Buck Mark or MKIII


PDA






wild cat mccane
April 24, 2011, 05:31 PM
Went to the store to pick up the Buck Mark...but I just couldn't make up my mind once I got there....I know you can't go wrong as all the searching has come to.

Besides the Buck Mark feeling better in the grip and cleaning advantages what are other selling factors for either?

Thanks!

If you enjoyed reading about "Buck Mark or MKIII" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
KodiakBeer
April 24, 2011, 05:47 PM
The Buckmark has the same grip angle and control lay-out of larger pistols, so it's the better trainer. Of course, I tend to think of .22's as trainers, so YMMV...

However, the Ruger .22/45 has that same grip angle and control lay-out also, so that would make an excellent choice also.

The standard Ruger .22 is a very nice pistol, but the odd grip angle means you're always having to adjust between it and every other pistol you own.

Black Butte
April 24, 2011, 05:47 PM
MKIII < Buck Mark < MKII

The stupid :confused:, ugly :barf:, and unnecessary :fire: oversized loaded chamber indicator drops the desirability of the MKIII well below the MKII in my opinion.

wally
April 24, 2011, 06:03 PM
We've got all the major .22 pistols

I rate them:

S&W M22A, Buckmark, Neos, MkII, 22/45, 22/45 MkIII, MK III

My wife rates them (very small hands)

Buckmark, M22A, 22/45MK III Neos, 22/45, MkII, MkIII

Oldnoob
April 24, 2011, 07:50 PM
Ruger all the way. Though I would like MkII more so than III.

elano
April 24, 2011, 08:05 PM
MkIII = reliable as hell!!! I 100% recommend one. Buckmark is nice too, but I prefer the tapered penile barreled Mark III standard. Awesome fun gun and the grip angle feels great!

Frozen North
April 24, 2011, 08:25 PM
You will never find a consensus between shooters of Ruger and Browning rimfire pistols. When you compare great to great, you end up finding out that both pistols are great! :D

I prefer Browning Buckmark myself. I have a Buckmark Standard with a red dot sight and It groups super tight and I have no problem ringing a 12'' gong at 125 yards. It feels very natural in my hand. The excess weight, balance, and grip angle make it shoot very accurately in my hands.

Thousands of rounds, no problems except some ammo related stuff. It eats anything I feed it including bulk jumbo pack stuff.

Animal Mother
April 24, 2011, 08:31 PM
I just had to make this decision the other day, and I chose the Mark III. I could not be happier with my decision, the pistol is my most accurate and has been flawless. Mark II's are nice, but you don't get the American style mag release, and as they've been out of production for a few years, unless you're buying NIB, you may be buying someone else's problems. I know some people hate the Mark III because of the LCI and magazine disconnect, and in a way I understand it. But if it bothers you, you can remove the mag disconnect, and buy a LCI filler. Personally, I was ready to take all those steps when I prepared to buy the gun but after shooting it I found that these new "features" don't bother me at all. Now, ask me about the S&W ILS, and I have a different opinion.

Buckmarks are supposed to be really great too, in fact, its on my list to get next. You'll probably be happy with either one.

Swiftyjuan
April 24, 2011, 09:36 PM
I have shot silhouette with two buckmarks for 25 years (one scoped, one open sight), and cannot recommend them highly enough. I love Ruger, but the only Ruger .22 that I have owned was highly modified (A Volquartsen Masters), so it doesn't count. My backups are both Thompson Contenders, and three High Standards. The jewel of my .22 pistols is a Browning Medalist. When you compare two outstanding pistols, the answer is, they are both great.

GLOOB
April 24, 2011, 09:52 PM
Brownings have better triggers.

The triggers on my Rugers aren't bad. They feel a little spongy before they break. And they have a bit of overtravel. I could throw a bit of money at it, if it bothered me, and get some aftermarket parts.

I prefer the Ruger grip angle, even with open sights. And if you mount tall optics, the steeper grip angle becomes even better.

But the main reason I like the Ruger is because of the construction. The barrel, receiver, and sight dovetails are 1 very solid piece of steel. That's pretty cool to me. Other .22's have their rear sight mounted on a skinny rail that extends back from the barrel, which is not cool to me. I feel like you could drop the Ruger off a cliff, and at worst you might have to recenter the rear sight.

Pilot
April 25, 2011, 09:38 AM
I had a S&W 22A, and after shooting it, thought it was several notches below the Ruger MK II and Buckmark in quality, dependability, and accuracy. There is not much you can do to customize them either where a Ruger can essentially be made into a match pistol.

I sold the Smith 22A, and now have four Ruger MK II's, one is a 22/45. I have shot a firends Buckmark and really liked it so may have to get one of those also. Stick to Ruger and the Browning Buckmark and you won't be dissapointed.

Smaug
April 25, 2011, 10:15 AM
We have both a Buck Mark (wife's gun) and a Mk. II. (my gun) The Mk. II is the same as the Mk. III except for smaller details.

So far, the Mk. II is more reliable than the Buck Mark. Sometimes, the Buck Mark doesn't strip a round off one of the magazines. I squeeze the trigger and all I get is a *click*. This is annoying, since Kate wanted to use it for her home defense gun. We haven't gone as far as to mark magazines numbers on them. But they are both factory new magazines.

The Buck Mark (Contour model) has a more comfortable stock grip than the Mk. III, and a bit softer recoil. But the instructions don't say how to field strip it for a proper cleaning. One has to go to youtube or something for that. Also, it requires tools to do. The gun is very accurate.

The Mk. III is going to be harder to get apart initially; the receiver is a very tight fit to the frame, and requires a mallet to tap it off. This makes some people very nervous, then they go around saying how it should just be cleaned with Gun Scrubber or brake cleaner. The triggers are about equal. The Mk. III has the sight as part of the elegant tubular receiver, which is integral with the barrel. On the Buck Mark, it is part of the top rail, which is a separate part, and gets removed each time the gun is field stripped. My Mk. II is about 20 years old now, and even though the receiver is a loose fit to the frame, it is still deadly accurate, since the receiver/sight is integral with the barrel. Ruger factory magazines are cheaper than Browning's. The Mk. III is more comfortable than the 22/45, IMO. The 22/45 may have the grip angle of a 1911, but its grip is very thin and it just feels like there's something missing, IMO.

Having had both, my vote's for the Ruger.

jsnake
April 25, 2011, 10:47 AM
I have both a mark III competition and a buckmark hunter. There is no comparison (out of the box) in terms of both trigger and failures. GET THE BUCKMARK. The ruger is ok, but out of the box, my vote is for the buckmark. YMMV.
Joe

wild cat mccane
April 25, 2011, 03:21 PM
Thank you so much everyone for your perspectives.

I like the Buck Mark more I am thinking, but the long term hold up and the often stated comments that the Ruger is more accurate even though the trigger isn't as good as the Buck Mark have me thinking...

Pilot
April 25, 2011, 04:29 PM
A lot of people install a Volquartsen trigger and/or trigger, sear, hammer in the Rugers to make the trigger pulls and break REALLY nice. I did this to one of mine and it is very nice, but the Buckmark has a better trigger out of the box and with the Heggis flip, its even nicer.

KodiakBeer
April 25, 2011, 04:50 PM
the often stated comments that the Ruger is more accurate even though the trigger isn't as good as the Buck Mark have me thinking...

I'm not convinced the stock Ruger is more accurate. But, if so, that superior accuracy would only be demonstrable from a bench rest. The soul of a handgun is the trigger. If you don't have a good trigger you can't demonstrate good accuracy when you stand up on your hind legs and shoot the darned thing.

Keep in mind too, that both pistols come in a variety of models with various sights, various barrel weights, various options. I suspect that with similar options the inherent accuracy is about the same. But, the actual usable accuracy probably tilts to the Buckmark because of the superior trigger.

Go to the range and rent one of each.

Dentite
April 25, 2011, 05:50 PM
I think they are both quality. I've got a Mk III 22/45 and my BIL has a Buckmark. Only shot a couple mags through his but I thought it was nice.

The Ruger offers more aftermarket if you like to tinker. I bought mine just because it seemed to be the one frequently recommended on questions like yours. I'm sure I'd be just as happy with the Buckmark.

I "fixed" the LCI and the thin grips by modifying the frame to accept 1911 style grips. Of course Ruger now offers this in the new "RP" models.

Mine:
http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n507/jschmiddy/R%202245/DSC05309800.jpg

millertyme
April 25, 2011, 06:03 PM
The trigger on my Buckmark was better then the triggers on any of the Ruger's I looked at when I was in the market. They both have tons of aftermarket stuff, they are both entirely better than any of the other sub $350 offerings, and they both have great followings. For me it ultimately came down to trigger and price. I ended up getting a stainless Buckmark Camper URX when it went on sale at BPS for $289.99 for Father's day last year.

freddy kRuger
April 25, 2011, 08:13 PM
Ruger Mark III with Clark Custom Gun trigger. Totally sick.

Col. Plink
April 26, 2011, 03:36 PM
My Buckmark has been wonderful for almost 20 yrs now, it must have a great trigger because it is ACCURATE.

harmon rabb
April 26, 2011, 10:57 PM
I own a 22/45. The best endorsement I can give it is that it eats any cheap bulk pack ammo, unlike the 22's some friends own, and it has a good trigger. Honestly, that probably says a lot. I've seen some dudes so ticked off at their 22's for how picky they are, while my 22/45 doesn't give a crap what cheap arse walmart bulk pack its fed.

The downside is that field stripping and cleaning it is entirely too complicated.

jbr
April 26, 2011, 11:20 PM
have owned both and prefer the buckmark I bought my daughter a couple of months ago. very accurate, great trigger. Mine has the fiber front sight and rubber wrap around grips - i like these options for the few dollars they add

Minnesota Wild
April 26, 2011, 11:43 PM
I actually was looking for a discontinued Buckmark UDX when I bought my Mark III 678 Hunter. I loved the grip of the Buckmark, but the Mark III has been awesome. The accuracy is great. I can pull .5" 25-yard groups with a couple types of ammo. I have put in the Volquertsen trigger components and they are better than the originals, but, contrary to the common refrain from owners, the trigger is pretty good to start with.

If you enjoyed reading about "Buck Mark or MKIII" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!