I have several Mark II and III rugers but none are threaded, and I'd prefer to keep them original. Looking to buy a pistol dedicated to using a suppressor. I'm leaning to a ruger Mark IV lite, just out of familiarity, but am open to better options. Any reason not to get the mark IV lite?

I have zero experience with a Ruger pistol but I love my S&W Victory. It has a factory threaded barrel and shoots amazingly well. I put a FFII on the factory rail and can bust clay pigeons at 80 yards without breaking a sweat. Probably more aftermarket support for the Ruger though.

Get the Ruger. I have 3 and love them.

Sent you a pm

the Ruger lite NEEDS the weight of the can to be accurate, IMO. I don't shoot my lite buckmark(without) as well as I do with the can attached.... a little forward weight settles it right down.

Is that with the fiber optic sights? That is appealing as my eyes don't work as well as they did when I was younger.

put a reddot on 'er.......

I've got a MKIII target with a red dot. I prefer sights. Might still ho with a red dot or holographic sight of some sort though.

Based on gun books I read as a kid, I always wanted a "K-22 Masterpiece" for it's accuracy. I briefly owned a 6" 617 almost 20 years ago and after testing it off a bench rest at 25 yards with a scope and a dozen different types of ammo, was really disappointed in it's accuracy, plus the gun was heavy.

In 2014, I bought a MKIII 22/25 Lite and did a few mods to it like the Slingshot conversion, removal of the LCI, Volquartson trigger & sear. Never formally sat down and tested it, but while it was absolutely a blast to shoot, I got mediocre groups shooting offhand. But then I wasn't expecting much out of it.

Here lately I had been toying with the idea of buying another 617 in 4" or a 17 "Classic" and mounting a scope on it to see if I could get good results accuracy-wise. A few months back, I came across a deal on a Weaver pistol scope and bought it. I also got my first suppressor in late spring of this year and decided to put the two together on my 22/45 Lite just to try it out off a rest. I just grabbed the first box of ammo nearby and got this...



Kind of negated the "need" to buy a 17/617 for accuracy. In my online research of 17/617's for group size, almost everyone says something like, "shoots better than I can hold", but they never tell you what that number is; and of the very few examples I saw of actual group size, most weren't even in the running compared to that one from my 22/45 Lite. (That being said, I just bought a 4" 617 and a 3" 63 in the last two months, but not because I hope to beat the 22/45 for accuracy.)

Between a Ruger MKIII 22/45 lite and S&W Victory I find myself grabbing the Victory more often. Really like them both. Accuracy edge slightly to Victory. With out the can I shoot the Victory much better I think because of its weight.

Love Red Dot’s on these. Burris FFIII and Ultra Dot’s. More mods available for the Rugers I suppose but Tandemcross covers the Victory’s pretty well.

By the way, brand new the Ruger needs trigger help, the Victory is pretty good.

I've got two Ruger Mark 4's 22/45's (also had just a plain Mark 4).

The "Ruger needs trigger help" above is an understement. Unaltered mine have ran almost 5 pounds to 6 1/2.

A VQ trigger kit will run you about $120. Spendy, but will take it down to around minus 3 pounds (about where it should have been when it left the factory!).


Jerry

Ditto above experiences on the MkIV trigger. From experience with my dad's MVIV 22/45 Lite, not only do they have a staple gun trigger pull, they're not a "swap out the hammer" fix either. Nearly the entire fire control group needs replacement. Swapping between his MkIV 22/45 Lite, and my target trigger, hammer spring flipped, Buckmark makes a ridiculous contrast. If they'd kept the MkII/III triggers with the new takedown system, it would be an amazing pistol.

Agree with all of the above.

I tried the same mods that worked on my Mark 3's to no avail.

I'm a long time user of Ruger's 22 pistols AND primarily the left handed safety was the deal-maker... so I ponied up the money for the VQ kit.

If I was picking up my first I would calculate the $120 cost of a VQ kit in the price when comparing it to other pistols.

Jerry

If you have a couple of MKIIIs have you thouht of converting one of them to a threaded upper... I have three of the MKIII Hunters and used the 5.5" as a base for a Tactical Solutions Pac-Lite upper.

Love how the balance sits the gun back in your hand....not too heavy and not too light....












Suppressor is a TS AXIOM Titanium....

Also just bought a Ruger 22/45 LITE, all black and it also matches with the suppressor very nicely. Is very light however and does need a trigger job...

Bob

Kodiakisland: The "quietest" suppressed rimfire pistol I have shot is one owned by my long time Ground Squirrel Hunting friend from Louisianna.
He added a custom heavy barrel in caliber 17 Mach2 (that came threaded) to a stainless Ruger MK-II - he added the suppressor and it is indeed impressive on how quiet and how accurate it is (with red-dot sight).
Good luck in your venture.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

I found a stainless, threaded "upper" for my Ruger MK II some years back, and added a suppressor to it. Has a C More Slide-ride Red Dot I added, and it has been a real joy of a handgun for pest control/small game, "woods walking", and nights sleeping in our woods cabin.

Also, just damn "fun" to shoot! Especially "quiet" with sun sonic ammo.

Mike Holmes

I would vote for the buck mark. I have/had a bunch but the buckmark is my go to. With the design it doesn't catch near the crud that my S&W, rugers, walter or conversions kits due. Which for the 22lr is huge. The noise is similar, but the Buckmark is very accurate with a cheap itac red dot.

Don't know what you want to do with it. I've used a Smith and Wesson M&P 22 suppressed quite a bit. I love it, plenty accurate, and has been more reliable than my old buckmark. It's light, and small, but comfortable to hold. I'm impressed.