Ruger Mk. IV thread

>looks like a luger yet fires shitty rimfire
>costs more than a doublestack 10mm 1911
>still just a .22lr, not even .22mag
If I wanted a .22 plinker pistol I'd get a PMR-30 which doesn't cost 800 fucking dollars.

>>31489193
>the point
>your head

>>31489174
Sex

>>31489174
I've never had to take one apart, I have shot a couple though.

I have heard people love it, but would often forgo shooting it because it's not worth the hassle of having to clean it afterward.

>>31489193
>poorfag
>800 dollars
>lowest cost NIB Mark IV can be had for >500

Thinking of selling my Mk3 for one. Hoping they do a 22/45

>>31489193
>doublestack 10mm 1911
>less than 800
Wut

>>31489227
No, that's the point. The Mark IV is basically break-open like a shotgun or an AR. They specifically redesigned it to be easier to clean, apparently.

Don't know how I feel about them, OP. Too fresh, haven't shot one or taken one down yet, but I'd love to get one.

>>31489229
Also this.

File: 1471205012900.jpg (53KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 1280x720px

>>31489174
Nickel+Wood Grips = sex

>>31489174

I mean good for Ruger for improving it, but I'm just going to get the speed strip kit and disable the magazine disconnect on my Mark III 22/45.

Standard when?

fucking baffling that they still serialize the barrel assembly.

>>31489193

Several places are selling the Hunter model at or under $600. They have cheaper models too.

Will it come with a hunter/target barrel and threaded?

i'm been wanting to get a semi auto .22lr pistol. I just don't like the suppressor hose options. All the them have short and lighter barrels.

Been thinking about a Buck Mark Hunter and just having a smith cut threads onto a spare barrel.

>>31489270
>No, that's the point.
I was aware of that, kind of the point of my post

>people love it
>don't shoot it cause stripping it sucks
>ergo it's probably a good buy

Didn't really express that last part tho, but it was my intent...

Personally I wanted it when I saw that flagship improvement. I've held off from buying them because of it, so it may be next on the wishlist.

Beautiful gun.

>>31489347
>fucking baffling that they still serialize the barrel assembly.

It's called the receiver, and all receivers are required to be serialized.

>>31489193
It's not trying to look like a Luger. It has the same grip angle as a Luger because it's the most ergonomic angle.

File: Ruger Mark III 22-45 target pistol.png (85KB, 517x357px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 517x357px

>>31489583

The M1911 grip angle on the 22/45 is definitely more ergonomic which is why you don't see the Luger grip angle that often these days.

The reason why the original Ruger Mark I had the Luger grip angle is because .22lr magazines are more reliable and feed better into the Ruger's action if they are angled. So you can't make the magazines as straight as you would thus the angled grips. If you get a 22/45 model with the M1911 style grips you'll see that the magazine goes at a slant relative to the grip.

As to why the new one has those grips, its likely an homage to the original and because it looks cool. They'll probably make a 22/45 version later.

>>31489193
>Ruger = Luger
>GUYS I CRACKED THE DAVINCI CODE!!!

Actually, there's no connection whatsoever between Ruger and Luger. You're just an idiot who thinks that words have special powers that they don't.

File: Nambupistol2465.jpg (105KB, 1024x738px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1024x738px

>>31489674

The original was actually modeled off the Jap Nambu more than anything else.

>>31489655
A 1911 angle may be better for a two-hand grip, but the Luger angle (or even more extreme) is definitely superior when a one-hand grip is preferred or required, like in a pistol match. Google "target air pistol" and look at the crazy grip angles.

>>31489695

Man, I wish the Ruger had a mag release like that. The heel release sucks dick.

>>31489174
I want one.
Glad they finally decided to do something about the ridiculous takedown.

>>31489561
And why exactly could it not be on the grip frame like the cast majority of other hand guns?

There are other guns that uses bolt in "receiver" (which is commonly reffered to the barrel assemble or receiver-barrel assembly becuase the barrel is not user replaceable) which the serial are located on the frame.

Maybe it's the fact that the barrel isn't user replaceable that makes the entire "upper" (yes, people call it that as well) the fire arm, as opposed to other similar designs that do have user replaceable barrels. If that is the case, then why didn't Ruger redesign how the barrel is installed? The already went through the trouble of redesigning the takedown.

Ruger must know that there is an after market for barrels, as people are willing to just buy new "firearms" from VQ or TacSol for a new barrel.

>>31489174
How am I supposed to put a nugget bayonet on that?

>>31489752
they haven't had heal releases since the Mk II

>>31489752
The mk iv actually moved the release to the proper place.

>>31489174
Would buy one today.... if it was threaded

>>31489776

Practically every handgun in the world is serialized in this way.

>>31489193
It's based on the Type 14 you retard

>>31489776
>cast majority of other hand guns

Ignoring the fact that you cannot spell the word "vast", name a single handgun that isn't serialized in this way.

>>31489174
love it- but the MKII disassembly never bothered me because I'm not retarded. I'm glad more people will enjoy the platform though. it is the best affordable 22 on the market that isn't a shit meme like the PMR30.

>>31489174
>Ambi safety.
>No Heel magazine release to complement the safety.

Just one small adjustment, and it'd be perfect for left-handed shooters.

>>31489174
I still don't like the grip angle on the Marks. It looks nice but I'm only paying that much for a .22 if it's a revolver.

>>31489193
it's a crappy overpriced Kel-tec that fires a powerful round out of its short barrel, rendering it more expensive than a .22lr but with absolutely no advantages. It's the same problem a .357 snub has.

>>31489347
They have to serialize the barrel assembly, and they probably couldn't change it.

>>31489561
>It's called the receiver, and all receivers are required to be serialized.
It's called the receiver only because it's the serialized part. More legalese and semantics than anything. If the frame were serialized you'd be calling it the receiver and you'd call the "receiver" the barrel assembly like he did. He's not wrong, and technically neither are you.

>>31489776
>And why exactly could it not be on the grip frame like the cast majority of other hand guns?
Because that's how it was designed back in 1949. Ruger probably decided to serialize the barrel assembly because it had more room to put a serial number on it and he didn't anticipate people would want to swap or modify it or anything back then.

That's all it came down to, the ATF has no real requirements (surprise) other than an integral part of the gun has to be serialized.

Nowadays they either didn't change it cause they still don't care (I doubt that) or it was far too much trouble to do so (more likely). If there's any way you could marry a Mark IV barrel assembly to a Mark III frame you could have a firearm that was completely, legally, unserialized.

>>31489817
>Ignoring the fact that you cannot spell the word "vast", name a single handgun that isn't serialized in this way.
Are you retarded? Almost every handgun out there has the frame serialized. Other than this gun the Ruger American and the Sig P320 are the only ones that broke the mold and serialized the trigger assembly (which, yes, would technically be called the receiver now).

File: SW22_Victory2_zpswmlk8uyt[1].jpg (169KB, 936x588px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 936x588px

>>31489817
>>31489810
Are you people for real? Ok, sure there are gun which have serial numbers in multiple locations, but the serial number that matters, in the US at least, are almost always the one on the frame.

You want an example, lets use a gun that is similar to the mk series; the new smith victory 22. A single location on the grip frame.

>>31489887
>Are you people for real? Ok, sure there are gun which have serial numbers in multiple locations, but the serial number that matters, in the US at least, are almost always the one on the frame.
True, but this is not the case with the Ruger Standard/Mark series. For them the serialized part is indeed the barrel assembly. Look online for them and they will all say they require an FFL to ship. Then look up frames, they don't have that requirement.

See >>31489867

It's just the way the gun was made.

Consider the AR platform and then consider the SCAR platform. Very similar firearms mechanically, with the obvious difference of the action, but aside from that their respective components are in the same places. Yet the AR's serialized part is always the lower, whereas for the SCAR it's the upper.

It comes down to the manufacturer's decision contingent on ATF approval. Because the AR is manufactured by so many, the ATF requires all AR lowers be serialized.

Of course other parts CAN be serialized, Glock serializes it's barrels for instance, but they aren't considered a "firearm", whereas the frame is, and a 100% frame, made by either Glock or by Lone Wolf or by anyone else, would be treated as such.

>>31489239
Rock Island makes one. Rock Ultra FS HC 10mm. MSRP is ~$750.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (674KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

674KB, 2560x1440px

since this is a .22 thread, how about this

>>31490007
>True, but this is not the case with the Ruger Standard/Mark series. For them the serialized part is indeed the barrel assembly. Look online for them and they will all say they require an FFL to ship.
yes, I know that and thus why I asked the original question of why ruger is still doing it like this. I'm just responding to the guy who think that the ruger mark way is the common way.

Now that I actually think about it, it could be so that they can just reuse the serialized portion across the different models, including the 22/45, which is probably still going to be a polymer grip.

>>31489867
>It's called the receiver only because it's the serialized part.

It's called the receiver because it receives the other components.

You have every single component except the receiver and you cannot make it fire. You can have just the receiver and build the other parts out of plastic or wood and make it fire.

This is why laws exist, Anon - because things actually happen in the real world. They aren't just made up on the spot so that you'll lose an internet argument.

>>31490092
You didn't read my post, or you lack the capacity to understand it.

If Bill Ruger had submitted his design in 1949 with the frame as the serialized part then that's the way it would have been today.

The ATF has no requirement other than an integral part has to be serialized. Again, see SCAR vs AR and get back to me.

>>31489174
I'll buy one once they release a threaded version.

Too expensive. The AR15 style disassembly was a great call.

>>31490117

You were just wrong, deal with it.

Writing sixteen paragraphs in an increasingly upset and breathless tone isn't going to change reality.

>>31489782
Do they actually fit? I need to know...

>>31490208
Slightly loose but practically a perfect fit. If you have both you have to do it, it's amazing.

>>31490208
Should work with any mkI-III. I've only done it a mkII

>>31490791
>>31489782
I'm going to need a picture of this.

>>31489174
Why is the grip in between the chamber and barrel

>>31491120

What?

>>31490863
I'm trying to find the picture friend sit tight

File: 1474936830915-k.gif (67KB, 230x230px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 230x230px

Who would buy a double stack mkiv with 30rnd capacity

>>31489174
Why not get a Buck Mark?

>>31489174
The onlu thing I wish I could buy thanks to CA's shitty laws.

I have a collection of Browning Buck Marks and the main selling point to me besides that it was the only one available to californians, but that it's slightly easier to take apart for cleaning.

This Rugrr Mark IV is basically the game changer where a 22lr pistol is easy to field strip...it's almost too easy and scary.

I'd want a saftey detent to push while pushing the take down button to avoid accidenyly breaking it in half when drawing it or in a combat scenario.

>>31489227
You know this hun just came out two weeks ago and it's nain selling point is that you can field strip it faster than a glock, right?

>>31489291
Stainless steel baby.

>>31489752
Mark IV not only has a normal button telease, but it has a mag ejectir like a Buck Mark.

>>31491309

Rimmed ammo in a doublestack mag?

>>31489174
I like the beretta u22 my self. It doesn't cost to much and is OK for target shooting

>>31490863
See>>31491541

File: 20160928_161433.jpg (1MB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1152px

>>31491563
Foroot the damn pic

>>31491535
pmr30 does it

File: 1670_2.jpg (54KB, 800x432px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 800x432px

>tfw burgerfats will never shoot good .22 pistols

>>31489174
Is it true that the Mk II and the others were really that much of a pain to takedown?

>>31492063

please see, cunt

>>31490061

>>31492217
>Tacticool ratkiller
>good

>>31492266
The victory is hardly tacticool

It's not a bullseye target shooter either.

If anything, it's a decent starter race gun for steel challenge.

File: babe.jpg (135KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 600x600px

>>31492266
let me shoot at your central incisors bro!

>>31492290
even with the volquartsen mods?
>https://www.volquartsen.com/departments/sw22_parts

>>31492338
A lighter barrel is not a bullseye barrel. When they say target, they don't mean 25m Olympic or nra bullseye.

A light barrel and a comp is meant for fast shooting and target transitioning. Like I said, steel challenge, or anything in which speed is more important than accuracy.

Of course, you can use it for bullseye shooting if you want, but you are probably better off using the factory barrel.

>>31492447
fuck it, cheap plinker

>>31492447
Note, I'm not saying that VQ are not accurate, but rather a highly modded victory can't really directly be compared to a dedicated bullseye target shooter.