NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/rec/guns/16040

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-16 | 3.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!emory!gatech!darwin.sura.net!ra!mimsy!net.yale.edu
From: [e-mail] (Alan Watt)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: .22 Custom Handgun Info Request
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:46:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Nov16.141911.2335
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Yale University, Computing & Information Systems
Lines: 66
Approved: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Robert Walton) writes:
|>
|> A quick sanity check.
|>
|> I've recently seen some very impressive custom work done to Ruger .22
|> autos by Lee Baker of Phelan CA.  Lee and his work are profiled in the
|> 1993 Gun Digest gunsmiths guide.  Question is, will the investment in a
|> custom Ruger be a sound one should I ever decide to get rid of it?  And is
|> the Ruger a good pistol to buy for a .22 semi-auto (Ruger politics aside)?
|>
|> Some data for your consideration:
|>
|> Ruger Mark II?, Stainless, bull barrel, with the following:
|>
|> "Butter" Action Job and tuning
|> Internal parts deburred, polished
|> Custom sights
|> Custom XXX fancy target grips
|> High Polish stainless finish overall
|> "Bead-blasted" frame with decorative high polish icons (sun, moon, rabbit,
|> etc...)
|> Jeweled receiver slide, trigger
|>
|> What would be a fair price for something like this, IYO?  I'm going to the
|> gun show in a couple of weeks and would like to hear some opinions between
|> now and then.

Remember the old saying about making a silk purse out of a sow's ear?
This is not to blast Ruger; their guns are almost always fine value for
the money, but the Mk-II is not a serious target pistol, and I can't
imagine that spending enough money on one to make it a serious target
pistol is a good investment.

In the "minor changes" department, you can change the sights, grips,
polish internal parts, and that sort of thing.  These may add up to
a measurable accuracy improvement; sights and grips are largely a matter of
personal preference anyway.

The next step up is to do something about the trigger -- the worst
feature of the Mk II when considered as a serious target pistol.
I've had the trigger replaced in mine, which cuts down on the overtravel
somewhat, but it's still not a target trigger.  I'm not sure what can
be done to improve the mechanism as a whole.  There is a lot of take-up
and the trigger itself has a lot of side-to-side play.  On mine the
break is fairly crisp with very little overtravel, but there's a lot
of "mush" to get to that point.

Beyond that, you're talking about replacing the barrel.  I'm really
not up on the fine points of a .22 target pistol, but it seems to me
from just looking at it, that the Ruger feed angle is fairly steep,
which suggests that either the chamber is fairly loose to allow adequate
play, or the bullet is subjected to a lot of sideways force during
chambering.  I don't have a real semi-auto target pistol to examine
for comparison, so this is all speculation on my part.

Bottom line: the Mk II was designed as a low-cost reliable plinker.  It
fills this role admirably.  You can spend some money to convert it into
a better looking, low-cost reliable plinker, but if you want a genuine
target pistol you're better off with something designed from the outset
to fill that role.
--
  Alan S. Watt
  Yale University            Computing and Information Systems
  Box 2112 Yale Station            [phone]
  New Haven, CT  06520-2112        [e-mail]