Talk:Ruger MK II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Firearms (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Comparison to P38[edit]

How is this a more efficient model of the Walther P38, if the P38 used 9MM Para, while the Ruger MK II uses .22LR?

MSTCrow 00:46, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
It bears no resemblence whatsoever to the P-38. It bears a superficial resemblence to the P-08 Luger, but the Luger was a short recoil design and the Ruger is a blowback. scot 19:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I'm not sure the section on the MKII jamming on extraction belongs at that heading level. Also, if "major issues with the pistol" is listed, the somewhat tricky disassembly/reassembly should probably be mentioned somewhere. Dean 18:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I kind of object to the phrase "One of the Ruger rimfire pistols' most prominent flaws", since it implies that the pistol has many prominent flaws. I own one, and unless mine is a fluke... Dean 18:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that section can probably be yanked--the Ruger's are are not unreliable, they're about as reliable as an autoloader gets in .22 LR. For example:
My suggestion for the beginner looking for an entry-level pistol is to consider the Ruger Mark II. Its accuracy is excellent and its reliability is second to none. Its only flaw is that its trigger action as it comes from the factory, is usually criticized as long and sloppy and merits an inexpensive trigger job.
from You can jam up ANYTHING with bad magazines or bad ammo; try shooting .22 CB longs out of a 10/22 without radiusing the feed ramp on the magazine first... scot 22:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

External link on reassembly of the MK II[edit]

After 2 hours of trying unsucessfully to reassemble my MK II after cleaning, I read the Wikipedia MK II material and external link on reassembly. Voila! Success on the first attempt. The very tricky procedure for properly engaging the hammer strut with the mainstring assembly was clearly explained and captured in excellent photographs. Thanks for very helpful and clear instruction. Bbcards46 (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it that angle is pretty critical. My first experience was actually with my mother's 5 digit serial # one, made back when it didn't even have a model name. Someone had borrowed it, and tried to clean it, and returned the parts in a bag. I had never see it apart before, and it took about an hour of fiddling to get a good grasp of what was going on inside before I figured out how to get the hammer strut positioned just right over the mainspring. Since then, I've talked a bunch of people through the process. Once you know what the problem is, it's easy to get back together. scot (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


Someone added that the Mark II needs to be cleaned quite often to remain reliable. I'm going to have to disagree, as I've seen folks *never* clean their Mark II, save to q-tip enough gunk out so that the bolt fully closes without a problem. Thoughts? Dean (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


"Together with the MK I, the MK II was the suggested handgun in Paladin Press's controversial how-to book, Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors, due to low cost and reliability." I'd like to see this pulled entirely, as the "controversial how-to book" was apparently originally written by a Florida housewife as a crime novel. "Eric Bana used one of these in the movie Munich!" holds about as much weight, it'd seem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talldean (talkcontribs) 17:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Millions of Ruger Standard, Mark II and Mark III pistols have been used for target shooting and as sidearms for hunters, trappers and fishermen. But the notable fact is that it was recommended in a fictional hitman manual? I vote not notable. Naaman Brown (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

ammo reliability[edit]

.22 is not known for its reliability. In fact, rimfires are known for being less reliable than centerfires. (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It's relative...depends on the manufacturer, age and storage conditions for either rimfire or centerfire cartridges....but they are reliable (both of them..this isn't either/or).
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ruger 22/45[edit]

After looking at Ruger's official website, they list the 22/45 as one of the items still avilable (information can be found here). The page contains a redirect from Ruger 22/45, while also stating that this firearm (the Mark 2) has been discontinued in favor of the Mark 3. Is the 22/45 simply a variant/rename for the Mark 2, or is the 22/45 an unrelated firearm that should be given it's own page? If it is the same...then either this page is incorrect in stating that the Mark 2 is no longer available, or the page on the company's website is mistaken in some way. Or maybe I read something wrong, which is also possible (and quite likely). -- (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

They were originally released as Ruger Mk II 22/45. Completely different frame but based on the Mk II. It was an attempt to cater to those who thought that a 45 style grip angle was better and is a styling variation. Magazines, grips, and other parts do not interchange with Mk II or Mk III. The current version is a Mk III 22/45. Owing to the cheaper cost, 22/45s became the ubiquitous default training weapon of America's target ranges.
The first product manual is here if you would like to explore further. The photos and differences are explained on page 9.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture?[edit]

I know its generally frowned upon, but I was curious what anyone thought about adding an "in popular culture/media" section. We could include its use in the movie Collateral (film), among some other references (check imfdb) -Deathsythe (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I would be against it. WP:Firearms#Pop reason these are frowned upon is that it becomes a lot of extra work deleting where references to the use in some video game occurs. Learned by experience, it is better not to open that Pandora's box at all.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I would tend to agree, but the Mk II is essentially Vincent's Walther PPK, or George Clooney's character's Mini-14 in The American. It was iconic for the movie itself, and used in almost every promotional spot (including the main theatrical poster (which is on the article I linked to) -Deathsythe (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Respectfully, your analogies fall short. Neither character have the fame associated with James Bond (your PPK reference above). The Mini-14 article does not contain Clooney's usage either. These really wouldn't be worth making exceptions.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
To be fair, with the exception of the blatant parody that is Austin Powers, I don't think many characters will achieve the level of fame Bond gets/has. Perhaps the inclusion of specific weapons is better suited on the movie/media pages, instead of the weapon pages themselves. Just trying to get more exposure, and comprehensive linkage between pertinent articles. -Deathsythe (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)