Hunter or Slab target?

biggrizzly · #1 11-22-2006, 08:23 AM

I'm debating the merits of these two MarkIII pistols. I like the Hunter but was concerned it might be rifled differently than the Target model with the slab-side barrell.

Any pros or cons over either gun?

What would your choice be?

TIA

Tap · #2 11-22-2006, 08:41 AM

All the barrels will have the same twist, so chose what feels best to you.

Bigfoot62 · #3 11-22-2006, 09:14 AM

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong,

but I believe the Competition Target has a "target trigger." The Hunter will not. Also, you can search in this forum, but I think you will find that the general opinion here is that if you can find a Mark II Slabside, buy it instead of the Mark III.
I have a Mark II Slabside, and it's great.

biggrizzly · #4 11-22-2006, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigfoot62

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong,

but I believe the Competition Target has a "target trigger." The Hunter will not. Also, you can search in this forum, but I think you will find that the general opinion here is that if you can find a Mark II Slabside, buy it instead of the Mark III.
I have a Mark II Slabside, and it's great.

What are the differences beside the mag release being moved and the chambered round indicator?

UndeadGladiator · #5 11-22-2006, 09:35 AM

From what I understand, and I've been doing my research, nothing!

-JB

shakta · #6 11-22-2006, 12:20 PM

That is what I found as well. A lot of people don't like the 'lawyer' features on the new guns.

**Vincent** · #7 11-22-2006, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UndeadGladiator

From what I understand, and I've been doing my research, nothing!
-JB

Wrong!! I'm not sure how much "research" you have done but:

There are two other "issues".

First there is the ugly and unneeded "Loaded Chamber Indicator" on the left side of the receiver. The early ones were steel and did not look too bad but they also caused the pistol to fire if it was dropped or hit on it. Rugers answer was to make it out of plastic so it could not fire a loaded shell.

Secondly there is the "Magazine Safety" that prevents the pistol from firing if the magazine is removed. This one complicates and already somewhat complicated assembly/disassembly procedure. Some folks don't like the idea that if they are out in the woods and loose a mag they can not use the pistol as a single shot. That does not bother me. The additonal complication in working on the pistol does.

I see the mag release as a plus. I do not mind the heel type release on my KMK678GC as I do not shoot "combat" with it and speed of mag realease being a half second faster with MKIII does NOT out weigh the two other "bad" features. I would much prefer the MKII to the MKIII.

Mine shoots consitant 1/2" groups at 25 yards and 2" groups at 100 yds:

biggrizzly · #8 11-22-2006, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vincent

Wrong!! I'm not sure how much "research" you have done but:

There are two other "issues".

First there is the ugly and unneeded "Loaded Chamber Indicator" on the left side of the receiver. The early ones were steel and did not look too bad but they also caused the pistol to fire if it was dropped or hit on it. Rugers answer was to make it out of plastic so it could not fire a loaded shell.

Secondly there is the "Magazine Safety" that prevents the pistol from firing if the magazine is removed. This one complicates and already somewhat complicated assembly/disassembly procedure. Some folks don't like the idea that if they are out in the woods and loose a mag they can not use the pistol as a single shot. That does not bother me. The additonal complication in working on the pistol does.

I see the mag release as a plus. I do not mind the heel type release on my KMK678GC as I do not shoot "combat" with it and speed of mag realease being a half second faster with MKIII does NOT out weigh the two other "bad" features. I would much prefer the MKII to the MKIII.

Mine shoots consitant 1/2" groups at 25 yards and 2" groups at 100 yds:

Vincent,

Thanks for your take on the differences of the two generations. Still it looks like nothing to really whine about. The plastic indicator - "no big deal", both of my Glocks and other guns are full of plastic parts with no problem thus far. As far as the Mag Safety goes, yeah, I can see this as an inconvenience to some, but since I will be using this at the range most of the time and will purchase several extra mags this doesn't seem to be a problem either. What I do like is the relocation of the mag release. I have had three other MarkII, and always bought the bigger mag release wheel for the bottom of the mag well. Now that won't be necessary. Oh by the way, How easy is the current Mag Release to operate? Does it take a lot of effort? ergonomic? I was told it is just like most guns now, up on the grip frame?

It's just a nice feeling to buy a brand new gun in the box, even though it will only be brand new until I fire it once.

Take Care
donhaller
Severn, Maryland

recumbent · #9 11-22-2006, 04:22 PM

I was hooting one of my KMK678GC MKII and then shot a friends MKIII when you shoot them back to back you can really tell the difference in the triggers. The MKIII is a lot harder because of all the mag disconnect safety built onto the trigger mechanisim.

I have a MKII KMK678 SS slabside for sale in the fore sale section.

**Vincent** · #10 11-22-2006, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by biggrizzly

Vincent,

Thanks for your take on the differences of the two generations. Still it looks like nothing to really whine about. The plastic indicator - "no big deal", both of my Glocks and other guns are full of plastic parts with no problem thus far. As far as the Mag Safety goes, yeah, I can see this as an inconvenience to some, but since I will be using this at the range most of the time and will purchase several extra mags this doesn't seem to be a problem either. What I do like is the relocation of the mag release. I have had three other MarkII, and always bought the bigger mag release wheel for the bottom of the mag well. Now that won't be necessary. Oh by the way, How easy is the current Mag Release to operate? Does it take a lot of effort? ergonomic? I was told it is just like most guns now, up on the grip frame?

It's just a nice feeling to buy a brand new gun in the box, even though it will only be brand new until I fire it once.

Take Care
donhaller
Severn, Maryland

You should buy what makes you happy. As I said I had no real issue with the mag release either. I have a big issue with anything that makes the trigger worse and the gun more complicated. I really feel the "if I lose a mag" arguement is spurious. Who cares?

I've shot several plastic guns including Glocks, They look like plastic.Plastic is ok on a plastic gun. Plastic in the stainless slide looks ugly to me.

As far as buying NEW guns....I bought my slabside "as new in box" the dealer knew me and knew I would be interested in saving $100 on an unfired "preowned" as he called it, gun. I was very happy to save that $100.

YOU should do what makes you happy. You asked what the differences were and those were my answers.

Unfortunatly, right now if you want the MKII Slabside you might have to pay $100 MORE than the MKIII. Very few new ones left and the dealers know people want them. Glad I got mine 3 years ago.

You will love your new MKIII.

greener · #11 11-22-2006, 05:12 PM

I fired a MKII Government TGT model before I bought my MKIII. I bought a Hunter (stainless steel) because I liked the HiViz sights better (old eyes) and the target models had the thumbrest on the left grip. I wanted to be able to shoot right and left-handed. I can't recall any differences in triggers. The Hunter trigger was good before I did a VQ trigger/sear/hammer upgrade. Now it's much much better.

The only thing I've noticed about the LCI is that it seems to allow gunk to collect. That adds a minute and a Qtip to cleaning. Heck, I've paid so little attention to it, I didn't even know it was plastic.

The mag disconnect is an incovenience in a field strip. You have to put it in to release the hammer when taking the pistol down and when putting it back together. No big deal, adds about 15 seconds because I always put the mag where I can't find it. It's probably not a bad safety feature for those who don't believe in looking in the chamber to ensure that it is unloaded.

The Hunter may be a bit less barrel-heavy but it shoots darned well. Either the Hunter or the target model will do a fine job.

biggrizzly · #12 11-22-2006, 05:23 PM

Vincent,

Really, thanks - your comments are appreciated and I weigh them in. If I can find a MKII that is new or like new, I would surely buy it. But I also don't want to wait around too long. I got an itch that needs scratchin'

**Vincent** · #13 11-22-2006, 05:50 PM

Either ways guys it truly comes down to picking nits. They are both GREAT guns. I like the muzzle heavy feel in rifles and pistol as it "hangs" on target better but once again, personal preference.

Having read what the folks at Shilen have to say about fluted barrels I may never choose one. So again I would choose the round barrel or the slabside. I really like 51/2 bull barreled gun. That would be my choice for a "walking in the woods gun". What ever you choose, you have nor gone wrong if you buy a Ruger MK. This is the gun that made Bill Ruger's name and it is a better gun now than it was then and there are not to many firearms you can say that about. Enjoy your new pistol. Be sure to post and tell us all about it

flbache3 · #14 11-24-2006, 12:58 AM

Just because I have one, I have to go with the slab target model. I love that thing!