Umarex/Ruger MARK IV .177 Breakbarrel Pistol

These are brand new. I just got mine from Pyramyd Air.

Typical of a Umarex replica, it really does look and feel like a real Ruger .22 (I have a 5.5” Mark II), except for the weight, which is only 1.35 pounds according to the Pyramyd Air spec sheet. The “barrel” and upper receiver are metal; the grip frame is plastic. Grip panels seem to be removable and might even be interchangeable with real Ruger grips. The thumb safety works. The bolt release button seems to be a separate piece, but doesn't seem to have any function at all. Rear sight is fully adjustable. Front sight is a red fiber optic, but the top is covered by a presumably protective bar that blocks a lot of the incoming light, so the sight isn't very bright. There are no provisions for mounting an optical sight.

Cocking the break barrel isn't particularly difficult (compared to my break barrel Mendoza rifle and my M1A underlever). The user's manual advises you to brace the grip against your thigh for cocking, but I didn't find that necessary.

I set up a makeshift “benchrest” on my basement range for testing (Black & Decker Workmate portable bench and a small folding stepstool for a seat). I got settled in and pulled the trigger. And pulled. And pulled. And pulled some more. It finally let go at what I estimate to be somewhere on the far side of 8 pounds. It does break cleanly when it finally lets go, I'll give it that—no creep at all. I repeated for a total of five shots, then checked the target. Those five shots are the group that's low and left. I then adjusted the rear sight and tried again, resulting in the upper group, which measures about .8”. Looks like one more slight sight adjustment will be in order.

The groups aren't horrible but I was hoping for a little better. The only .177 pellets I had on hand were Crosman Copperhead flat-noses; it's very possible some other pellet might shoot better. But it's difficult to accurately grade or assess the accuracy of this gun due to the very heavy trigger pull. On at least a couple of shots, I saw the sights jerk to one side or the other just as the shot broke. I haven't yet tried shooting it from a standing, unsupported position. 

I've been shooting four Umarex replica CO2/blowback BB pistols in my basement for several months now, and enjoying them very much. Those guns cost up to three times what this one does, and in this case, “you get what you pay for.” If Umarex could get the trigger pull down to a clean 4 pounds or less—or someone can figure out how to lower it—this would be a fun and very economical gun to shoot. (There's also the possibility that the trigger will lighten up with use, but I'm not counting on it.) As it is, I'll shoot it at times when I'm in the mood to light off just a few shots without the hassle or expense of using up a whole CO2 cartridge. Otherwise, it probably won't be in “heavy rotation” in my basement shooting. 

ARugerMKIVTarget03.1637423464.jpg

 
I contacted Umarex to ask if they might consider producing a Ruger replica in Co2 but instead of the mindless, never ending sameness of revolving magazines fed designs, the accuracy error and gas loss that such design can bring how, why don't they do a break open barrel like this springer model.

This would allow direct pellet feed into rifling for infinitely better accuracy and a breech seal similar to this gun, giving no gas loses …and double the power of other auto designs.

Now that would be some gun, but sadly they replied saying there was no interest unless auto….A chance missed?
What do you think..
 
I contacted Umarex to ask if they might consider producing a Ruger replica in Co2 but instead of the mindless, never ending sameness of revolving magazines fed designs, the accuracy error and gas loss that such design can bring how, why don't they do a break open barrel like this springer model.

This would allow direct pellet feed into rifling for infinitely better accuracy and a breech seal similar to this gun, giving no gas loses …and double the power of other auto designs.

Now that would be some gun, but sadly they replied saying there was no interest unless auto….A chance missed?
What do you think..

Crosman made just such a gun back in the '60s-'70s. They were pretty well though of at the time, and still valued today, if you can find a working one. Perhaps it's time for them to re-introduce it? 

CrosmanPistols.1637869168.jpg



 
  • Like
Reactions: SgtOutlaw76
Yes you are correct about the Mk1…and re-intro…why not.

The problem with Umarex etc producing all these firearm lookalikes, is the little magazines are cast. If you trouble to index one around its spool centre pivot on the lathe, you will notice that each of the pellet chambers are 0.1mm to 0.15mm in error to each other. To afford the this magazine to rotate, they build in a clearance between the face and the barrel…You can actually visually see the gas loss on some.

We then have the jump of the pellets from the magazine to the bore, bringing with it additional errors.

You cannot beat a pellet thumbed into the rifling and sealed by an O ring