Accurized Ruger MKII/III vs S&W Model 41

Rich G · Post by **Rich G** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 12:23 pm

Those of you that shoot both "Accurized Rugers & Model 41"; Please post your comparison of the two models. By Accurized Ruger, I'm referring to Volquartsen Trigger, Sear, & LLV Barrel as an example. I own MKII Competition, MKIII Hunter, and MKIII Target, all with Volquartsen Triggers and Sears. I have not purchased an LLV Barrel but was planning to do that for the MKIII Target. Before doing so though, I would like your impressions compared to the M41. If a stock M41 ranks higher than the MKIII with LLV Barrel, I will probably go that route instead. Type of shooting for me is Indoor Bullseye Pistol League at local range (50ft. Offhand). Thank you for any comments .......... Rich G.

Bullseye, I was going to PM this to you, but decided a group post was even better, my friend ......

Unruely · Post by **Unruely** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 3:22 pm

I have 6 MKII's similar to what you are refering too, minus the barrel.. I also have a S&W 41. The Smith has a slight lead in the accuracy department, maybe even very slight.. But the balance and trigger are nowhere near the same. I believe the 41 wins easily here..

Post by **Bullseye** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:35 pm

As with most target pistols, realization of a pistol's full capabilities lies in the hands of the shooter. All that being said, the stock M-41 is generally a higher grade target pistol than that of a accurized Mark II/III. But, the Model 41 is built to be a target grade pistol right off the line and that does have an impact on its inherent accuracy capabilities. There are many Ruger pistols that can hold their own when up against a Model 41, but the latter is the standard by which all other domestic rimfire target pistols are measured.

R,
Bullseye

Bud33 · Post by **Bud33** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 10:18 pm

I shot a Accurized MK I Ruger in the early 60's. it had been done by a smith named Clark and it had a custom made bull barrel.
Later, I was given three different 41's to try. One was a standard barrel then a Bull Barrel and finally a Short bull barrel.
I shot by far the best with the Ruger.
Actually, at 50', the inherent accuracy of the .22 would be about equal with any of these weapons, but the feel would be a personnel preference, and the one that feels the best to YOU would be the one you shoot the best.

Rich G · Post by **Rich G** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:42 am

Thank You, my friends, that was exactly the type of information I was looking for. ........... Rich G.

KAZ · Post by **KAZ** » Sat Nov 08, 2008 8:37 am

Rich, you have two really fine choices to consider. I wish that you could find a 41 to try out at the range. I own many 22 rimfire autos and the 41 is without doubt the GRAIL for me. I have said that my only regret re the 41 is that I waited so long in life to acquire a 41. Regards

Clem · Post by **Clem** » Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:02 am

I have a couple of MK IIIs and a MK II that now have VQ sears and hammers. I also have a S&W 41. The 41 is a better out of the box target gun. The 41 also comes with a smoother bore that tend to shoot well from the beginning.

The Ruger MK IIIs I bought new. The bores were rougher than the 41. I broke them in by shooting copper wash HS stuff through them. When the bores were broken in and the triggers modified, they shoot about as well as the 41.

The MK II I got used. It was well used and had a nice smooth bore. When I put in the VQ sear it gave it a very nice trigger. I put on an Ultradot LT red dot sight. The thing seems to be as accurate as a rifle. I really need a Ransom Rest to test them all, but it is really very nice.

When modified and broken in, the differences become a matter of personal preference, things like the trigger feel, grip, sights, etc.

OpsMgr · Post by **OpsMgr** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:58 pm

I have a Ruger Mk III 22/45, Mk II Comp Target and a Mk II 5" Bull Bbl - All have the VQ sears and triggers installed with stock barrels. My M41 5" Bbl is my most consistently accurate pistol of the lot but the Mk II Comp Target is real close to the M41. Of course the M41 costs much more than the Rugers for a reason - It is a work of art and is perfect right out of the box! Think Bullseye summed it up - "A pistol's full capabilities lies in the hands of the shooter."

winshooter · Post by **winshooter** » Fri Nov 28, 2008 10:07 pm

Just to add a little trivia, S&W also produced the S&W M-46 (The .22 Rimfire Single Action Target Pistol) .22LR, 7 inch bbl, Patridge undercut front sight, adjustable target rear sight. Similar to M-41 without hi-gloss blueing and wood grips. This was as good a shooter as the M-41 but sold for $15.00 less than the M-41 when it was brought out in 1959. The M-46 actually is worth more now since there were only 2500 produced in the 7 inch bbl model.

Mike

GooseYArd · Post by **GooseYArd** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:47 am

I have a MkII 22/45 with an ultradot and the Volquartsen kit, and bought a new 5"bbl 41 about a year ago.

The ruger is a much lighter pistol. Switching to the 41 came with a significant increase in weight, which took a while to get used to, if you're shooting conventional pistol that might be an issue.

My ruger has fed any type of 22 ammunition I've tried; everything from eley pistol match stuff to the big cardboard boxed federal high velocity. The 41 is definitely more choosy about feeding.

The Volquartsen trigger on my 22/45 is a crisp, break trigger. It is definitely an improvement over the factory trigger. My 41's trigger has a fantastic roll type break, and it can be adjusted for weight, unlike the ruger.

Shooting from a rest, both pistols make exceptional groups. I don't think inherent accuracy is the reason you would go from a ruger to a 41.

I guess my advice if you're thinking about going one way or the other, is that these are totally different pistols, they're not really in the same price category unless you add in gunsmithing work on the ruger, they operate much differently, feel completely different, and so on. I guess I mean to say, if you felt undecided between those two and you're comfortable with the price, you should probably try out a lot of other pistols in the same range as the 41, rather than deciding between those two.

bob kk · Post by **bob kk** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 6:39 pm

My 41 is better off hand shooting. Slab side has a 2x Leupold and the 41
has a TC 1.5x scope. Off a rest at 25 yards they are about equal.
It's what you want to plink or target shoot. Ruger is a good plinking or hunting gun. But I'll take my 41 for target shooting. It just feels better.
Could be I shoot a 1911 a lot.

tenex · Post by **tenex** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 8:51 pm

I've had one of each, and can make a comparison with my experience. I bought a KMK-512, which is very similar in balance to a M41 with the 5.5" barrel.

Configuration:

Gun: Ruger KMK-512
Grip: Karl Nill
Modifications: Clark trigger & hammer bushing
Millett rear sight (same as my 41)
Modify trigger for take up screw
tune factory parts for 2.5 lb trigger pull
Polish feed ramp for smoother feeding
(about $50 in parts)

Gun: S&W Model 41
Grip: Karl Nill
Modifications: None.

In the above state, the guns shoot pretty much identically. The Ruger trigger is a little better, but the Nill grip for the M41 fits me a little bit better, so it's pretty much a wash.

To be fair, I saved an equivalent $350 or so, but I did do a lot of work myself that should probably be sent out. The fair comparison would most likely be to send your Ruger to Clark, or get a Clark custom Ruger and compare that to the 41. I'm not sure if the drop in parts would work quite as well without a little fitting.

A new MK-512 sent to Clark for the trigger and reliability work will probably run $650 or so total, and a new M-41 is probably around $900.

The S&W is still more expensive for the same level of performance, but resale is probably better. It also is much easier to clean, has easily replaceable barrels, and is very pretty. The grip geometry suit me better as well, I haven't found a Ruger grip that works for me (but I think the Volthane grip would be pretty good).

This is just my experience, yours may be different. BTW, the best group I've shot with a .22 is 1.25" for 10 shots at 50 yards with a slab side Mark II I used to have. I didn't test this Ruger for accuracy, but the the slab side out shot my 5.5" M41 barrel.

That's all I've got, I hope it helps.

Sincerely,
Steve.