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.

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.

I'm sure it's better than anything owned or contemplated by anyone here.
--

Ban liars, tax cheats, idiots, audiophools, and narcissists...not guns!

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.

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!

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

On 3/10/16 12:12 PM, wrote:
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


I shoot "real" paper, steel, and plastic targets, not just sodapop
bottles. I mostly use the suppressor on my bolt action CZ rifle...it
is very very quiet.

We were out stomping in the woods by the Shenandoah last year about a
dozen times. On those "stomps" I open carry my S&W 686 in .357 MAG in a
side holster. No silencer. Luckily the only dogs I saw last year were on
a leash. I have seen lots of raccoons and foxes and deer, and I am
pretty sure we saw bears twice, but I don't hunt critters. They were out
doing their business and so were we.

I don't carry a rifle on those trail walks. Why would I want to? As far
as I know, there are no Viet Cong or innocent Vietnamese women and
children out there.

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.

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.

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.

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.