# Ruger .22 pistols



## Amateur13 (Nov 14, 2013)

Hey guys,

Ok I need some thoughts/suggestions. I'm trying to decide between either a Ruger 22/45 stainless model #10110 or a Ruger MKIII stainless target model #10103. The MKIII has replaceable grips but is about $100 more. So I guess my question is, is it worth paying that much more for the replaceable grips? The pistol is mainly just going to be used for target shooting. 
Thanks!


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

Well, the option to replace the grips also allows the "feel" of the pistol to be easily changed, by adding grips that are larger, finger-grooved, rubber, or otherwise different than the stock grip panels (Laser grips, too!). With the grip panels molded into the frame, you lose all of those options, and are limited to things like adding grit-surfaced tape or a slip-on rubber sleeve to adjust the way the pistol interfaces with your hand. In addition, the replaceable-grip model you referred to has a sharper angle on the grip frame, faithful to the original old-style Ruger .22 pistol, where the 22/45 has a more gentle grip angle, specifically designed to reproduce the feel of a Colt 1911-style .45 pistol (thus the 22/45 part of the model name). I should also mention that the steel-frame model can have grips added that change the apparent angle of the grip frame (by adding material at the bottom-front), almost perfectly copying the frame angle of the 22/45 (although it may be slightly more bulky due to the added filler). However, the 22/45 can not be easily modified to to mimic the sharper grip angle of the model 10103.

Finally, weight is a factor, as the synthetic/polymer/plastic grip frame on the 22/45 saves about 7 ounces of total weight in similarly-barreled pistols (35 vs. 42 ounces in your two choices, above). Having the lower made of a lightweight material vs. steel also significantly changes the balance of the pistol, making the 22/45 feel more top-heavy to many shooters, even though it actually weighs less than the other, similar steel-framed model. This is not necessarily a bad thing, just different.

I'd say the 10103 is probably the more versatile of the two models, unless minimum weight is an important factor. On a personal note, I've owned and shot both styles, and most Ruger .22 pistol models, over the last few decades, and the only one I now own is an older MK-II 22/45. 

Good luck with your selection!


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

A metal framed handgun will always be worth more than a plastic one. 

And.....you can leave it on the dash of a car in Phoenix, AZ. in late July, and it won't warp. :mrgreen:


----------



## Oppy (Nov 29, 2013)

I have a a 22 year old Mark II and a one year old 22/45 I purchased for my wife. She likes mine better. So do I. The Ruger .22s just seem to get better with age :> 
Steel frame with replaceable grips, in my case, is a definite plus.


----------



## Bhoffman (Nov 10, 2013)

When you say "Target" do you mean plinking or Match shooting.

If you might do any match shooting stick with the all metal MKIII. There are some nice "upgrade" kits available from Volquartsen.


----------

