Fun pistol, and the resemblance is..well..
 

The Ruger .22 MK series. Just picked up a III a couple months ago. What a fun pistol! Altho dis/re-assembly can be “problematic”. I damaged it the SECOND time, and brought back to selling agent. Sent to Ruger, repaired and back again..not ONE RED CENT. Excellent service!

Great gun and a lot of fun!

A word of caution, they go together quite easily- IF they are done correctly; if it
feels like you are "forcing" something- Don't! ;) Because you are.

you will learn some new cuss words cleaning that sucker.....there is a right way and all others are WRONG.......some good videos on the net....i have a I, II, and III...a really nice invention...good weapons........and really cheap to shoot and practice your marksmanship....

You are fortunate. Many years ago, I had a stainless Ruger .44 magnum Super Blackhawk that had an obviously offcenter front sight. They're soldered on, so I sent it in for service. They did not charge for service but I had to pay shipping & FFL charges both ways. And when I got it back, it was still off center. :(

Practice and patience will teach you the "right way" - but you'll also come up with your own little tricks. I can now re-assemble mine without having to refer to the Internet - but it wasn't always that simple!

If the Mk IV had been available at the time I bought my III, I would have bought the IV and not looked back - but now that I know how to deal with the III, there's no particular reason I'd want a IV over it.

Old Bill got the Nambu styling pretty well! :rockon:

Those Luger looking Ruger Marks look great, and Rich yours is one of the best looking models. Congrats! With practice the reassembly process will get easier. I have a Mark III stainless competition target. I had to deburr and polish the frame and parts. Doing that and with about 1k rounds, it cycled and shot and reassembled much, much better. They are great 22s.

The Mark IV seems to be a wonderful improvement over the earlier MKs, since they made cleaning so much more convenient.

That Mk IV looks intriguing. I have a Mk II and I absolutely love it, but the take down/reassembly method definitely leaves room for improvement. They are extremely good pistols though, very accurate, reliable and easy to shoot.

I have held off buying one of the Mark lll guns because of the breakdown/assembly process. A good shooting buddy has one, and it really rings his tail when he has to clean it.....so he doesn't shoot it much anymore.

I have been reading about the Mark lV, and it looks real promising. I hear nothing but good things about the early Mark model .22cal pistols......except for disassembly/reassembly. Ruger may well have a real winner here.

I just returned from a Ruger .22 rim-fire challenge match this A.M., in which I used my 70s vintage Ruger Standard, which is basically a Mark I. If I need a reliable, accurate, easy-to-shoot .22 auto pistol, this is the one. Its finish isn't the greatest, but this aspect allowed me to pick it up from an auction for only $150 a couple of years ago. Its no-frills operation--no hold-open, and bottom-mounted mag release are a little annoying, but the sweet shooting makes up for that. I'll be buying and installing an extended mag release, so that will eliminate half of my gripes!

IIRC, the original Ruger "Mark" was the "Standard" .22 pistol was their first product, and Bill Ruger did overtly design the grip and grip angle to mimic the (then popular) (corrected below... to Nambu) Luger.

There is more detail in a great book, Bill Ruger and his Guns

I bought and read the book, and later ended up buying stock in the company (that has done quite well)...

My first pistol was a Mark I, also purchased in the 1970's...

The Rugers don't need to be disassembled for cleaning nearly as often as they usually are. Just wipe out the chamber and bolt cycling area with a Hoppe's-soaked Q-tip (and the barrel if you wish) and you can go thousands of rounds without having to go further.

They are even fun when they are "vewy,vewy quiet"!

There is a trick to reassembling the Mk2s. Once you learn it they go back together with ease. There should be a YouTube primer on this method.

Not quite: It was actually derived from the Nambu.

I have been switching over to this routine in most of my semi-auto pistols recently. For years and years I shot a gun.....I cleaned said gun the same/next day. I am beginning to believe that I was a bit too OCD in this matter.

I have been using the "light" cleaning method with my 1958 Hi-Standard Supermatic Trophy pistol for Bullseye matches for quite some time now. It's actually much more important (for that gun) that the magazines be clean for reliable operation, when they start getting a crud buildup you will get misfeeds, therefore I clean them carefully with a long wood-handled cotton swab after every match. The Hi-Standards have no feed ramp so the rounds have to be angled perfectly coming out of the magazine to hit the chamber cleanly.

I have 2 of these and have never taken them apart, I use a bore snake to clean the bore and I take the grips off and spray with gun scrubber, dry and light lube never had a problem and I have thousands of rounds through them,but I only shoot standard vel ammo

I have the 4" bbl stainless MkII, and the only point of contention I have is the lever in the backstrap...I now use an old rifle cartridge case to pry that booger out with... :rolleyes:

:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::order:

You guys that dread disassembling and reassembling a Ruger obviously need a broomhandle Mauser in your lives...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Standard

"n 1949 renowned inventor, gun designer, self-taught engineer, and entrepreneur Bill Ruger wished to produce and market a new handgun; and acquired a World War II Japanese Nambu pistol from a returning US Marine. Ruger successfully duplicated two Baby Nambu pistols[3] in his garage. Using the Nambu's silhouette and bolt system, Ruger produced his first prototype, but lacked the venture capital necessary to fund its introduction."



I've only taken my MKII all the way apart twice in the last 15 years.
Fired thousands of rounds. Q-tips, barrel brush, and Hobbs followed up with fresh lube is enough to keep it going! :)

Roland... I was only pulling Zorba's chain... we have a running comical exchange on the merits/inadequacies of the Nambu... Bill Ruger took the concept to the next and appropriate level. The Nambu has always looked like it was sent to production while still in the prototype stage to me.... just my not so humble opinion... :D

Beg to differ.

Never had trouble disassembling a C96. The Ruger on the other hand...

I could see this coming a mile away. :D

Long gone are the days when the Japanese used a side arm that John might aprove.

Attachment 62092


This forum has been too quiet lately. :rolleyes:

Of course, from the WikiPedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nambu_pistol

"The Nambu Type A outwardly resembles the Luger P08 pistol but functionally is more similar to the Mauser C96.[3]"

I guess, what goes around, goes around and around and around...

John has a secret back room that nobody is allowed into except him. Its full of Arisakas and Nambus! I have it on good authority that the T-94 is a particular favorite of his... :D:D:D:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::burnout:

Well I certainly agree with that!

But imagine an 8mm Ruger MKII. Wouldn't that be something!

As far as the Type 94 there must have been bribery involved with getting that into production.

Well, here's something close... :p

John,

Looking at a T-14 Nambu, we see a C-96 Mauser top and locking system (modified yes) and a Luger bottom and magazine.

Notwithstanding the late war production "junk", I prefer the Nambu system to the toggle system of our beloved Luger. Why? Because it is not so ammo sensitive, yet, it is still as highly accurate.

Just my experienced opinion. Others, of course, may not agree with me.

Sieger

Zorba,

I bet there is a tape out there, from 10 or so years ago, on with John speaks about Japanese firearms in a lustful way.

Rumor has it, that the Washington Post has just now started looking for it, as, of late, they have been very preoccupied finding the Trump tape.

Sieger

Well, since they can't find Hillary's emails...

The T 14 late war "finish" may have deteriorated, but the pistols are not "junk", they work as intended, JMHO.

Folks frequently confuse "appearance" with "quality of purpose".

Don,

Yes, I have three "Late War Junkers" and they do, indeed, work.

However, they lack the class of the beautifuly finished "Pre Wars".

Compare a 1945 Nambu's finish to a 1945 P-38's finish and you will note a real difference.

Yes, Hitler seems to have made the "quality of purpose" mistake relative to the Russian weapons. For instance, my Soviet Mosin Sniper rifle looks like hell, but will shoot less than 1/2 inch, 100 yard groups, all day!!!

Sieger

Zorba,

A liberal newspaper wouldn't be looking for her emails, but maybe the Washington Times can find them.

Putin has them all anyway, as he has been reading her correspondence, every night, for years.

Maybe Snowden found them for him!


Sieger

Snort!

Mine's a "17", it isn't a Walther for sure, but it isn't bad looking. Sweet shooting pistol, very accurate. Of course it should be accurate at $1/rd!! :crying:

:eek:
If you'd roll your own it would be a lot cheaper.

I bet Sieger will tell you the same.

Well... jeez... who’da thunk a little American made (OK not so little, but..) pistol would generate such exchanges :D

And I just called “Tiberius” and told him the news. He wants to buy the Luger back :D

Yea, it would. And certainly never say never. But I'm not there yet.

What has the "appearance" to do with your statement that they "work"?

The implication was that there was/is something wrong with late war pistols- other than aesthetics- they are identical to pretty ones.