Browning Buckmark as my .22 pistol? Which one?


June 25, 2008, 02:34 PM
I used to a have an S&W 422 that I picked up cheap and let go for about what I paid. I've not had a .22 semi-auto since then and I've missed it. I've 95% settled on the Browning Buckmark as my next pistol. I want it both for open sight shooting practice for less money than 9mm and potentially to amp up for more focused target shooting. I've considered an Advantage Arms .22 conversion for my Glock 19 as probably the best way to approximate practice with my carry gun, feel that I would enjoy a complete gun more and thus would be more likely to shoot it.

I've shot Buckmarks and Mark II/IIIs and enjoyed them both. I like the Buckmark a bit more, but if you have compelling reasons to consider the Rugers, I'm still open. The most compelling reason for me to get the Ruger right now is that I own four other Rugers and I think on my fifth one I get a free order of fries or something. I felt that the P22 was too tiny and I didn't really care for it. The operation of the SP22 was too substantially different than my other semi-autos, and didn't offer much more than being very Flash Gordon. I don't care for Neos. I've neither shot nor seen a Hi Standard, so I am hesitant to believe they actually exist, that and they are more than I can personally justify given my use. I'm still open to considering points on any of these, though.

At this point, I'm between three different Buckmarks for my uses:

Ye Olde Buckmark Camper. ( Seems like a solid all around choice for the cost. If I put a mount on the top, can I still use the open sights?

Buckmark URX Contour. ( The grips are more Glock-like and I like the rail up top. It permits me to practice open sight with versatility in my optics. I'm very much warming up to this unless I'm liking it for reasons I need not like it for.

Buckmark Hunter. ( Seems like a compromise between the optic versatility of the URX Contour and cost effectiveness of the Camper.

Any input would be appreciated.

If you enjoyed reading about "Browning Buckmark as my .22 pistol? Which one?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
June 25, 2008, 03:12 PM
I have a Contour that I got almost two years ago and like it. I've never used the rail but know it's there if I need it. I like the URX grips. The Ruger 22/45 was almost as good a "fit" for my hands but I went with the steel framed Buckmark. If I had to make the decision all over again, I'd choose the Contour, if buying a pistol in this class.

That being said, I think the MK IIIs have a rail included and come pre-tapped (if my memory serves). The availability of aftermarket doo-dads is a big plus to the Ruger.

However, I often regret not scraping up the extra cash and investing in a S&W 41. I can't see buying one now that I have my Buckmark...but over a lifetime, the extra purchase price will look smaller and smaller.

You'll have this .22 pistol a long time and do a lot of shooting with it. Of all the ones you can afford, get the one that you really want and will make you happy in the long run. This is a bad time to do something else in order to save $50-100.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
June 25, 2008, 04:46 PM
The "Hunter" is the best value, if you like the longer 7" bbl over the 5.5".

It has:

-Optics rail (in addition to the standard iron rear)
-Fiber Optic front sight
-beautiful wood grips

all for not much more than the camper.

Or, if going with a 5.5" one, I'd opt for the "Plus UDX"- has the grip look of the contours, but with nice wood, plus the slabsides, at a reasonable price:

June 25, 2008, 09:06 PM
I bought a Hunter a couple of weeks ago. The Cocobolo wood grips caught my eye and I had to have it. The gun is the most accurate one I own and will shoot way better than I am capable. The fiber optic front sight is great. I looked at a lot of .22's before deciding and was tempted by the MK III but the Browning was (to me) the best of the lot.

June 25, 2008, 09:19 PM
My first gun was a Buckmark Camper. I am very happy with the 5.5 inch bull barrel. It is an accurate and reliable shooter. I also have Ruger MkII with the 5.5 inch bull barrel and it is also an accurate and reliable shooter. I have tried a friend's Ruger with the 6 7/8 inch barrel in fluted stainless; pretty but I didn't like the balance. I have a red dot on the Buckmark and shoot the Ruger with iron sights and do equally well with both, go figure. I put Hogue rubber grips on the Ruger, makes a nice handful. I like them both.

June 25, 2008, 09:24 PM
I have the buckmark camper. It's a good gun but for some reason the front sight screw loosens after 5 or 6 magazines, so I take the allen wrench to the range and tighten it as needed. Other than that, it's an excellent gun and great fun to shoot.

June 25, 2008, 09:51 PM
I have the Bullseye Target model and really like it. Open sights and extremely accurate.

June 25, 2008, 11:24 PM
I have a Camper and like it a lot. Accurate, easy to disassemble and cheap.
Also I don't have to worry about it like my old Smith 41.

Craig M. Arnold
June 25, 2008, 11:46 PM
I have seven Buckmarks. The model that I like the best is the Target (hooded sights) followed by the Bullseye (7.5" fluted barrel). However, all the Buckmarks that I have shoot great.

Best regrads.

June 26, 2008, 02:39 AM
I've shot Buckmarks and Mark II/IIIs and enjoyed them both. I like the Buckmark a bit more, but if you have compelling reasons to consider the Rugers, I'm still open.

I dont know that I can articulate a real good reaon but I have both and GREATLY prefer the ruger. It may be just be personal prference but I shoot the Ruger better.

I actually like Browning much more as a company and to a certain extent I actually dislike ruger but if I could only keep one of those two pistols I wouldn't even have to think about it, I'd take the mark II

Just my experience and opinion, and its far from a compelling reason to change your mind but I thought I'd throw it out there. You will probably be very happy with a buckmark as well. Its not like one is great and the other junk.

June 26, 2008, 05:34 AM
I, personally would go with the Ruger MK III 22/45 or something in that neighborhood. I got my fiance a BuckMark Pratical UDX (very close to the Camper model) and she loves is. Call me old fashioned, I still think the Rugers shoots smoother, has better trigger reaction, and looks just as cool as the BuckMark. My fiance totally disagrees with me on all aspects of the Ruger vs. the it is individual peference. As for the BuckMarks you have listed, I go with the "Hunter" it got the fiber optic sights, she already to accept a scope, and has a lovely tappered bullbarrel. Great pistol for small varmit hunting. It is very similar to the Ruger KMKIII stainless w/ crimson trace laser I have. I'm just a Ruger kind of guy, but if the BuckMark is you bag then run with it!

Hope you find one that fits you fancy. Happy shooting

June 26, 2008, 07:53 AM
Buckmark seemed lighter to me, and shot better for me as well.

Ruger had inferior sights but seemed more solid.

Buckmark +1.

June 26, 2008, 08:15 AM
I have the Standard (but an older model). The slab-sided barrel does it for me asthetically, FWIW. The only complaint is that the top strap screws tend to get loose while shooting unless cleaned with alcohol and ssecured with lock-tite -- which may have long ago been resolved for later models. This pistol always goes to the range and in my experience is a favorite with new shooters and females. But I never get tired of it either.

June 26, 2008, 08:35 AM
Both the Ruger and Buckmark are excellent. That's why you can find so many posts about them. I prefer the Ruger MK II and own three of them. The aftermarket accesories and parts to improve the trigger are mind boggling.

January 13, 2009, 10:32 PM
I am deciding between the Buckmark Hunter ($394.99), the Buckmark Camper with stainless barrel, UDX grips and Tru-Glo front site ($329.99) and the Buckmark Contour 5.5 URX ($394.99). I am planning on using it for target shooting. I like that the Hunter and Camper have the Tru-glo front sights. I don't know if this can be added to the Contour or if it would be worth doing so. Thoughts?

January 13, 2009, 11:00 PM
Shot a Buckmark Plus with older (non UDX) rosewood grips recently. I'm sold. Better balanced than my Ruger 5.5 inch bull barrel model and very accurate.

January 13, 2009, 11:04 PM
we just bought a few of the buckmark camper models.

they are great fun to shoot.

our are super accurate and reliable.

we were actually going to bass pro thinking we were gonna buy rugers, but the buckmarks were there, so we compared them and chose the buckmarks because they just feel better in our hands.

i liked the rugers, but after holding the brownings, they just felt too heavy in the muzzle.

try to go to a shop that has both, and just see which one feels better.

im sure the rugers are great shooters too.

January 13, 2009, 11:39 PM
can the udx grips be added to models without them, like the hunter?

January 14, 2009, 04:37 PM
The variety of Buckmarks to choose from is mind-boggling, isn't it! Anyway, I have a Buckmark Hunter, which I have been very happy with. Its much more accurate than I am! It has had no failures that were not ammo related. It cycles well with Federal Bulk pack ammo from Wally World. I've heard the Buckmark is easier to field strip and clean than the Ruger, but I don't own a Ruger semi-auto so that's not first hand knowledge. That's not to slight the Ruger in any way. I'm sure either brand will be a quality firearm.

If you enjoyed reading about "Browning Buckmark as my .22 pistol? Which one?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!