I have a Ruger Mk I T678, a Ruger MK II T512, a pair of early High Standard Model 107 Victors, and a new S&W Model 41.
Here's my take on them - and the Ruger Mk III and Mk IV that I don't own.
The Rugers:
The Mk I, and in particular the target models were very accurate pistols and particularly at their price point. The Mk I didn't have an automatic bolt hold open, but the slide could be locked back manually with the safety after the last round was fired.
The Ruger Mk II added an automatic bolt hold open as well as a separate slide release and scallops on the rear of the receiver to give you a better grip to retract the bolt. The Mk II is widely regarded as the peak of the Ruger Mk .22 LR pistol evolution. I agree with that as it had everything you needed and nothing you didn't.
The Mk III was apparently designed by a committee of Ruger attorneys who added useless things like a loaded chamber indicator and a magazine disconnect.
To be fair, they did drill and tap the receiver for an optic, which is a plus. They also moved the magazine release up on the grip behind and below the trigger in the "normal" location. That however was a mixed bag. If you had a Mk II or late Mk I, your magazines didn't fit the new Mk III. Worse, if a new shooter inserts the magazine in the base of the Mk III backwards, he or she can get it jammed in there to the point it will not come out without some gunsmith intervention.
The Mk IV retains the lawyer features, and changes the way the receiver attaches to the frame. That makes it easier for people to field strip it, but it wasn't a hard process before, unless you only cleaned in once every year or two and forgot how it was done. Even then, it's comes back to you after a minute or so. To be fair then the Mk IV makes field stripping "easier".
The cost of that however is a receiver to frame connection that over time will leave the frame to slide fit looser than is the case with the Mk I-III.
It also doesn't do anything thing good for the classic lines of the pistol. I guess if you are one of the folks who likes threaded muzzles, suppressors and tactical do-dads on your pistols you might not mind.
The triggers on all of them Mk I - IV are not bad, but they leave a lot to be desired if you want to use it for target purposes. They can all be improved significantly with an aftermarket trigger, like the Volquartzen hammer, trigger and sear package. They will greatly improve the trigger, but it won't come close to matching the S&W 41 or the High Standard 107 Victor.
The S&W Model 41
Old versus new? I think the new Model 41s have fared better than many other pistols that have been around. The polish declined around 1990, but I have not complaints about the finish on my recent Model 41.
Fit however can be an issue. I carefully inspected the one I *thought* I was buying only to have it switched out for one still in the box. When I first got it to the range, I discovered the safety was so poorly fitted you could barely get it to move. So fit is a **** shoot and be sure you carefully inspect and function test the one you actually buy.
The High Standard Victor.
The early Victors have a much better finish than the later Victors, so it's worth your time to understand the roll marks and timelines involved.
Back in the day when a Ruger Mk I Target cost around $100, the S&W Model 41 cost around $200 and the High Standard Victor cost around $240, and the High Standards were a little harder to find. The triggers on the Victor are slightly better, and are easily adjustable.
Otherwise the preference for one or the other is largely subjective and is based on how well each fits your hand. I prefer the Victor over the Model 41, but I like the Model 41 just fine.
------
Someone commented above that the Model 41 is basically obsolete and that the Hammerli, Feinwerkbau, and Pardini pistols are where it's at for a true competitor. That's probably true, but none of them speak to me the way a Victor or a Model 41 do.
In terms of rank order of preference I'd list them this way top to bottom:
High Standard 107 Victor
S&W Model 41
Ruger Mk I T678
Ruger Mk II T512
Note here that my preference for the Mk I over the Mk II is based on the heavy tapered barrel, which - for me- balances better than the 5" bull barrel on the T512. Both weigh the same. That said I shoot both of them equally well.
However, when I pick up the S&W 41 or the High Standard Victor, my scores will pick up by about 15 points over the course of a match. That's due to better ergonomics and the better triggers.
Similarly, I prefer the 7" Model 41 to the 5 1/2 Model 41. For me it balances better.
