On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:33:49 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 3/10/16 12:07 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 11:45:52 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 3/10/16 11:19 AM, wrote:


A lot of people don't have your aversion to weight in a firearm. If
you are into rapid fire events, that weight will help you with faster
follow up shots.


How much weight is enough in a mostly steel, fairly long-barrel pistol
in .22LR really isn't an issue in a "casual" target, plinking, or
hunting firearm, and neither is accurate "rapid fire" with these steel
Rugers, since muzzle flip isn't an issue.

I have no idea what the practical reasons are for Ruger to offer 6.88"
barrels on its Mark III's. I've never seen any valid evidence these
longer barrel Rugers shoot better or faster than the Rugers with the
5.88" barrels, assuming all the pistols involved are the "steelies." I
don't know how the polymer Rugers in that caliber shoot.

I suppose you have never really looked at the .22s they use in the
rapid fire events. Most actually have a big weight on the end of the
barrel. Muzzle flip may not mean much shooting water bottles in slow
fire but when 5 shots in 4 seconds is necessary to be competitive at
all, a little flip is the difference between playing the game or going
home.
Most people can't come close to affording a Pardini but they may want
something that is not a belly gun. My woodsman has a 6" barrel and I
think it has a very good balance.
OTOH if you are hanging a can on the end, you already have a nose
heavy gun.


As points of information:

I stated "casual" target, plinking, or hunting, not competitive target
shooting.

The Ruger Mark III I currently own, with the 5.5" barrel, weighs an
ounce more from the factory than the 6.88" barrel "Hunter" version under
discussion, I presume because the version I have has a thicker, "bull"
barrel, rather than a fancy fluted barrel, it weighs more.

At present, all the Ruger Mark III's designated as "target" pistols come
with 5.5" barrels.

Remember, I am not "knocking" the "Hunter" model. It is a fine,
beautifully finished pistol. I owned one. I don't recall that it shoots
any different than the shorter barrel Mark III that I now own. Further,
mine has been worked over from top to bottom by Volquartsen, and now can
cycle faster and the trigger has shorter movement.

You're right about the can making the pistol a bit more nose heavy, but
not enough that I've notice a difference in handling or muzzle flip.
Unlike Northern Virginia, we don't have a lot of zombies running loose
out here, so rapid fire is not necessary. I throw a red dot on mine
from time to time, just for grins.

For the money and even for a bit more money, I don't think you can find
a better .22LR pistol than the Ruger Mark III in any of its iterations.




Rapid fire is just a different game, more like skeet than target
rifle.