TargetTalk

I am absolutely new and inexperienced with .22 rimfire semi- automatic pistols.

Bought my first one, an slightly used MK-2 with a 5.5" bull barrel. Put Houge thumb rest grips on it before I left the shot.

Well, I can confirm that the trigger is less than good, with a long and creepy and rough feel. The sights are not as good as I am used to on the 10 m pistols. And even with the Hogue grips, the grips leave something to be desired.

I have found the Ruger pistol web site, and riefire central, so I am aware of the trigger fixes there and a fix for the grips may be Nill or Morini, either of which are hard to justify on an inexpensive pistol, as far as being able to recover any of the cost of these additions upon resale.

The up side is that the pistol sems to be dependable, and the accuracy, when scored at 50 feet, twenty five yards and 50 yards, is close to, but lower than that of my air pistol scores.

The accuracy of these pistols is in general, at least im my experience, over rated. But when i showed my targets to the guys at the local gun shop, and explained that they were shot off hand, they changed the story on the accuracy capabilities, admitting that the groups that they shot were off a rest.

There is no competition for .22 rimfire pistol, that I can locate in Southwest Missouri. And I have looked on the internet and asked a lot of people.

When i mention the Ruger to a friend that shoots competitive .22 rim fire semi automatic and free pistol, he is not kind in his opinion of the Ruger.

Do others share this repuslion for the capabilities of the RUger Mk-2?

Given that i know that the trigger and grips are a problem that some say is relatively easy to fix, the Volquartzen sear is mentioned as a solution to the trigger problem, and that grips are available, what else is there that distinguishes the IZH and other entry level pistols from the ranks of the common Ruger MK-2?

I have on my flame retardent clothing and would like some answers. even if i will not like what I hear.

Respectfully,
Dan Hankins

You won't see any rugers among "serious" int'l shooters. The company's business goals involve selling lots of decent inexpensive guns to guys that shoot at tin cans.

serious precision competition is such a niche market, that US makers don't want to invest in it. with maybe a few exceptions.

HOWEVER, that being the case, there are a LOT of guys out there shooting at cans or shooting at full sized silhouette targets at 10 yards at the public range that might be getting bored and might want to TRY serious precision shooting, whether it is NRA bullseye or International.

I think WE can capitalize on the rapid fire rule change and invite all the guys with Rugers and Brownings and etc pistols to come out and try it! (can YOU shoot 5 well aimed shots in 4 seconds?)

Some tin-can shooter with a ruger .22 and a .38 revolver or 9mm can TRY ALL FIVE Int'l firearm pistol disciplines (at the club level) (Free, Sport, Standard, Center, Rapid)

so, START a match league!

Maybe at the club level match have 2 divisions, one for USAS members who HAVE the pardini's and Hammerli's and one for average joe's who have rugers and S&W's, shoot all the matches at stationary paper targets and use timers, they make 25/50m targets reduced to 25/50 YARDS if that's where your club's frames are mounted. Open all events to men and women. Let them shoot FP with a loaded magazine. etc....

Have fun!

Poole
http://arizona.rifleshooting.com/

Here in New England the Ruger Mark II is a popular entry level .22 for NRA Conventional Pistol shooting. With the addition of a red-dot sight and a trigger job, it is quite capable of shooting good scores.

Most folks, by the time they move to ISSF shooting have already obtained a purpose built Standard Pistol, so you won't see many on the line.

The inherent accuracy of the Ruger is fine; clean up the trigger and you can go far.

I agree with GOVMODEL. The Ruger will take you a long way with a cleaned up trigger and decent grips. Don't go overboard and spend a lot of money on it as you may end up with a $500 gun that you have $900 invested in. And if you stick with bullseye you will undoubtedly end up with a Hammerli, Walther, or Pardini. This is because you have been spoiled by the fine air pistols you have been shooting. This is not a bad thing. The Hammerli, Walther, and Pardini .22's are as delightful to shoot as their air pistols.
I now shoot the Pardini SP in our league here in CT after working my way through the S&W 41, Ruger MarkII, and High Standard Victor and trying out trying the Hammerli, Walther, and Benelli.
Yes, I've been doing this for a while.
Enjoy the Ruger and bullseye, and good luck trying to find competitions. If there's nothing local try finding a postal match.

Hi

I actually shoot mainly Bullseye now, with a Ruger Mark II Slabside, iron sights mostly. The Bullseye-L board is tilted VERY heavily towards the Marvel Conversion (.22LR) that fits on top of a 1911 frame. The Marvel is supposed to be capable of 1/2 inch groups at 50 yards using decent ammo. THERE are a few Hammerli and Pardini users among the group, but due to the price, not that many. The Marvel conversion is under $500 and you're shooting with the SAME trigger you use for .45 ACP.

I'm not sure I can shoot fast enough for RF, the Ruger is a little top heavy.

Mike
Wichita KS

The Ruger MkII is great for what it was designed; a cheap plinker that can be used for target shooting in a pinch. I bet a lot of folks (me included) got into bullseye by getting a MkII. With a slightly worked trigger, the Volquartsen wide trigger and a red dot sight, it got me into the 550's without too much trouble. I did have to go to a Pardini SP to improve from there, but I'm sure others with Rugers have done much better than I have.

For the money, the MkII ain't half bad. Keep in mind, the IZHs are relatively new on the market and aren't nearly as plentiful, nor as versatile as the Ruger MkII.

I agree with everything on this post but sometimes I feel the need to put in my 2 cents worth in anyway. My first bullseye pistol was a Ruger MK II with a 5½” bull barrel. I had a Clark trigger put in and added Volquartsen grips (they fit me pretty well), this gave me a pretty nice pistol for under $300 (with trigger and grips) to get started with. I eventually added a red dot.

In the bullseye league I shoot in you will find mostly Hammerli, Pardini, High Standard, and Marvel conversions . The guys kept on me to upgrade my pistol so I did, to a High Standard. I didn’t shoot any better with it but I was happy and so were they. I took the dot off the Ruger when I retired it.

Two weeks ago I brought the Ruger in for one of the new shooters to look at (not for sale). One of the regular shooters stopped in to just to say hi and did not have his pistols with him, I offered him the Ruger to shoot. He reluctantly accepted. The trigger was not as good as his Hammerli, the sight were not as good as his Hammerli, nor were the grips, the only thing he did not complain about was the 560 he shot with the open sights.

I am looking at changing again, I would really like the Hammerli 208S our host has on his web site (although I will probably wind up going with a Marvel conversion to try to match the feel of my 45). I would keep in mind though, for $2,500 less than that Hammerli, the Ruger with some slight modifications is not a bad little pistol to start with.

Regarding the much maligned Ruger .22 autos:

They are much like the popular Honda Civic rice-rockets. Cheap and reliable out of the box, but add a few modifications and they will blow the doors off any mega-buck German ego ride.

Tweak the trigger, add some better sights and some nice grips and the Ruger will run with the big buck Euro guns all day long, and save you enough coin to buy the ammo you'll need to get really, really good with it.

Ask Arnie Vitarbo. He set the national std pistol record some years back with a Ruger MK 1.

Dan,
I just picked up a Mark II a few months ago to play around with. I've always wondered if I could make a Mark II that would compete with the much more expensive guns for bullseye. A lot of people start with the Rugers, and then move on to more expensive guns and assume the gun is the determining factor.

This is what I put together:

Ruger KMK512 $284
Clark trigger $20
Clark Hammer bushing $20
1/8" music wire sear pin $0
Millett rear sight $17
Spare Ruger Hammer $15
Spare Ruger Sear $8
Nill Left Handed Grips $155

I reworked the replacement hammer & sear to get a 2 1/4 lb. trigger pull, I made a new sear pivot pin out of a scrap piece of 1/8" music wire, and I drilled the trigger for a pretravel screw. I also polished the feed ramp a little.

The end result worked out pretty well. If I wasn't on a mission, I'd get the Volquartsen grips and save some money. As it is, I shoot it about the same as my model 41. Although an IZH-35 is probably a much better deal, I wouldn't get rid of a Mark II if I had one lying around.

Steve.

Dan Hankins wrote:I am absolutely new and inexperienced with .22 rimfire semi- automatic pistols.

Bought my first one, an slightly used MK-2 with a 5.5" bull barrel. Put Houge thumb rest grips on it before I left the shot.

Well, I can confirm that the trigger is less than good, with a long and creepy and rough feel. The sights are not as good as I am used to on the 10 m pistols. And even with the Hogue grips, the grips leave something to be desired.

I have found the Ruger pistol web site, and riefire central, so I am aware of the trigger fixes there and a fix for the grips may be Nill or Morini, either of which are hard to justify on an inexpensive pistol, as far as being able to recover any of the cost of these additions upon resale.

The up side is that the pistol sems to be dependable, and the accuracy, when scored at 50 feet, twenty five yards and 50 yards, is close to, but lower than that of my air pistol scores.

The accuracy of these pistols is in general, at least im my experience, over rated. But when i showed my targets to the guys at the local gun shop, and explained that they were shot off hand, they changed the story on the accuracy capabilities, admitting that the groups that they shot were off a rest.

There is no competition for .22 rimfire pistol, that I can locate in Southwest Missouri. And I have looked on the internet and asked a lot of people.

When i mention the Ruger to a friend that shoots competitive .22 rim fire semi automatic and free pistol, he is not kind in his opinion of the Ruger.

Do others share this repuslion for the capabilities of the RUger Mk-2?

Given that i know that the trigger and grips are a problem that some say is relatively easy to fix, the Volquartzen sear is mentioned as a solution to the trigger problem, and that grips are available, what else is there that distinguishes the IZH and other entry level pistols from the ranks of the common Ruger MK-2?

I have on my flame retardent clothing and would like some answers. even if i will not like what I hear.

Respectfully,
Dan Hankins

Memories from my attempts at Ruger Mk-ll ownership bring to mind the word "clunker". They shoot okay for a stamped-steel framed pistol with a rifle-bolt action, numb and sloppy trigger, high sight line, and too much overall weight. Fun toys, but you'll throw a lot of money around trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. You'd be way ahead starting with a Sig Trailside, or even a Buckmark.

Hi

In response to the previous post, the Buckmark is cheaper too I think.

In response to the original post, check all of you local indoor gun ranges, and outdoor gun clubs. Both of Wichita's indoor gun ranges had a weekly .22LR pistol league. One on Monday and one on Thursday. The local outdoor matches are a full 2700 Bullseye match and are shot on the third Saturday of the month.

What I'm trying to say, is that NONE of the above information was on the internet.

Mike
Wichita KS

Mike,
I did not rely on the internet in my search for competition. I went to every gun shop, and range that I could find. I asked questions and looked of fliers. I called the ranges that were listed and the two gun clubs I could find.

I can find bench rest, shot gun, Cow boy and M-1/AR-15 groups. Bass Pro headquarters in Springfield has an indoor range, but according to them, there is no competition.

I am not knowledgable enough to start a competition, and have not heard of anyone who has an interest in organized pistol of any kind, except whatever the Cow Boy shooters do.

I will keep looking, and asking questions. I did find that Southwest Missouri State university has a range and a team. Visited the facility and met the instructor. He took some time to give me a few pointers on rifle hold. But I don't think I can join their competition as I am not a student at that college. I also asked about competition while there and came up with nothing.

Thanks all for your comments.

Respectfully,
Dan Hankins

Jenson wrote:Memories from my attempts at Ruger Mk-ll ownership bring to mind the word "clunker". They shoot okay for a stamped-steel framed pistol with a rifle-bolt action, numb and sloppy trigger, high sight line, and too much overall weight. Fun toys, but you'll throw a lot of money around trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. You'd be way ahead starting with a Sig Trailside, or even a Buckmark.

I currently have a MK II with a 5 ½” bull barrel, a 6” Sig/Hammerli Trailside Competition, and a Buck Mark 5.5 Target. I have/had other MK II’s and a Buck Mark Silhouette (a number of years back). I just looked at my receipt for the MK II, with a trigger job including a Clark trigger I paid $290.00, Trailside is $550 plus another $40 for a second magazine, and the Buck Mark I got used for $150 (the original owner did not like it, I picked it up for my girlfriend), it already had trigger work done by the same person who worked on my MK II’s.

As far as accuracy goes, the Ruger is at least as good as the other two (off a rest with a scope at 25 yards with several different types of ammunition). The MK II has feed almost any ammunition I put in it (I shot CCI standard velocity for bullseye), the Trailside is happy with Eley standard velocity so I quit looking and the Buck Mark is the most finicky. I can’t tell much difference between the trigger on the MK II and the Trailside, I like them both better than the Buck Mark. I like the adjustability of the sights a little better on both the Trailside and Buck Mark. Both the MK II and the Buck Mark will need new grips to catch the Trailside Competition although I am very happy with the Volquatsen grips I paid about $30 for a few years back on the MK II, they fit me well. I like the balance and feel of the Trailside best followed closely by the MK II. The MK II may be a stamped-steel frame pistol but it still shoots and feels good after 7,000 rounds. When I think of the word “clunker” the Buck Mark with its full-length scope mount and hooded sights comes to mind, you can get other versions of the Buck Mark but than you loose other features. The MK II is 5 ounces heavier than the Trailside (don’t have the Buck Mark here to weigh, it could very well be lighter than the Trailside) but I would not agree that is a bad thing.

I think the Trailside is the best looking of the three. I do believe the Trailside is probably a nicer gun than the MK II, at twice the price it should be, I am just not sure that it is a better value. I would not rule out the Ruger, especially over a Buck Mark and since the person who started this thread is new to semi auto pistols and already has the MK II, I would work with it.

I am not against higher priced guns, my current BE gun is a High Standard 10X Custom Victor (maybe not the best choice but definitely getting up in the higher price category) with the final setup done by Bob Shea. I really like this gun although I did need to replace the new magazines with two of the old magazines. I am currently playing with a Pardini SP, this could quickly become my new BE gun. I am in the process of gathering the remaining parts necessary to put together a 1911 with a Marvel conversion and I am still toying with the idea of a Hammerli 208.

I guess I rambled on a bit just to say don’t discount the MK II when comparing it to the Trailside or a Buck Mark.

If you want to be pragmatic about all this stuff, you really only need a few things out of a target pistol: accuracy, reliability, a trigger pull that suits you, grips/ergonomics that allow you to have a consistent hold on the gun that you're comfortable with, and weight and balance to your liking.

If you go down the list, the Ruger is at a minimum accurate, reliable, and has weight and balance at least comparable to traditional NRA style bullseye pistols (comparing an MK512 vs. a Model 41 w/5" barrel, vs. a High Standard w/5" barrel for example).

That leaves the trigger and the grip/ergonomics.

Around here, you can get a Clark trigger and a tune up for around $100, which put the trigger pull in the same class as a model 41 or so.

Ergonomics are what they are. There are decent grips (like the Volquartsen grips) for not a lot of money. If they fit you you're in good shape.

For what it is, the Ruger is a good gun. Out of the box it's probably the cheapest solution for target shooting, and with a $100 trigger job and a set of Volquartsen grips it's a decent target pistol for the price. It's not a Hammerli, but it gets the job done.

Steve.

I have both Ruger MK II and Hamden HS Citation. I prefer the feel and shooting of the HS over the Ruger. That said, THE high scores at recent International Event in SLC were by a fellow with open site MK II.

Just like those car analogies ... it is the driver AND the car that make the time. Or the shooter AND the weapon ... that make the high scores. A lousy shot is still a lousy shot EVEN with a $2,000 European competition pistol in hand! Likewise for the excellent shot, they will still get amazing groups even with a mediocre pistol in hand.

I like my Ruger MUCH more since getting a trigger job on it.