Ruger Forum banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Years back I owned a Mark III Hunter with the 6.88" barrel length. I'll admit, I must have been on my Charles Bronson Death Wish kick when I bought that one. Had her for a few months and then for one reason or another I let her go.

Thinking about bringing a .22LR semi Ruger back in the stable. So many different barrel length options available now.

Which barrel length would you recommend? (And, no, "buy 'em all" won't work :D

4.5" seems most "handy" although aesthetically awkward looking.

Thanks!
:)

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
I like my 5.5" mkII . It shoots well and looks nice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,845 Posts
My MKIII Target is the 5.5" barrel and my MKIII 22/45 has a 4.5" barrel. I like the looks of both of them and haven't noticed any difference in accuracy.
I will probably add a Hunter with the 6.88" barrel one day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,916 Posts
If you're shooting iron, there is an advantage to the longer barrel for the sake of the longer sighting radius, though you can shoot any Mark, accurately, regardless of barrel length, if you do your part.

If you will be scoping or using a red dot, there is NO accuracy advantage to the longer barrel. I've had scoped 4.5" Marks that shot groups as small or even smaller than my 6 7/8" Marks. I recently sold off my Mark III Hunter 4.5" to get a Mark III Hunter 6/78" simply because the shorter barreled version didn't handle well at all with the big pistol scope I use on the Hunter. With a scope, either MKIII Hunter could put ten shots under an inch at 25 yards with any ammo at all.

You said it yourself. It is really personal preference. Head to your LGS and handle a few Marks. You can't make a mistake on any Mark.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Alright. So, it seems that the majority prefers the 5.5" barrel length for the balance of the gun. I had thought 5.5" too before I saw the 4.5". :D

I'm sure the difference is minute, but do you feel any between the bull and fluted barrel in that 5.5" barrel length?

Thanks much!

:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,672 Posts
The 5.5" target model is very nicely balanced. Despite being 42 ounces the balance is so nice that it doesn't feel that heavy. (Or the 22/45 version with polymer frame for even less weight if you wish.)

When it comes to which Ruger looks best I'd vote for the 6.88" Hunter. That fluted barrel is simply a beauty, and being fluted it's listed at 41 ounces so marginally less than the 5.5" Target. Of course, all Ruger MKs look really good, so it's hard to go wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,402 Posts
I've had my Mk II 5 1/2" bull barrel pistol for 26 years now, and it is often my favorite handgun (my Redhawk and GP-100) are right up there). The Std. Model, with the 4 3/4" slim barrel would be my second choice, if I were buying my first Mk pistol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
I found the 5.5" bull barrel to be in the sweet spot - for me at least. The balance for an all-purpose .22 stock handgun felt just right (target, hunting, plinking, starter gun for my kids).

Also, I have handled the Hunter and it felt nice as well. Even though the barrel is longer, it is fluted which reduces a little of the weight up front - the balance felt very similar.

As other have said, just check them all out and see what you like best. You can't go wrong as long as you ultimately get what you like best.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,916 Posts
I've owned all the barrel lengths on a Mark, except for the 10" and my favorite for accuracy work is the 6 7/8" fluted on the MKIII Hunter - the one you sold. Gets you that longer sighting radius without the tip heavy feel of the Comp or the old MK II Government. Moreover, my current Hunter is the most accurate Mark I've ever owned. That could be a function of that fluted barrel, though I can't prove it.

I'm also partial to my old RST-4 with the 4" tapered barrel and my RST-6 with the 6" tapered barrel. Those old Standards have quite a different feel to them than the bull barrel Marks but, like any Mark, they shoot like a house on fire. For a gun you want to carry in a holster, they can't be beat.

In the end, it is entirely a personal choice on your part, though the longer barrels are a benefit if you are shooting iron sights. For plinking, I love the old tapered barrels on the Standards. When I'm measuring group size, I opt for the Hunter or the Comp. Always nice to have choices. That's why I own five Marks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,188 Posts
I agree with North Country Girl, I've had a 4" RST since the early 70's, and it is every bit as accurate, as my Buckmark with the 5" bull barrel. Ya just can't beat a Ruger.:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,188 Posts
Back in the early 80's I had a 10"" bull barreled Target model, that I shot the reduced steel silhouette targets, didn't do too bad either as I recall. Unfortunately I traded that gun for a S&W 357 Mag. with a 2" barrel. Wish now I still had it, as I sold the S&W also.:(
 

·
Ausmerican.
Joined
·
42,767 Posts
I've stayed with 5.5".
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top