Rimfire Central Firearm Forum banner

Ruger Mark IV

62K views 282 replies 112 participants last post by  BKDinTexas 
#1 ·
Mark IV?

These pictures have been floating around on the internet recently and you guys are the Ruger experts, so is this legit? They supposedly came from http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/08/daniel-zimmerman/coming-soon-ruger-mark-iv-22-pistol/ but it seems to have been deleted. Even the cache is gone.





An elaborate forgery? An answer to the Victory? Something for shot show next year or the new unannounced product? Sorry if this has been posted before, I didn't see a thread.
 
See less See more
2
#230 ·
You know the clear plastic packages that cheap scopes are packaged in? I cut 4 small pieces off. Placed two on both the front and back of the front sight. I put some lock tite on the screw and cinched her down. Can't even tell it's their but it did elevate the front sight a bit. I'll let you know if it was enough.
 
#229 ·
The AR-15 platform has these issues, and it's one of the most accurate semi auto rifle platforms out there. Plus it's a .22 L.R. All but recoilless.
I don't exactly agree. With the upper secured in a vise it won't affect accuracy, but secure the lower in a vise, which is similar to a rifle is actually held, and it will not group well. Shooting with a sling the shooter uses tension to remove the play.

I think you will have trouble finding a competitive bench rest shooter with a sloppy fitting upper and lower that isn't wedged.
Like factory ARs factory guns should not have a problem. If VQ wants to make a competition accurate upper they may have to add a nylon set screw as one company uses on their ARs. I would be surprised if it was necessary though.
 
#231 ·
About the fit and beta tester stuff. I'm less worried about Ruger than other companies. Ruger has few recalls and is great about making things right with customers. Thanks for the report, I was just curious about the fit with the new style.I cannot stand play in a competition AR, I have two that I have bedded as prescribed by the US Army rifle team, zero slop and you must remove the upper vertically, those two shoot really good scores. My MKIII 22/45 has a little slop in the fit but shoots great.
 
#232 ·
KY Gun Co has all kinds of Ruger MK IIIs for sale. Some very reasonably priced. Somewhere there is a site that monitors all the gun shops and keeps track of the best deals. You order one, free shipping, no tax...have it sent to your local gun shop with a FFL, pay them $20 or so and go shooting......at least it works that way here. M1911
 
#238 ·
I just have to comment on some earlier posts about how good the S&W Victory is. To me it is the ugliest and oddest shaped pistol that I have ever seen. I'll stick to Rugers!
I with you, ha I couldn't get one either just doesn't look right. But I think the Marks are all sexy, and haven't managed to blow one up yet. And to be honest I have always enjoyed tear downs, cleaning and re-assembly on the Marks.

Jason Garvin
 
#237 ·
Ruger rep said they stopped making Mk IIIs three months ago. No more Mk IIIs.

No plans for a threaded Mk IV until the Mk IV 22/45 is released. The 22/45 will definately be released, soon.

He's going to fix the torque problems on the machinery at the factory to ensure that all of the screws are properly torqued on the new Mk IVs.

I've mounted a scope to my Mk IV Target, and will shoot it from the rest tomorrow.
I'm not the best bench shooter, especially with a pistol. I'm not even very good, but I'll have some measure of the pistol's ability, I hope.
 
#244 ·
Shot my Mark IV Hunter today. 100 rds CCI 36 gr Mini-Mag. Off a rest, 10 shots into 1.25" at 25 yards. No malfunctions or misfires.

The only problem was, with the rear sight cranked all the way down, it was still 2 to 2.5 inches high at 25. Needs a taller front sight. I will be calling Ruger toorrow morning. But I will probably put a red dot on this one since it shoots so well. I like it!
 
#246 ·
Shot my Mark IV Hunter today. 100 rds CCI 36 gr Mini-Mag. Off a rest, 10 shots into 1.25" at 25 yards. No malfunctions or misfires.

The only problem was, with the rear sight cranked all the way down, it was still 2 to 2.5 inches high at 25. Needs a taller front sight. I will be calling Ruger toorrow morning. But I will probably put a red dot on this one since it shoots so well. I like it!
:Welcome: to RFC and the brand ~NEW~ Ruger Mark IV forum. It's very obvious that you are well aware of how your new pistol should be "seasoned" with high velocity ammunition (CCI Mini-Mags) before you go to the .22 rimfire Standard ammunition. After a "break-in period" your pistol will handle standard and high velocity .22 rimfire ammunition equally as well.

It's too bad Ruger chose to use the rear sight blade that they did for these new pistols. There have been quite a few of the Ruger Mark III Hunter owners who have gone with the more congenial "U" notch rear blade, so that may be something you might want to consider. That rear sight notch will give you a bit more of adjustment in the direction you want to go.
 
#245 ·
Another 450 rounds through my Target. Not as many FTEs, but still a bothersome number, perhaps five. I was surprised that it occurred using Minimags.

Started with a scope mounted. A cheap Long Eye Relief NCStar 2-7X. At 7x the ground shakes unmercifully, even with a rest. The trigger is not well adapted to this type of shooting.


I can detect the slightest movement in the lower/upper assembly. Really have to look for it.

Could not zero my Reflex sight. Ran out of elevation. Tried shimming it to no avail.

This is a shame, because the plates were falling pretty quick using holdover, with the Reflex. Must fix this.

The screw at the take down pivot point is loose again. Needs Loctite.
 
#247 ·
My somewhat limited experience with MK series pistols and failure to extract and light or no firing pin marks has to do with a dirty chamber. The ones I had, had pretty tight chambers. They will get dirty.....22s are blowback operated and if there is too much drag on the case in the chamber...no ejection. Likewise..there is only so much energy to chamber a round......if the chamber is dirty a round might not feed properly....won't fully seat due to the dirt and if a round won't seat it will give when struck resulting in a light strike and if not seated even more....the bolt face won't be tight against the rim. M1911
 
#253 ·
Good question.

I watched a utube and the presenter showed the parts and the camera focused on that part and it looked plastic. My wife even commented.

Caution--that don't make it plastic. It was black but al or steel could also be black.

Im watching for the answer.
 
#260 ·
Would like to see a Mk IV KMK512GC.

Just read the latest Guns and Ammo. Lists the trigger pull weight for the Hunter as 6 lbs, 3 ozs and the Target trigger pull weight as 4 lbs, 10.6 ozs.

What gives with the difference in trigger pull weights?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 
#262 ·
Would like to see a Mk IV KMK512GC.

Just read the latest Guns and Ammo. Lists the trigger pull weight for the Hunter as 6 lbs, 3 ozs and the Target trigger pull weight as 4 lbs, 10.6 ozs.

What gives with the difference in trigger pull weights?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
That would seem about right.
My MKIII Hunter and MKIII Target differ in trigger weight....target being lighter by a bit.
Not 2 lbs difference as mentioned in G&A.
 
#269 ·
Would like to see a Mk IV KMK512GC.

Just read the latest Guns and Ammo. Lists the trigger pull weight for the Hunter as 6 lbs, 3 ozs and the Target trigger pull weight as 4 lbs, 10.6 ozs.

What gives with the difference in trigger pull weights?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Very good question. :bthumb: I'm guessing it's more like unintended happenstance. It's difficult to engineer a specific trigger pull weight into any firearm design with the myriad of manufacturing tolerances involved. My WAG for the day, along with long time experience involved with manufacturing, tells me there is more likely a pull-weight range that they try to achieve, rather than some specific edict from the legal department. It will be interesting, as more and more RFC members acquire a Ruger Mark IV, to see what the factory trigger pull weight actually measures.

One thing for sure, as I get them in, I will record the pull weight for my records.
 
#274 ·
I would have thought that a hunting gun, carried in the field, would want a heavier trigger since an unintended discharge could be far worse than at a range. A Target model is intended (yeah - I know...) for use at a target range, and can have an easier pull since it is FAR more likely to be pointed at a the target, rather than in a belt holster or carried in the hand.

My 52B has a much lighter trigger than my 1885, for just that reason.
 
#268 ·
#271 ·
When you consider the fact that a GOOD replacement trigger on a AR-15, or a Remington 700 will run you in the neighborhood of $200.00 to $300.00+ (top of the line Jewell). You have to expect some let off variance on a gun that costs barely double that. Triggers are delicate, precision instruments that are built to very close tolerances. And they require fine tool steels and precise heat treating methods. None of which come cheap.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top