|
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:14:44 -0500, John H.
wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:03:28 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 08:01:08 -0500, John H. wrote: Yup. And if you go with a Burris sight, they have dedicated mounts for the Mark III. They do make some really nice looking Mark III's. I already have a more traditional Mark I that I shot when I was a kid with my father. I wanted the unique features the 22/45 had. Hush, damnit! I need reasons *not* to buy the damn thing! === I might be willing to sell mine if you're really interested. There are red dot sights much less expensive than the Burris and just as good in my opinion. http://www.amazon.com/Ohuhu-Green-Reflex-Sight-Reticles/dp/B00YRIHYIW You're willing to sell your what? Gun or sight? Does that sight mount directly to the gun? === The weaver rail attaches to the top of the receiver, and the red dot sight attaches to the rail. It also has Hogue target grips, 5 magazines and a removable Volquarsten compensator. It shoots well but I subsequently had a chance to buy a really nice customized Hi Standard that I like even better. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=ruger+iii+compensator Didn't know what the Volquarsten compensator was, so looked it up. Some funny comments he http://rugerforum.net/ruger-rimfires...tor-mkiii.html Do you still have the original grips? Did installation of the rail require removal of the factory sights? If you got my email of the other day, drop me an email at that address with how much you want and pics if you have any. === Yes, I still have the original grips stashed away somewhere in my copious collection of "stuff". The rail does not require removal of the factory sights. When I get a chance I'll find everything, take some pix and send you an EMAIL. |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:49:51 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 3/9/16 3:07 PM, John H. wrote: I have a Mark III Hunter with the fluted barrel. When I bought it the top of the barrel was already drilled, tapped and fitted with filler screws. All I had to do was back out the fillers and install a small piece of Weaver rail. I assume that was done at the factory and not the previous owner. Just looked at the Ruger site. From the Hunter description: "Accurate sighting system features fixed or adjustable sights and drilled and tapped receiver for Weaver®-style scope base adapters for easy mounting of optics (adapters included, not on fixed sight models)." http://www.ruger.com/products/markIIIHunter/models.html Good to know. Thanks. Now, is the fancy grip worth $70? It is nice looking. -- The Mark III with the 6.88" barrel is overkill for informal shooting. I know, because I had one, but sold it to buy a model with a shorter barrel, this one, actually: http://www.ruger.com/products/markII...ets/10101.html The longer barrel does improve sight radius slightly, but it adds unnecessary weight and size, and if you are going to mount a red dot on it, is just a waste. The fancy grips add nothing to shootability. The Mark III I now have was sent off to Volquartsen for the full treatment, including barrel threading, so it can accommodate my silencer. It's a great shooter. 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. |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:32:01 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:14:44 -0500, John H. wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:03:28 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 08:01:08 -0500, John H. wrote: Yup. And if you go with a Burris sight, they have dedicated mounts for the Mark III. They do make some really nice looking Mark III's. I already have a more traditional Mark I that I shot when I was a kid with my father. I wanted the unique features the 22/45 had. Hush, damnit! I need reasons *not* to buy the damn thing! === I might be willing to sell mine if you're really interested. There are red dot sights much less expensive than the Burris and just as good in my opinion. http://www.amazon.com/Ohuhu-Green-Reflex-Sight-Reticles/dp/B00YRIHYIW You're willing to sell your what? Gun or sight? Does that sight mount directly to the gun? === The weaver rail attaches to the top of the receiver, and the red dot sight attaches to the rail. It also has Hogue target grips, 5 magazines and a removable Volquarsten compensator. It shoots well but I subsequently had a chance to buy a really nice customized Hi Standard that I like even better. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=ruger+iii+compensator Didn't know what the Volquarsten compensator was, so looked it up. Some funny comments he http://rugerforum.net/ruger-rimfires...tor-mkiii.html Do you still have the original grips? Did installation of the rail require removal of the factory sights? If you got my email of the other day, drop me an email at that address with how much you want and pics if you have any. === Yes, I still have the original grips stashed away somewhere in my copious collection of "stuff". The rail does not require removal of the factory sights. When I get a chance I'll find everything, take some pix and send you an EMAIL. Take your time. I'm in no rush. And, thanks. -- Ban liars, tax cheats, idiots, audiophools, and narcissists...not guns! |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On 3/10/16 11:19 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:49:51 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 3/9/16 3:07 PM, John H. wrote: I have a Mark III Hunter with the fluted barrel. When I bought it the top of the barrel was already drilled, tapped and fitted with filler screws. All I had to do was back out the fillers and install a small piece of Weaver rail. I assume that was done at the factory and not the previous owner. Just looked at the Ruger site. From the Hunter description: "Accurate sighting system features fixed or adjustable sights and drilled and tapped receiver for Weaver®-style scope base adapters for easy mounting of optics (adapters included, not on fixed sight models)." http://www.ruger.com/products/markIIIHunter/models.html Good to know. Thanks. Now, is the fancy grip worth $70? It is nice looking. -- The Mark III with the 6.88" barrel is overkill for informal shooting. I know, because I had one, but sold it to buy a model with a shorter barrel, this one, actually: http://www.ruger.com/products/markII...ets/10101.html The longer barrel does improve sight radius slightly, but it adds unnecessary weight and size, and if you are going to mount a red dot on it, is just a waste. The fancy grips add nothing to shootability. The Mark III I now have was sent off to Volquartsen for the full treatment, including barrel threading, so it can accommodate my silencer. It's a great shooter. 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. |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 11:19:44 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:49:51 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 3/9/16 3:07 PM, John H. wrote: I have a Mark III Hunter with the fluted barrel. When I bought it the top of the barrel was already drilled, tapped and fitted with filler screws. All I had to do was back out the fillers and install a small piece of Weaver rail. I assume that was done at the factory and not the previous owner. Just looked at the Ruger site. From the Hunter description: "Accurate sighting system features fixed or adjustable sights and drilled and tapped receiver for Weaver®-style scope base adapters for easy mounting of optics (adapters included, not on fixed sight models)." http://www.ruger.com/products/markIIIHunter/models.html Good to know. Thanks. Now, is the fancy grip worth $70? It is nice looking. -- The Mark III with the 6.88" barrel is overkill for informal shooting. I know, because I had one, but sold it to buy a model with a shorter barrel, this one, actually: http://www.ruger.com/products/markII...ets/10101.html The longer barrel does improve sight radius slightly, but it adds unnecessary weight and size, and if you are going to mount a red dot on it, is just a waste. The fancy grips add nothing to shootability. The Mark III I now have was sent off to Volquartsen for the full treatment, including barrel threading, so it can accommodate my silencer. It's a great shooter. 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. You've obviously never walked dozens of miles a day carrying a rifle and a pistol (for the feral attack-creatures). In those conditions, every gram counts. -- Ban liars, tax cheats, idiots, audiophools, and narcissists...not guns! |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
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. |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 11:46:01 -0500, John H.
wrote: you are into rapid fire events, that weight will help you with faster follow up shots. You've obviously never walked dozens of miles a day carrying a rifle and a pistol (for the feral attack-creatures). In those conditions, every gram counts. -- I don't think that is what we are talking about. Harry is charitably called a target shooter and those water bottles are not likely to do a lot of sneak attacks. If he is lugging around a silencer, weight is not that important to him |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
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. |
This one should piss off the gun ninnies
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:56 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com