Ruger 22 auto pistols, highly overrated

[Suwannee Tim]

In my opinion the Ruger 22 pistols are the most highly overrated handgun of all time. They shoot good, I concede that. I had one years ago and after shooting it I cleaned it. Took two days. Took a day to take it apart, ten minutes to clean it and a day to put it back together. Ridiculous and absurd. It was stolen not much later and good riddance. I have several High Standards now, both old Hamden models and the new ones made in Texas. They field strip in about 20 seconds. Much better.

[Tom]

The Ruger MK series comes apart and goes back together like a Chinese puzzle: difficult until you learn the tricks. Once you learn the procedures, it comes apart in 5 seconds, cleans in 5 minutes, and goes back together in 10 sec. (I don't seperate the upper and lower receivers unless I am pulling things down to work on the trigger components.)

I don't have a High Standard. I know they are very good. I do have a S&W 41, in addition to my Rugers. It comes apart quicker than about anything I have seen: just pull the trigger guard and the barrel lifts out.

[pawn]

Many a gunsmith's family has been fed by the MK pistol design.

Having said that, I will agree with Tom. If you take a bit of time to learn the process it really isn't difficult at all. To each his own.

[fyimo]

They are a little tough the first few times but not bad after that. They also sell and aftermarket kit that makes the whole process much easier.

[Suwannee Tim]

Remember the title. The Ruger 22s are highly rated, no one will argue with that. My point is that they are overrated. I don't think it is a daunting task to design a 22 pistol that is economically producable (as is the Ruger), accurate and reasonably easy to disassemble and assemble. I have no patience for spending hours learning a task that ought to take a few minutes to learn.

[mr.t7024]

Now some of you will think this strange, I clean my pistols with 87 octane. Do it in the summer outside the house. Rarely do I have to disassemble pistols, the 87 octane does it all,and the crap that comes out of these pistols proves my point. By the way the 87 octane is murder on lead build up.The only drawback they need to be aired out, does not take long, and then oiled. Try it, you will be surprised, and maybe just approve quietly! Needless to say, grips come off!

[Teejay9]

Originally Posted by mrt

Now some of you will think this strange, I clean my pistols with 87 octane. Do it in the summer outside the house. Rarely do I have to disassemble pistols, the 87 octane does it all,and the crap that comes out of these pistols proves my point. By the way the 87 octane is murder on lead build up.The only drawback they need to be aired out, does not take long, and then oiled. Try it, you will be surprised, and maybe just approve quietly! Needless to say, grips come off!

That sounds like it's worth a try. Should the grips be removed first? You don't strip it at all? Do you have a little tank or bucket and just put it in for a few minutes, or soak it for a while?
BTW, I don't think the Ruger's are overrated, I like them a lot and am always surprised that you get a lot for the money, but that's just me. TJ

[Alpo]

Having seen people in a burn ward, I have no desire to clean anything with gasoline. But maybe that's just me.

"Takes hours to learn"? It took me longer to learn how to field strip a 1911 than it did a Ruger 22.

[mjpchief]

My 9 yr old Grandson can completely disassemble my MKII clean each part and reassemble it in about 45 min. I guess you just gotta know what you're doin'.

[fleetwood1976]

I'm pretty much an idiot, but I read my manual and got through it OK.

[pawn]

Originally Posted by fleetwood1976

I'm pretty much an idiot, but I read my manual and got through it OK.

100's of instructional videos on utube as well.

[fyimo]

Here's a utube video on cleaning the Ruger MK series
http://www.majesticarms.com/id10.html

[LDBennett]

Suwannee Tim:

Your opinion on the Ruger is your own and a bit slanted just because the Rugers are different to disassemble and reassemble. My opinion is that assessment is not fair. The Target versions are excellent shooters with good accuracy, totally reliable feeding of ammo, and totally reliable extraction/ejection of fired cases. Operationally these are excellent guns and make excellent, reliable, durable guns for starting shooters. Cleaning them is a different situation.

The problem is getting the hammer strut back into the gun correctly. If you only clean with a spray cleaner or soak it in solvent not GASOLINE (of course, you HAVE TO remove the grips!!) then the gun is no worse or easier to clean than any other gun. But if you insist on taking the gun down to clean (and I do!) all you need to do is follow the instructions that come with the gun. The position of the barrel (pointed up or down) is vital to getting it back together so it will work again. It is easy if you just follow the instructions.

There is a kit that allows the bolt to be removed without separating the barrel from the frame or unhooking the hammer strut from its spring. It is the Hammer strut that is the problem and this kit makes cleaning the gun a snap. My Ruger does not have this kit and I just break out the instruction manual when I clean the gun. I cuss a little and have to try a couple of times but it doesn't take me a day to put it back together... more like minutes.

This was the first product of the then brand new Ruger company, released in 1947. This time in gun design was a product of what was learned in WWII with the use of welded stamped sheet metal parts. This gun reflects this in spades. The fact that the design is over 60 years old and has such a good reputation is amazing to me. The contrast is the S&W 22A guns or some of the new European guns that failed out of the gate. The Ruger 22 all steel guns are great guns that shoot well, are reliable and durable.

I too have a couple of High Standards. These are fine shooters, competition bred, superb triggers but are not always totally reliable for feeding ammo. They are ammo sensitive and magazine dependent. I love my Connecticut Hi Std gun but the Texas one was a ten year long challenge to get to feed ammo (typical, because the Texas organization made mistakes in the cloning design, probably fixed in later versions, maybe). The Hi Std's if not treated kindly (nothing but Std Vel ammo and new recoil springs regularly) will crack the frames. I don't think Rugers do that (??). Don't get me wrong I love my Hi Std pistols but they are delicate, and finicky about ammo. Not so with Ruger MK series all steel versions. While S&W Model 41's are better, they are not nearly as rugged or durable or reliable as the Rugers. I have all these guns and I recommend the Ruger for a new shooter, especially the all steel target guns.

We all get our opinions and mine differs from yours. I think mine fairer than yours, so I presented it so as to be fair to the the Rugers.

In this case my family's common expression while assembling anything applies in spades. It was "read the directions". It totally applies to the Ruger Mk series guns.

LDBennett

[wingspar]

The Ruger Standard is a pain to disassemble and reassemble, but there are some good video tutorials on YouTube. Without the videos, I cold never have broke this gun down, let alone get it back together. Breaking it down isn’t too bad once you do it a couple of times. Reassembling it remains a pain. However, I will never sell mine, as my father bought it brand new in 1950 for $37.50. The sentimental value exceeds it’s monetary value, and it’s fun to shoot.

Not good that yours was stolen. Who would want one of their guns to go to a criminal?

[mr.t7024]

Well I never said soak it in gas, but I will say with a little brush, a bore brush and a large plastic coffee container you can not go wrong. For those doubters try it, you might quietly agree. By the way gas is a lot cheaper than bore cleaner!

[mr.t7024]

BTW, I have a S&W 41, Gov Mark II Ruger, Browning Buck Mark, S&W 17, and a High Standard Supermatic,. I dislike the Browning, the S&W !7 and the Ruger are the best of the best!The other two are not far behind.

[coreyacp]

could someone post a pic of ruger auto 22??

[Slabsides]

I have a 1961 Standard. I don't see what the problem is to take one down, clean and reassemble. It only takes seconds. It drives tacks and runs like a Singer sewing machine on whatever kind of .22LR I put in it.

One has to admit that it is a brilliant design. Basically a Luger/Nambu mix. They are very different which leads people to either love them or hate them. I love mine and would not trade it for any other .22 pistol.

[coreyacp]

Originally Posted by Slabsides

I have a 1961 Standard. I don't see what the problem is to take one down, clean and reassemble. It only takes seconds. It drives tacks and runs like a Singer sewing machine on whatever kind of .22LR I put in it.

One has to admit that it is a brilliant design. Basically a Luger/Nambu mix. They are very different which leads people to either love them or hate them. I love mine and would not trade it for any other .22 pistol.

Ohhh cool ok thanks so it basically is a german luger copy?

[Slabsides]

Not exactly. It's function is closer to a Japanese Nambu pistol. Bill Ruger designed the Standard with a Nambu-like rear-pull bolt after duplicating a Nambu in the 1940's. The rest of it closely resembles a Luger. The functioning of a P08 Luger is verrrrrrrrry different.

[Slabsides]

Nambu



Luger P08



Two absolutely brilliant designs which Ruger blended nicely.

[gdmoody]

Not necessarily a Luger copy but some of them do resemble it, mine doesn't.

[RJay]

My first Ruger was in 1968, used with no manual ( and no Internet ). I found it easy to disassemble, but until I learned the trick, well yes it took me an hour or so to reassemble. If you follow the manual, I find it is very simple to field strip and reassemble. Remember, when all else fails, read the directions.

[coreyacp]

directions suck! lol

[Tom]

Directions? Are we that desperate? lol

My MK III Hunter