Guns: When Two is Greater than Three...

I'm in the market for a .22 pistol, and I was dismayed to learn that Ruger no longer makes its Mark II series of handguns - they've been replaced by the Mark III series. What's the difference, you ask?

The MK III has several new features - a 1911-style magazine release behind the trigger, a loaded chamber indicator, an internal locking system, and a magazine "safety." Besides the magazine release, these "features" serve as an interesting reminder of the current political climate.

A loaded chamber indicator is perhaps the stupidest thing ever to be put on a handgun. There's an easy way to tell if a pistol is loaded - pull the slide back and see for yourself. These kinds of devices tend to make people handle guns less safely, not more safely - what if that fancy loaded chamber flag fails to raise itself when a round is in the chamber? The MK III's indicator lever in particular is big and ugly, and it spoils the clean lines that the MK II had on the left side of the receiver.

The internal lock is another solution to a problem that doesn't exist. They're getting more and more common in new, American-made firearms (all new production S&W revolvers still have them), but I can't see many situations where they'd do much good compared to a simple cable lock you can get for free. In a defensive firearm, there have been (rare) instances where such locks engaged on their own - not a comforting thought if you need your gun to defend yourself. At the very least, they add mechanical complexity where none should be present.

Finally, the magazine disconnnect - it's a system that (supposedly) prevents the gun from firing if the magazine is removed (the Browning Hi-Power is one famous example of this system). There's a lot of controversy over this feature - some people are okay with a magazine safety, others don't like them. It'd be nice if Ruger at least gave us the option, as Smith & Wesson do with their polymer M&P series. I also don't think that a magazine disconnect should be a substitute for proper safety practices.

All these changes make the MK III less attractive in my eyes. I know why Ruger makes these business decisions (anti-gun legislation and frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers), but I don't agree with them and I think they'll get buried once someone catches on to the hole in the market being created here. Predictably, Ruger MK II handguns are getting harder and harder to find - people buy them and hold onto them, because they know there's a good chance that it'll never be produced again.