Anyone make heavy match barrels for Ruger MKIV

I've got a standard short taper barrel Mark IV for my daughter. Its got a full Volquarten upgrade kit installed. I've thought of making a heavy match upper for it as well for me to shoot occasionally. Most of the aftermarket barrels are advertised as lightweight options which is not what I want. I'd like a 5-6" match barrel with a full rail and possibly slab side. Anyone making such an animal?

Ruger makes excellent heavy barrels for these guns.  You most likely want a Competition or slab side 6-7/8  inch.  

Best place I know of to buy them is this guy:
https://store.wirthweinguns.com/Mk-IV-Standard-Frame-Parts-s/204.htm

bob

Thanks for the link. I wonder what a stainless slab side would look like on a black lower, so a 2 tone pistol... Also wonder what groups people get at 50 yards with a stock ruger barrel.

Wouldn't hurt to call Clark and ask, I believe they use Lothar Walther barels.  I've got a MKII that they rebuilt for my wife, it's a great gun...

zanemoseley wrote:Thanks for the link. I wonder what a stainless slab side would look like on a black lower, so a 2 tone pistol... Also wonder what groups people get at 50 yards with a stock ruger barrel.

They look nice. Did up a MKII in that configuration a while back. I had the barrel cut back to 5 1/2 & recrowned. 3/4" @ 50 yards with old stock Rem SV (it's favorite) and never over 1 1/4" @ 50 with CCI SV (7 different lot #'s).
Al

zanemoseley wrote:Thanks for the link. I wonder what a stainless slab side would look like on a black lower, so a 2 tone pistol... Also wonder what groups people get at 50 yards with a stock ruger barrel.

Stock Mk II barrel on Roddy enhanced lower. Volquartsen sight. 

The two "flyers" were called.  Offhand shooting. 
The six was called a lot of names   

My only complaint about the MKIV was how heavy the barrel is. Roddy Toyota tuned my trigger and shot it. He asked me if I wanted to remove some of the barrel. Top one is the IV

Len, my 5 1/2" 2 tone started out as the 6 7/8" gvmt slab side. I hated the extra length too. So I just had it shortened.

The more I think about it the more I think I should just stick with a 5.5" bull barrel. All my 1911's are a bit over 3 pounds so a heavy barrel that is almost the same length as the 1911 should balance as close to a 1911 as possible.

Now the question of the day. Is there any accuracy difference between the stainless and blued barrels? I know each barrel is different but are there any trends to either being better.

Dave Sams can re-line it if it doesn't hold the X-Ring with your ammo of choice.

I think Ruger barrels are very good. When the Old Man was still alive Ruger barrels were competitive. I've heard that Ruger used Douglas Barrels or perhaps their blanks to barrel their pistols initially? Not sure how valid this is? Anyhow, I am a big fan of Ruger .22 Pistols!

From the Pistol Shooter's Treasury, looks like the factory Ruger Mk I put up some pretty ~ 1.8" 10 shot groups at 50 yards.





Also not sure Ruger would or has used Douglas barrels in production firearms. 




Jerry's post about Ruger barrels.... 

Jerry Keefer wrote:
OK.. Follow the red arrows..

Bottom right: S&W 41 shows a dimple from a stamped letter on the bottom. Heavy land to groove ratio and tight bore is less apparent.
Bottom left: High Standard shows excellent well defined chamber, but barrel locking lug drill almost entered chamber. Nice smooth gentle leade angle
Center right: Narrow section of a S&W 41, which shows distinct variations in bore dimension (shadows).
Upper left: Another 41 with a poorly cut chamber face, and abrupt 5 degree leade angle. The radius extractor relief is easy to see and visualize the extractor problems these cuts cause.
Top center: Ruger with no distinct chamber at all. Just a hole. Rugers are testimony to the inherent accuracy of the 22 cartridge.
Top right: Lothar Walther stub, but blurred..Fine precise rifling and low land to groove ratio apparent.

Ruger beat Hi-Standard Olympic, Colt Match Target and the S&W 41 5" in this "rough" test. I haven't been able to produce 1.84" groups yet. But I'll be happy when I can!

I have several Colt match targets, unfortunately none of them are exceptional, but tried to shoot them for quite a while.  Rare to see one on the line. 1.8" 10 shot group is far from terrific for a 22 pistol.  I believe the test was done from a Rest, but someone with the book in front will need to confirm, I can do that this evening.  If you read Jerry's post above, the S&W M41 barrels weren't spectacular either.  As Jerry stated above, its really a testament to the rimfire round, not Ruger, Colt or S&W in the race to the bottom in terms of accuracy in the comparison above.  Regardless, I think Ruger makes a great starting pistol, shoot, I bought one and had it worked on for my Son and the trigger is pretty terrific.  Nothing wrong with them. 




Were you able to find where Ruger is using Douglas barrels?

No news on the Douglas barrels, might have just been a bad rumor? Thanks for posting the info, I love this stuff!

Jason H

According to the article, these tests were conducted using a Potter and an Eliason-Gano machine rest. The two types were used as controls against the other. These rests are different than a Ransom Rest and perhaps have different issues.

Way back in the 1950s there weren’t as many barrel makers as there are now. Fewer made 22 rimfire barrels. Douglas may have been the barrel supplier for the initial run. For many years Ruger did not make all their own barrels and many models suffered reputations for spotty accuracy. In any event, a factory Ruger Mk 1 thru 4 22 is capable of shooting well. I’ve only questioned the “value” aspect.

Hawkja wrote:No news on the Douglas barrels, might have just been a bad rumor? Thanks for posting the info, I love this stuff!

Jason H

Looks that way.  I contacted Douglas.  They've never supplied Ruger barrels to support production of the Standard, Mk I, II, III or IV.  They were also founded after the Ruger Standard/MK 1 production began in the late 50s although the Mk I was still in production during that time.

Wobbley wrote:According to the article, these tests were conducted using a Potter and an Eliason-Gano machine rest.  The two types were used as controls against the other.  These rests are different than a Ransom Rest and perhaps have different issues.

Way back in the 1950s there weren’t as many barrel makers as there are now.  Fewer made 22 rimfire barrels.  Douglas may have been the barrel supplier for the initial run.  For many years Ruger did not make all their own barrels and many models suffered reputations for spotty accuracy.  In any event, a factory Ruger Mk 1 thru 4 22 is capable of shooting well.  I’ve only questioned the “value” aspect.

Thanks!  I think the Ruger 22/45 Mk II is a terrific little pistol if you can get one at the right price.  A couple guys on the forum have some that are under 1" from the factory with no work and the triggers are terrific thanks to Jon.  I had a Mk III that required various work to get to the same place, but haven't put in a Ransom Rest yet to see how it shoots.  If not, I'll re-crown and go from there.  Exceptionally happy with the pistol after Jon.  One of our shooters had a very fine 95 in slow with his Mk II w/irons in the last match.  A great way IMO to get started on a budget.