Totally agree that some mk iii changes were inspired more by Ruger legal dept and hurt the shootability of a great pistol design. Bad call on Ruger's part, still not fixed to this day. Personally, I've sold off my last remaining 22/45 as I just did not enjoy shooting or using them that much as other folks seem to. On the question of 22/45 vs Buckmark, my personal response is "neither". The only .22 pistol I have left--and that I DO shoot regularly because it gives me lower cost recoil-free training on a serious pistol platform that I care about--is a Nelson custom 1911 conversion that is more accurate than any stock 22/45 heavy barrel or Lite I ever owned (had a total of 5). And I can drop the Nelson on my 1911 that already has a great trigger and an operating system I'm familiar with. Being a lefty, the 22/45 RH biased controls have always been awkward and annoying. Haven't owned a Buckmark, but I assume that like the 22/45 its operating system is not going to be similar to any serious centerfire pistol I care about, and not particularly LH friendly, so not that interested. I don't expect other shooters feel the same way about this as I do, which leads to the next point.Originally Posted by Lefty223
Despite Ruger's bad design changes and my personally moving on from the mk iii 22/45, they are still a very accurate and reliable .22 at the price point if you're convinced you want one. I don't think somebody who's decided they want a .22 of this type makes a bad choice by getting a 22/45, even the mk iii. You can easily solve the magazine disconnect problem with a $10 part that anybody can install. Just install this part, maybe improve your trigger with Volquartsen sear and trigger parts, add better aftermarket sights, and for maybe $100 to $150 beyond the price of the pistol, you'll have a pretty shootable 22/45. One heads up on 22/45 accuracy: I consistently see mixed reviews about the accuracy of the 22/45 "lite" models. I owned one (recently sold), and I experienced what many shooters have, it was difficult to get them to group as tightly at 25 yards+ as the heavy/steel barreled 22/45's. Don't know if this is an inherent accuracy issue with the lite barrels, or just because the lighter weight up front makes it more difficult to stay on target. I just know my last one didn't shoot nearly as accurately as my heavy barreled older ones. If I were buying a 22/45 today myself, because I want my .22's to be extremely accurate, I'd get one with a steel/bull barrel. Even if you get a used one with a steel barrel in good condition. Or if you get the light, then get an aftermarket heavy barrel from somebody like Volquartsen or Clark Custom Guns so you can switch between the light and heavy uppers whenever you want. Problem there, is that with a 22/45 the barreled upper is the serial numbered part of the pistol, so it'll be expensive and going that route can easily equal the original cost of the pistol.
Here's the tandemkross bushing to fix the mag disconnect issue in the mk iii 22/45. Oops I see somebody else already mentioned this.
https://www.tandemkross.com/Steel-Ha...stols_p_9.html
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks