and away from another. Isabel

[1911nut]

A Ruger MK II drilled and tapped to mount a red dot sight and a Volquartsen trigger and sear installed would be a very good bullseye gun.

Lot's of high scores have been shot with Rugers.

It takes a lot of years for most shooters to be able to wring out the precision of the more exotic guns.

The money saved would buy a lot of ammo for practice.

In my experience, an accurized Ruger MK II is comparable to a Smith 41.

[hill987]

I would shoot the high standard hands down< No work needed ready to go right out of the box still made in the U S A in texas just google them

[jackh]

To answer your question " Would the Ruger give up much, if any to the Victor?"
Answer - No.

Are you a true newbie? Are you familiar with the fundamentals? Are you planning to use open sights or jump right in to dot sight. Age range?

[gas_gunner]

To answer your question " Would the Ruger give up much, if any to the Victor?"
Answer - No.

Are you a true newbie? Are you familiar with the fundamentals? Are you planning to use open sights or jump right in to dot sight. Age range?

I plan to try shooting open sights first because I likely won't have a dot sight at the beginning. I don't know if I'll end up with a dot sight or open sights. I'm not new to competition. I shoot a service rifle for Conventional and Long Range Highpower, as well as having just started some informal smallbore league competition.

I have to qualify at my new range for competence in April, and they use the conventional bullseye (NM Course) for the qualification. I'm a bit familiar with it, but haven't fired it.

My previous experience with handguns is somewhat limited. I've only fired a 1911 at short range as well as my Super Blackhawk in .44 Magnum, as well as using a MKII scoped, for hunting groundhogs up to 80 yards or so.

Danny

[jackh]

Then I say get the Ruger. MkII or MkIII. Forget the crap about the MKIII's "extra" stuff. It will shoot like a MkII either way. And that is all that matters. The Target versions are fine in 5.5" bull barrel or for irons the 6plus? inch barrel in heavy taper weight is excellent. Add a trigger job and upgrade the rear sight to the Volquartsen (a much better BoMar type sight).
Like this Ruger
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v24/tgtpix/Ruger2.jpg
Trigger job and grip stipples by Roddy Toyota. I get a good comfy grip with the ambidextrous panels. The gun pictured is a mix of two different guns, stainless and blue. No reason for that, it's just the way it worked out. This gun will hit the 50 yard 10 ring offhand if you let it.

About HS which I am very familiar with having used them since 1969. Unless you get lucky in finding what you want and/or have resources for parts, service, and original magazines, you will be disappointed. Remember ALL the good HS are used and 30 years old or older. If you find a good one it can be very fine. Actually I think HS is a little easier to keep running good once it does. HS is a little more particular in ammo. Whereas the Ruger eats almost any ammo, but needs cleaning deep inside more often than the HS. The rumored assembly difficulty of the Ruger is not a problem for someone with at least half a brain and good observation skills.

[Wiley-X]

I rarely cleaned my Rugers. If I started getting misfires, I'd clean out the area inside the receiver around the ejetion port but rarely took them apart.

Do start with iron sights. It helps you master the fundamentals and you won't be handicapped if you ever take up a discipline that doesn't allow optics.

Rugers are good guns for beginning bullseye. I just want a HS Victor because I've always wanted one.

[Citizen Carrier]

You want a Victor, then look for the Stoeger Pro-Series 95 copy of the Victor. Better than the Texas guns, comparable to the Hamden guns. You can still get factory mags from "Stoeger"....which is really a company called Aimco. If you know how to research it....

[Tom Amlie]

If you do decide to go with the Ruger, keep in mind that a common Ruger barrel length is 6.875", which is too long to use in ISSF standard pistol. If you're going to stay strictly with bullseye it's not an issue, but you never know where your interests will lead you.

[yana]

DONT consider a new High Standard, Texas made, their quality is no where near the old one's. Best are Hamden one's, the oldest, but also most expensive. But Hartfords are ok too, I had 1. They're VERY good target shooters!!
Few things to remember: VERY sensitive to mag adjustment and thus failures if its not correct.
Dónt shoot high velocity in them, they dont like it and can be damaged. They're not made for it.

[SIGP240]

Much input created here on this topic. I have had 5 M-41s(now own 2), and have 2 HS trophys, a Victor, a Mk1 Ruger, and a Pardini SP22, 2 Trailsides, also Colt Targestman and Colt 22 auto. Yes the Mitchell "Texas" guns are a v. poor choice! Avoid them. Please, don't consider the Ruger. Why?- grip angle, trigger feel, rear sight width, balance and residual value. If you go with Ruger, many popular trigger enhancements may breathe some life into this cumbersome tool. The HS grip angle emulates 1911's grip; quite a bonus for multi caliber sport. The M-41's are not the same as the older ones (with visible cocking indicator) meaning the older triggers were and remain better in my opinion. A new M-41 is a candidate for a trigger job from a pro like Clark. However, the HS has trigger feel what some refer to "glass rod" breaking feel. Smith will not give you this sensation. Rear blade width on M-41 is substandard. To wit: look over an SP22 Pardini! Victor has nice rear blade width, Hamdens are a nice find and not expensive. I have a Hartford Hex set screw barrel made near bankruptcy in 70's and the finish is lousy, but satisfactory accuracy. (you don't shoot the blue job) The Trophy will also please you. Scoping or red dot is a small easy to accomplish addition. Brownells sells new barrells. M-41 does not balance in the hand as well as Victor. Victor performs very well in true rapid fire scenario, better than M-41. Recoil pulse timing on Victor slightly faster than M-41. Pardini much bettter, and is a screamer for five pills down range in the black.You can add barrel counterweights to Victor and Trophy for peanuts. The M-41 counterweight is obsolete. If you have funds, consider Hammerli 208/215 with or with out counterweights.. I may add: Trailside once doctored by Larry Carter for the trigger replacement & with the correct weight and Rink grips makes a "poor mans" ($1000) bullseye piece. Also if you fail to recognize the intimate importance of grip fit, a fine gun with lousy grips will guarantee a lifetime of disappointments. Rinks on the Trailside are nice, but the Excess grips by Walther are marvy. Really doubt you will find true German quality grips for the Ruger, but I can be wrong. No doubt Ruger will digest the cheapest of ammo US or import. Larry Carter sells the upswept Rinks and not legal in Std Bull Comp. I have Nils on the M-41 and they are almost first class, but buy a can of putty and a dremel tool for ultimate fit. I have antique Herrett Nationals on the Victor and Trophy right now and they rank 8/10. You can buffer the slide for hotter recoil in the M-41, hot ammo will not be desireable on the Trailside. I have a minimum of 35 years of shooting on the Victor with any ammo; not any problems. I hear that the aftermarket HS mags are crap. HS parts that you lose at disassembly are still available. Barrels are easy to find for M-41 used and new and custom. Barrel choice will have impact on balance and performance. In closing Victor wins over Ruger, keep looking, you may spend more but you get more. I know that some of us have body chemistry conditions which destroy blue finish on guns. Just like you must wipe down any gun a pregant woman has held due to the corrosion problems. Stainless is an answer but shiny guns on a bullseye range are distracting. Buy blue/black and a jug of WD40. A stainless gun may, in some cases weigh more do to alloy/percentages. Of course, I am leaving out many other brands, as I can only speak of what I own and have owned/shot.

[forluv]

sigp240

Help. Is the M-41 you speak of the same as a S&W model 41? (happens to be my fav. I have shot it for 50 yrs. Ser.# 47xx)

Thanks

[Rover]

Simple. In it's time, the Victor was Hi Standards top of the line and one of the top pistols. It hasn't gotten worse. The Ruger is not in the same class.

It was one of the best there was. Buy it and don't give the subject another thought.

[Orpanaut]

My quick summary:

Victor: better sights and a much better trigger, but finding a "good" one is challenging and is going to cost at least twice as much as a stock MkII. I wouldn't consider this option unless you already know where you can get one that you know will function reliably and doesn't have any frame damage.

Ruger: generally accurate and reliable and easy to accessorize with red dots, better grips, extra magazines and so forth. The stock trigger needs help. If you decide that Bullseye isn't your game, you shouldn't lose much when you sell it.

Another option: a Marvel .22 conversion unit for a 1911 pistol - if you already have a 1911. If you really get into Bullseye you'll wind up with one anyway, but getting a Marvel plus a 1911 would be a big investment to make for a new shooter.

[Guest]

To me the biggest thing is how it feels in your hand to aid in the natural point of aim. I had a 41, a Ruger, and still have the Victor that is older than me and stills shoots dime size groups with the cheapest ammo. I use a Marvel for the 2700s it warms me up for the 45. With a fat hand like mine the Ruger dosn't fit and even with the Victor I had the bump in the back removed to allow my hand to fit.

[mikeschroeder]

Hi

Ruger just started making a .22/45 (1911 grip angle) with wood grips. That would be a good starter.

Later
Mike
Wichita KS

[tenex]

I think when all is said and done, all the American pistols shoot about the same. You might want to get the trigger tuned up on the Ruger, but after that they're all in the ballpark.

That being said, I think the model 41 is the best choice for all the "other" reasons:
1. It's nicely made (not that the others are significantly worse)
2. it's in current production (parts & magazines easy to get)
3. Easiest .22 on the planet to clean
4. Easy to get a spare barrel for a dot sight (I really like the ability to swap barrels in 10 seconds or so)

I'm also a big Ruger and High Standard fan, but it's getting hard to find a decent HS that hasn't been cobbled together from parts someone had lying around in their basement. I also have a great Ruger that's as good as my model 41 but I did a lot of tune up myself, My hobby might be your liability.

The 41 is the one gun that I bought and pretty much shot stock with no fuss. I don't think I ever had an alibi with it.

The only real solution is to get one of each...
Steve.

[darticus]

How do the old High Standards shoot as compared to the new. I have a Supermatic and The Victor both early Hamden Issues. Never got to fire them as yet but looking forward to it.