Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevens
Long before I would consider or accept a MkIII or MkIV, I would spend the same or a little more money for a clean MkII.
The MkIII gives you the ability to mount an optic without drilling the gun and it gives you the traditional push-button magazine release. The MkIV adds the easier field stripping.
However both of these come at a great cost... the horrific loaded chamber indicator, the awful magazine safety -AND- less quality across the board as we’ve seen from basically any/every/all gun makers in recent years. And I loathe the S&W 22-A series of pistols almost as much.
I would choose a pre-2000 S&W Model 41 over any Ruger, but know going in that it may be finicky. I would take any Ruger Mk-series over any Model 41 made in the last 20 years.
And I would choose a five dollar gift card to Tim Horton’s over absolutely any S&W Victory .22 pistol.
|
Totally agree. To me the MkII was the best Ruger pistol produced. The MkIII was the nanny gun, with unnecessary safety features. And the MkIV was made for idiots who couldn't figure out how to reassemble the previous Marks. And they promptly had a recall shortly after being introduced.
Also, the quality of all aforementioned guns come into play. The older, the better.
And Tim Horton's coffee is the best. Period.