07 April 2021

Ruger Ad


1957 made Ruger Standard.  Note, that's not Mark I or A100; neither was an official name for the first Ruger .22.  Though it makes sense to call it a Mark I because it was refined and modified and introduced as the Ruger Mark II... then III then IV...  The stocks are not stock, and were a pain to find because there's not a lot of support left for the old Standard, and starting with the A100 frame, the magazine follower button is on the other side making the wood incompatible.

1994 made Ruger 10/22 with factory Mannlicher style laminated stock.  The stock is slowly turning yellow-green with age.  It was nearly the color of the stainless when The Lovely Harvey bought it new.


  1. The old Ruger Standard is a fine pistol. I added an adjustable rear sight to mine. Just wish that I could find a couple of spare original magazines.

  2. I always thought the fixed sight version was the Standard and the adjustable sighted version the Target. I must run battery acid in my blood because a 4 3/4" blued Standard in my hands would become rust speckled in a matter of HOURS if I didn't wipe it with oil.

    They are a fine gun - Bill Ruger hit a home run with that design right off the bat.


  3. I just looked and my Ruger Standard was apparently made in 1990 according to Ruger's web site. My SN is 16-18xxx. Mine has black plastic grips. I've never actually owned a 10/22. For that niche I have a couple of Marlin Model 60s and a Glenfield which is basically a Model 60. I've always wanted to do an 80% 10/22 compatible, but like the 1911 80%ers, they require a fair amount of expensive tooling and work that has so far kept me from it. And given our glorious leader, 80% building may be banned soon.

    Anyway, the Ruger Standard shoots nicely, but you have to watch for magazine compatibility. Most mags for the Mark II-IV will not function properly. Also like all 22s, it needs frequent cleaning (because most 22 ammo is dirty), and takedown for cleaning is more of a PITA with the Ruger than many others. That's maybe just my opinion. But it means I shoot other 22s I have more, particularly a Taurus revolver and an older H&R top break.

    1. If you're Ruger was made in 1990 it's NOT a Standard, it's a Mark II.

    2. Typo. 1980. 16-18xxx is 1980 according to Ruger's web site. It's definitely not a Mark II, most of those mags won't work, especially not factory Ruger.

    3. Then you have an A100 framed gun. Not quite a Standard any more (but retaining the name) not quite a Mark II.

    4. I was just going based on this:


      This confirms what you are saying. According to this, A100 started in 1971.


    5. I started to learn Ruger 22 pistol trivia because of the stocks that came on mine



    6. It definitely looks better with the wood grips.


You are a guest here when you comment. This is my soapbox, not yours. Be polite. Inappropriate comments will be deleted without mention. Amnesty period is expired.

Do not go off on a tangent, stay with the topic of the post. If I can't tell what your point is in the first couple of sentences I'm flushing it.

If you're trying to comment anonymously: Sign your work. Try this link for an explanation: https://mcthag.blogspot.com/2023/04/lots-of-new-readers.html

Anonymous comments must pass a higher bar than others. Repeat offenders must pass an even higher bar.

If you can't comprehend this, don't comment; because I'm going to moderate and mock you for wasting your time.