Re: Ruger Mark IV Announced
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:10 pm
I made that mistake exactly once.The Annoyed Man wrote:Praise Jesus! I won't take my 22/45 apart anymore.
The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
I made that mistake exactly once.The Annoyed Man wrote:Praise Jesus! I won't take my 22/45 apart anymore.
You must be some kind of genius. I've rebuilt carburetors and superbike motors, but that daggum 22/45 has gotten the best of me most of the time.george wrote:Maybe I am the only one in the history of the world that never had any problems with take-down on my Rugers?
Steel receiver, with 5 1/2 bull barrel mark 2 was the best target gun I owned. Foolishly upgraded to a High Standard Supermatic. The High Standard is more accurate with expensive Eli match ammunition, but the Ruger ate everything, all the time.
I like my NEOS too. But will be tracking the MK IV...Beiruty wrote:I still like NEOS 22 in Inox. But this Ruger is tempting.
Just like carburetors and superbikes, taking them apart isn't the hard part. Putting them back together and making it work is the problem. I've had a couple of the Rugers Mark series and it's just something you learn to live with. Sometimes it's a little harder than others but I've worked on many other things that were worse. Fiat X1/9's come to mind...The Annoyed Man wrote:You must be some kind of genius. I've rebuilt carburetors and superbike motors, but that daggum 22/45 has gotten the best of me most of the time.george wrote:Maybe I am the only one in the history of the world that never had any problems with take-down on my Rugers?
Steel receiver, with 5 1/2 bull barrel mark 2 was the best target gun I owned. Foolishly upgraded to a High Standard Supermatic. The High Standard is more accurate with expensive Eli match ammunition, but the Ruger ate everything, all the time.
Started out with a Ruger Mk II Standard a very long time ago; main problem I had was learning the exact angle of elevation to hold the barrel so the hammer strut(?) would mate properly when I re-latched the backstrap thingamajig......for getting the barrel on and off the frame, I had a little plastic headed mallet. Just tap the appropriate end of the barrel/bolt carrier to unseat/reseat the barrel on the frame. Same methodology worked on the Mk II 22/45 Stainless that replaced the Mk II Standard. I never disassembled beyond removing the bolt and taking the barrel off the frame. From there, everything was accessable for cleaning/lubrication.......george wrote:Maybe I am the only one in the history of the world that never had any problems with take-down on my Rugers?
.
Ironic that you just posted this. I was considering trying to find one of the new Mark IV's and then ran into a few recommendations for the Victory. Began reading up on them and it wasn't long before the "takedown screw" problem reared its ugly head.JustSomeOldGuy wrote:The Academy's in my area currently have the Smith & Wesson Victory 22 on sale for $349.99
Only way I've seen to beat that is if you qualify for the law enforcement discount thru Buds Gun Shop, until you factor in shipping and the FFL fee.
No, you only need to hold your mouth right, work on it during the proper phase of the moon, and mutter the proper incantations, and then it will assemble as it should.The Annoyed Man wrote:You must be some kind of genius. I've rebuilt carburetors and superbike motors, but that daggum 22/45 has gotten the best of me most of the time.
n5wmk wrote:No, you only need to hold your mouth right, work on it during the proper phase of the moon, and mutter the proper incantations, and then it will assemble as it should.The Annoyed Man wrote:You must be some kind of genius. I've rebuilt carburetors and superbike motors, but that daggum 22/45 has gotten the best of me most of the time.