# Ruger MKIII Lifespan?



## Shredwood (Feb 26, 2009)

Recently I took a class where the instructor provided the students with ruger MKIII pistols. He told us that he knew these guns like the back of his hand, due to the fact that he has seen them fire 75,000+ rounds. The only thing I could think of was "Wow." Can others attest to the durability and lifespan of this firearm? It was a *blast* to shoot recreationaly and I am now thinking of picking one up.


----------



## Guest (Mar 13, 2009)

I don't have one of those pistols specifically, but I do have some rifles and shotguns that are over 80 years old and they come out of the gun case every hunting season. Almost any gun, properly maintained, will probably have a longer lifespan than you!

Scott


----------



## Pistolero (Mar 6, 2009)

I love my MKIII Gov't/Comp model with the 6 7/8" barrel. I've shot thousands of rounds through it but nothing close to those numbers. Fortunately, the Ruger Mark series pistol has been on the market since 1954. The original Mark, Mark II and Mark III pistols are more similar than dissimilar. You can still buy and shoot original Mark pistols, so I'd say they are built to last. Changes made to the MKIII include a side mounted, 1911 style mag release vs. traditional floor plate latch, trimmed down bolt ears, a loaded chamber indicator and a safety that keeps the gun from firing w/o the mag inserted. All else has remained true to the original.


----------



## oak1971 (Apr 28, 2008)

If you can kill one, you would be the first. I have owned all 3 versions. Latest being a mk3 target bull barrel.


----------



## MLB (Oct 4, 2006)

I've shot nothing like 75k rounds through mine (MKII ct), but it's far more substantially built to handle .22lr loads than my P99 which is abused by .40cal cartridges. I don't think you can hurt a MK.


----------



## DevilsJohnson (Oct 21, 2007)

I have untold thousands of rounds through my MKIII and it's as good today as it was new.


----------



## grammy (Mar 5, 2009)

Can anyone compare the Rugar Mark III to the S&W 41? The S&W was expensive and the Rugar looked better built.


----------



## Fred40 (Jan 7, 2008)

grammy said:


> Can anyone compare the Rugar Mark III to the S&W 41? The S&W was expensive and the Rugar looked better built.


The 41 is a favorite among bullseye shooters. It's supposed to be more accurate but in practice the better shooter will win with either gun.

All things being equal the 41 probably does have a slight edge at 50 yards. But you pay for that difference both in price and in a more finicky weapon. It likes a more particular diet of ammo.

The Rugers will shoot anything you can feed them......and keep on shooting them in the hands of your grandchildren and great grandchildren.


----------



## DevilsJohnson (Oct 21, 2007)

I've heard time and again that the Smiths are better shooters but I just don't see it. I've not owned one but shot many. Maybe it's just how I shoot but I just don't like it as much. I'd take the Ruger hands down over the Smith. I'd probably take a Buckmark over it too but that's purely a personal choice. I have a friend I shoot with that is dead on with one. He does not shoot a Ruger as well though. so many it has more to do with how you shoot. I'm not really sure though.


----------

