Gentle folks, I’m strongly considering a Ruger Mark IV for general purpose plinking and as something easier to shoot than my SR22 on the pistol target range.

Other than appearances are there any significant differences between the hunter/target models and the 22/45 if I use an RMR?

If I remember correctly, zippz has one.

https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=30512.0

Check this one out. It comes with a red dot sight.

I admit I perked up when that one got posted but unfortunately I’m in the market for a threaded barrel version for my annual Wisconsin Northwoods vacation.

Those bowling pins aren’t going to whisper quietly shoot them selves.

Gentle folks, I’m strongly considering a Ruger Mark IV for general purpose plinking and as something easier to shoot than my SR22 on the pistol target range.

Other than appearances are there any significant differences between the hunter/target models and the 22/45 if I use an RMR?

I have not had any experience with the MKIV but I have had plenty with the MKI, MKII and MKIII. Not the 22/45 model. I do not like the trigger of the 22/45 model. However, I understand there are mods available to make it better. The stock trigger on the non-22/45 versions is okay but as with the 22/45 version there are plenty of mods for it. I really like the standard models. I prefer the bull barrel and the fluted barrel as I am a target shooter. However, the standard tapered barrel is much lighter and therefore more fun for plinking. The grip frame is angled much more than the 22/45 version. For most people this allows them to point and aim a little better. But some don't like it. Since the MKIV is similar to the MKIII I can highly recommend it.

You might also want to consider the S&W Victory model. There are lots of mods also available for it including barrels as the barrel comes off the frame easily with a screw driver.

I sold my MKI, II and III before I moved here and I have regretted it ever since.

Thank you good sir. I believe that answers my question. The 22/45 is the better looker in my opinion but if the hunter and target have the superior trigger out of the box that’ll likely be the way to go. I’ve definitely improved my marksmanship with thee SR22 and it will be a fun exercise to see to what extent the gun is holding me back vs. where I still have room for improvements in technique.

Cheers!

Thank you good sir. I believe that answers my question. The 22/45 is the better looker in my opinion but if the hunter and target have the superior trigger out of the box that’ll likely be the way to go. I’ve definitely improved my marksmanship with thee SR22 and it will be a fun exercise to see to what extent the gun is holding me back vs. where I still have room for improvements in technique.

Cheers!

It really depends on your intended use/needs.  The 22/45 is an excellent version, especially the Lite models.  I have the Mk-III 22/45 Lite in black.  The new cool-looking Mk-IV lites have my attention, too.

If you're looking for a competition .22, then a longer, heavier barrel is better for accuracy.  If just for plinking, as you said, then a 22/45 Lite might be better suited, especially for younger shooters.

The biggest selling point to me on the 22/45 is, well, the "45".  In case you weren't aware, those are designed to develop muscle memory for the standard 1911 .45 frames.  The angle and feel are just like a 1911.  So, if you're a 1911 shooter, maybe that holds some attraction to you as well.

No matter what you get, plan on buying a few upgrades & accessories.  I added a mini red dot mounted to the barrel (not picatinny rail mounted), the Magazine Disconnect Bushing (can fire with no mag inserted now - good for when taking the gun down so you aren't inserting and removing the mag in the process), a compensator (can't let a threaded barrel go to waste), and a holster.  I also bought a tool to make take down & assembly easier.  The Mk-III (and I guess earlier ones) require experience to easily take down and assemble them.  The Mk-IV's redesign is supposed to make them super easy to do that now.  I can neither confirm nor deny that.

https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=30512.0

Check this one out. It comes with a red dot sight.

Just in case you don't know this, the Mark III and before are WAAAAAYYAYAYYYAYAYY harder to field strip than the Mark IV. 

Just in case you don't know this, the Mark III and before are WAAAAAYYAYAYYYAYAYY harder to field strip than the Mark IV.

Ask and you shall receive:

http://majesticarms.com/id10.html

Ask and you shall receive:

http://majesticarms.com/id10.html

Thanks, I actually just learned how to do it and I'm okay now.

Ask and you shall receive:

http://majesticarms.com/id10.html

I had to properly re-assemble a Ruger Mark what ever, for  a neighbor. 
It was the only thing I disliked
about the gun, hard to re-assemble.
I do know, If you miss with that pistol you have a problem! 
Like shooting a PPK,  you cannot miss.

Just in case you don't know this, the Mark III and before are WAAAAAYYAYAYYYAYAYY harder to field strip than the Mark IV.

Dunno what "Mark" it was, but a buddy bought one in the 1987-89 time frame.  I took it apart and I somehow got it back together again.

It was profoundly weird, but nothing like my wife's antique Colt .380 Hammerless.

Dunno what "Mark" it was, but a buddy bought one in the 1987-89 time frame.  I took it apart and I somehow got it back together again.

It was profoundly weird, but nothing like my wife's antique Colt .380 Hammerless.

OMG!  How did you get it back together?  That was Waaaayyyyyyy before You Tube!!

 

OMG!  How did you get it back together?  That was Waaaayyyyyyy before You Tube!!

Mechanical aptitude and familiarity with military ordnance.  It was the smallest gun I ever did a take down and reassembly on at the time.  A Baby Browning .25 ACP is now the smallest..

The biggest was a 20mm Mk 4 gun pod.  Never got to shoot it though............

That was Waaaayyyyyyy before You Tube!!

That's what bailed me out