Ruger Mark III issues

[Tyler Kemp]

Hi everyone, asking for a buddy who just got a Ruger 22/45 Mark III and we had some issues. All ammo used was Remington Subsonics.

1) Kept hanging up when trying to feed the first round, no matter how many were in the magazine, sometimes they would nose up and jam, sometimes they wouldn't even make it to the feed ramp and would jam facing straight forward.

2) First round from a magazine you'd pull the trigger, nothing would happen, then when you let go it would reset the trigger and go off with either a very light trigger pull, a few times I'm 90% it fired by itself

3) Several failures to eject and feed

4) Trigger seemed pretty damn heavy and creepy


Any suggestions, or should this gun go back?

 

[jbell]

Problem 1: sounds like the mag may be the problem, have you tried a new mag?

Problem 2: I don't think it is mag related but may be, but it sounds like the main spring may be binding when the slide is pulled to the rear by hand (slide may be going too far back).

If this is a brand new pistol, I would try a new mag and if that has no change call Ruger. Best of luck...

 

[devert]

Worst purchase I ever made. Bought a 22.45 light 6 months ago. all the same issues. There are lots of threads for the fixes on the rimfire sites. I replaced the magazines with aftermarket ( after trying a mod I read about on the factory ones), polished the ramp, all the trigger action parts, replaced the disconnector, removed the loaded chamber indicator, new sights, replaced the bolt release, did the takedown mod. $200 plus into a $400 gun it sortof runs.

 

[Rustybroadhead]

I was actually going to buy one this weekend. LGS was running a sale but when I went there and handled one.... When I released the slide, the magazine would release as well. the first time it happened, I thought maybe the mag wasn't fully seated to begin with. Then it did it again, and again.... I gave the salesman the gun back and decided I would do some more research and go a different direction. I think QC needs some immediate improvement

 

[rmfield]

De-lawyered my MKIII 22/45 Lite and touched up the sear myself. It runs flawlessly. No problem with factory MKII or MkIII mags. I mostly run CCI subsonic (suppressed), but I haven't really come across anything it doesn't like. Mine is from early production of the black version.

 

[Charger442]

De-lawyered my MKIII 22/45 Lite and touched up the sear myself. It runs flawlessly. No problem with factory MKII or MkIII mags. I mostly run CCI subsonic (suppressed), but I haven't really come across anything it doesn't like. Mine is from early production of the black version.

why run subsonic in that pistol? the beauty of the 4.4" barrel is in keeping standard velocity subsonic, depending on the temperature of course.

 

[N0mad]

Bought a 5" bull barrel MKII back in 1985 still looks new... Wouldn't sell or trade it for anything.

 

[rmfield]

why run subsonic in that pistol? the beauty of the 4.4" barrel is in keeping standard velocity subsonic, depending on the temperature of course.

You are right. I actually meant to say CCI Std. Velocity. I just think of it as subsonic, because it is.

 

[dddoo7]

Mark II's are much nicer pistols than the mark III's. I would rather a well used mark II than a new mark III. I shot my mark II 22/45 today. Ran great.

 

[rmfield]

dddoo7:
I agree, but a de-lawyered 22/45 Mk III basically makes it a II and you can't get a "Lite" II without a TacSol upper and those are pretty pricey. If you don't want the aluminum upper and you can find a II, that's the way to go.

I'm sure that the Ruger 22/45 Lite was in response to the success of the TacSol, but unfortunately Ruger's idiot lawyers have more clout than the guys that actually know something about firearms. Its sad that the consumer has to undo so much lawyer crap to get a decent gun.

 

[dddoo7]

dddoo7:
I agree, but a de-lawyered 22/45 Mk III basically makes it a II and you can't get a "Lite" II without a TacSol upper and those are pretty pricey. If you don't want the aluminum upper and you can find a II, that's the way to go.

I'm sure that the Ruger 22/45 Lite was in response to the success of the TacSol, but unfortunately Ruger's idiot lawyers have more clout than the guys that actually know something about firearms. Its sad that the consumer has to undo so much lawyer crap to get a decent gun.

I run mine currently with a PAC lite upper. I still have the original stainless upper, but it is not threaded for my can.

If I couldn't get a hold of the mark II I wanted then I would "delawyer" a mkii. Like you said...about the same.

 

[Cory10/22]

Ditto. $149 or something at the Local. Only wish I had a matched pair.

Bought a 5" bull barrel MKII back in 1985 still looks new... Wouldn't sell or trade it for anything.

 

[BurnOut]

I have a 22/45 Lite, and it has been nothing but fantastic... it has run 100% both suppressed and un-suppressed since I got it, with the factory lawyer bits in it, and after I de-lawyered it with $60 in Tandemkross parts (GREAT stuff, BTW).

Regarding the OP's gun, has it been disassembled at any point? I have to admit that I don't know enough about the gun to point a finger at a specific assembly error or defective part, but I WILL say that, until they're de-lawyered, the MkIIIs are unnecessarily complicated to take down and reassemble... and it's easy to get something wrong.

Don't misunderstand me... I am not saying that the gun IS assembled incorrectly, I just want to raise the possibility as something to verify, is all.

 

[Tyler Kemp]

We will shoot it some more and report back.