Joe Williams
Shooter
- Jun 26, 2008
- 10,431
- 38
True. The gun is unnecessarily complicated. Even the manual suggests "tapping" it with a hammer. Out of the box, count on some good hammering. A steel pick or at least a paperclip is needed just to get started. The swivel pin in the back of the grip is a doozie to manipulate. I can hear someone grunting already: the MkIII (MkII too) has a cult following. Many guys walk proud because they COULD take it down and reassemble. Besides, it is an elegant gun. It has a pedigree. But it will not outshoot the mundane Beretta Neon or the Browning Buckmark - much more practical single-action target pistol. Question is, do you want to buy into the whole romance of the Ruger, or have a less demanding user-friendly pistol. You decide. ::Going into hiding::
The MKIII is a PIA to take down, mostly because some sadist decided it would be fun to make you keep putting the magazine in and taking it out as part of the procedure. Other than that, it's just not as bad as it's made to sound above. First time or two you take a brand new one down, you might need to tap it with a mallet. After that, I've always been able to get the receiver off just by smacking it with the palm of my hand. I've never needed a paper clipor anything, just used my fingernail. Once I figured out how to do it (and it does take doing it a couple times) I've never had a problem reassembling it. Two minutes tops, half that for the MKII, to take down, same to reassemble. Takes twice as long for Sean's MKIII because I still have to read the manual to figure out the frigging magazine dance.
I do find both the MKII and MKIII 5 1/2" Target models to be MUCH more accurate than the Neos, and a little more accurate than the Buckmark. No more reliable than either, though, since all three have worked very well indeed for us.