Ruger frames

I was wondeing if there is any advantage between a Ruger Mk II 22/45 and a Standard Mk II frame.  If there is what would it be?
Beside the fact of the 22/45 being close to a 1911 grip are there any other advantage of one over the other?

The standard Ruger Mk’s have steel frames while the 22-45’s are polymer. That makes a little weight difference as well as the different angle. There have been two series of 22-45’s, one that had molded in grips while the other had replaceable grips. To my hands, either of them is too skinny compared to a 1911 but the molded grips are even skinnier. I have had a pre-Mk I target pistol for 50 years, all steel, so I am biased.

Your pre-Mark I goes back a quite a few years.  That's pretty cool. Do you still shoot it?
I was just wondering if the angle would make a difference for me.  I need all the help I can get.  I think Masters and High Masters shot some pretty high averages with a Ruger.  I'm guessing that was with the standard grip angle but not sure.
Thanks for the reply Kp321.

I think my Ruger dates to the early to mid 60’s. I bought it from a friend in 1970 and have shot it regularly since. The factory trigger is as good as a Volquartsen kit would provide today. The only downside is the heel magazine release and 9 round capacity.

285wannab wrote:Your pre-Mark I goes back a quite a few years.  That's pretty cool. Do you still shoot it?
I was just wondering if the angle would make a difference for me.  I need all the help I can get.  I think Masters and High Masters shot some pretty high averages with a Ruger.  I'm guessing that was with the standard grip angle but not sure.
Thanks for the reply Kp321.

Jim Clark, Sr. shot a ruger with a grip that he designed to sort of simulate the 1911 grip angle. https://clarkcustomguns.com/product/clark-mark-ii-grips/