Ruger Forum banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,450 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I need help to settle a friendly debate with a buddy. He just picked up a beautiful first generation Standard in 4" barrel. He called it a Mark I. I corrected him and said in all generations--I, II, and III, the Mark is the bull barrell target version with adjustable target sights, and that Standard is like his. Was there a different nomenclature during the first generation years ?? Please tell me I'm correct; I can't bear losing an argument to my friend!!:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,965 Posts
In the first generation, yes, the Mark I label was given and actually stamped on those guns that had adjustable sights. Standard was the label used on models with fixed sights, though the label, Standard, was not actually stamped on the gun. In other words, if it is not stamped Mark I, it is a Standard. However, over the years, Ruger has been so all over the map in the way they have applied the Mark and Standard labels that the two are often used, interchangeably. I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,965 Posts
By the time Ruger went to the Mark II, they were using the label Mark II to distinguish these guns as a second generation, similar to what they do, now, for the Mark IIIs. All guns, fixed sight or otherwise, were stamped, MKII or, with the current series, MKIII. Technically right or wrong, people often use the label, Mark I, in the same way, these days - to distinguish the first generation of these guns form the Mark IIs or Mark IIIs, even though on the original series, only guns with adjustable sights were stamped Mark I.

If Ruger can use the word Mark in various ways, I don't think we need the label police to dog our tracks. The only time I'd advise caution, though, is if you are specifically looking for an original version with adjustable sights. Then you do need to inquire about the sights on a gun when a seller advertises their gun as a Mark I. Right or wrong, to many sellers, any original series gun is a Mark I.

So, in response to the OP, I'd say that the gun in question is best labeled as an original series Standard, more than I would say that calling it a Mark I is just outright, wrong. How's that for diplomatic?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
211 Posts
By the time Ruger went to the Mark II, they were using the label Mark II to distinguish these guns as a second generation, similar to what they do, now, for the Mark IIIs. All guns, fixed sight or otherwise, were stamped, MKII or, with the current series, MKIII. Technically right or wrong, people often use the label, Mark I, in the same way, these days - to distinguish the first generation of these guns form the Mark IIs or Mark IIIs, even though on the original series, only guns with adjustable sights were stamped Mark I.

If Ruger can use the word Mark in various ways, I don't think we need the label police to dog our tracks. The only time I'd advise caution, though, is if you are specifically looking for an original version with adjustable sights. Then you do need to inquire about the sights on a gun when a seller advertises their gun as a Mark I. Right or wrong, to many sellers, any original series gun is a Mark I.

So, in response to the OP, I'd say that the gun in question is best labeled as an original series Standard, more than I would say that calling it a Mark I is just outright, wrong. How's that for diplomatic?
North country gal I like your style ! I commend you on your knowledge of the Ruger 22 Rimfire Pistols.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
When I bought my mkll nib, it was labeled by ruger as a mkll target pistol with 6-7/8" tapered barrel and adjustable rear sight. I also at the same gun with a bull barrel, and thought it was too heavy. North country girl has stated in the past that the only real difference in the mkl, mkll, and mk ll is that the mkl had the mag release on the but, and no bolt hold open. The mkll had the mag release on the butt and a bolt hold open. On the mklll they moved the mag release to the trigger guard. According to ruger, all three came in standard and target models, offering adjustable rear sights and tapered or bull barrels on the target models.

But I've been wrong befoe, so correct me if I am

North country gal has been right about every time I have seen her post
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,965 Posts
When I bought my mkll nib, it was labeled by ruger as a mkll target pistol with 6-7/8" tapered barrel and adjustable rear sight. I also at the same gun with a bull barrel, and thought it was too heavy. North country girl has stated in the past that the only real difference in the mkl, mkll, and mk ll is that the mkl had the mag release on the but, and no bolt hold open. The mkll had the mag release on the butt and a bolt hold open. On the mklll they moved the mag release to the trigger guard. According to ruger, all three came in standard and target models, offering adjustable rear sights and tapered or bull barrels on the target models.

But I've been wrong befoe, so correct me if I am

North country gal has been right about every time I have seen her post
Nope, can't argue with you, there. You are correct - those are the basic differences, although there are others. The real question and the basis of the argument is about how the guns were labeled, back in the early days and which is the more correct label to use. Since Ruger has been so ambiguous, themselves in this, I find it pretty hard to criticize one way or the other on how someone uses the terms Mark and Standard. The label police may say, otherwise, but guess i'm a bit more easy going. :)
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top