Browning Buck Mark Hunter vs. Ruger 22/45?


PDA






Kynoch
March 27, 2013, 05:36 PM
I'm looking for a rimfire pistol for use in Steel Challenge shooting. I want to use iron sights and I have narrowed down my choices to the following with the the associated pros and cons:

http://www.sportsmans-depot.com/product_images/f/797/brw_051403490__58999_zoom.jpg

Browning Buck Mark Hunter
Pros:

* 7.25" barrel (longer sight radius.)

* Fiber optic front sight.

* Aluminum vs. polymer frame.

* Better trigger than the Ruger out of the box.

* Though perhaps not as reliable as the Ruger, it appears the Buck Mark is still plenty reliable. Reliable enough for action shooting events.

* From what I have read, those with larger hands (which I have) typically prefer the Buck Mark to the 22/45.

Cons:

* More expensive (about $75.00)

* Mags are a bit more expensive than the Ruger.

* Concerns about the finish quality of the Hunter. Is it coated?

http://glocktalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=199180&d=1276728445

Ruger 22/45 with replaceable wood grip panels
Pros:

* Paramount reliability.

* Less expensive


Cons:

Shorter sight radius.

Less ergonomic grip for those with big hands.

Trigger needs work to bring it to the Buck Mark's level.

Sadly while I have shot the 22/45 I have never even seen a Buck Mark Hunter so I am faced with taking a gamble and ordering one. Any insight would be appreciated. Thanks.

If you enjoyed reading about "Browning Buck Mark Hunter vs. Ruger 22/45?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
hentown
March 27, 2013, 06:32 PM
I recently acquired a Ruger Mark III 22/45 with threaded barrel, no sights. I installed the VQ accurizing kit @ around $100 (o.k. by me) and now have a really good, adjustable trigger.

Liked the first one so much that I more recently acquired the Target Model with 5.5" barrel. I personally wouldn't want a 7.5" barrel, but that's just a matter of personal preference. I only installed the VQ target trigger @ about $35, instead of the complete VQ kit. Honed and polished the engagement surfaces and the result is a trigger almost as good as the one with the complete VQ kit.

Given the plethora of aftermarket add-ons, etc., and the ruggedness of the Ruger, they're hard to beat. You can increase the girth of the grip by using fatter grip panels.

Fishbed77
March 27, 2013, 06:50 PM
Both are great.

Personally, I prefer the all-steel Ruger Mark III (preferably with the LCI and mag disconnect removed, and a Volquartsen trigger and sear installed).

Kynoch
March 27, 2013, 07:31 PM
I recently acquired a Ruger Mark III 22/45 with threaded barrel, no sights. I installed the VQ accurizing kit @ around $100 (o.k. by me) and now have a really good, adjustable trigger.

Liked the first one so much that I more recently acquired the Target Model with 5.5" barrel. I personally wouldn't want a 7.5" barrel, but that's just a matter of personal preference. I only installed the VQ target trigger @ about $35, instead of the complete VQ kit. Honed and polished the engagement surfaces and the result is a trigger almost as good as the one with the complete VQ kit.

Given the plethora of aftermarket add-ons, etc., and the ruggedness of the Ruger, they're hard to beat. You can increase the girth of the grip by using fatter grip panels.

Thanks for the feedback. The 7.25" barrel is one of the prime benefits (to me) of the Buck Mark as it's a competitive edge in action shooting when not using a dot or other optic.

I had considered the S&W M41 with a 6 7/8 barrel -- a superb feeling firearm, but they are simply not as reliable as the Rugers in competition from what I have seen. I have seen few Brownings being used in competition but apparently they are nearly as reliable as the Rugers...

Kynoch
March 27, 2013, 07:32 PM
Both are great.

Personally, I prefer the all-steel Ruger Mark III (preferably with the LCI and mag disconnect removed, and a Volquartsen trigger and sear installed).

I have a Ruger MKII and a MKIII. Good guns but I don't care for the grip angle and my hands feel too large for the grips so I have already discounted them from my search.

tuj
March 27, 2013, 08:11 PM
you won't go wrong with either one. How much aftermarket stuff do you want to do? Any? If so, get the Ruger.

jmr40
March 27, 2013, 08:24 PM
Had em both. I just prefer the Ruger slightly better, but the Browning ain't bad at all.

Kynoch
March 27, 2013, 10:14 PM
you won't go wrong with either one. How much aftermarket stuff do you want to do? Any? If so, get the Ruger.

I can't think of two many things I would change. Possibly some skateboard tape on the grips and possibly a new rear sight? If I got the Browning perhaps the Heggis spring flip trick (not new parts needed) and not much else.

Kynoch
March 27, 2013, 10:16 PM
Had em both. I just prefer the Ruger slightly better, but the Browning ain't bad at all.

Did you own these exact two models? What made you choose the Ruger over the Browning?

PGT
March 27, 2013, 10:21 PM
I have a 22/45 BlackLITE and a Buckmark Target Black Label. Hands down, the Browning feels better in hand and has a better trigger. It's more expensive however.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y124/PatagonianGT/GunStuff/DSC07471.jpg

beatledog7
March 27, 2013, 11:34 PM
Buckmark. Amazing target pistol.

Kynoch
March 28, 2013, 01:30 AM
I am happy to hear the Buck Mark "feels better in hand." The Ruger MKI-III feel very small in my hands. This is less true of the 22/45 but I still feel constricted.

Can anyone here compare a Buck Mark to an S&W M41 in terms of how they feel in hand?

I have read a lot lately and it sounds as if the Buck Mark has nearly the same reliability as the 22/45?

Shipwreck
March 28, 2013, 11:17 AM
I like the Buckmark better too - a few years ago, I looked at all the various 22 models. Even rented a few. I liked the buckmark best, and that is what I got.

Much easier to take apart than the Ruger as well.

Taurus 617 CCW
March 28, 2013, 11:48 AM
I sought out a used Ruger 22/45 Mark 2. I compared it against a customer's Mark 3 with the Volquartsen trigger kit installed. I actually liked my trigger better. I have never regretted purchasing my 22/45. Take down and reassembly is a cinch once you know the trick.

jmr40
March 28, 2013, 12:18 PM
The Ruger is available in SS. That was the deciding factor for me

hentown
March 28, 2013, 12:35 PM
Pardon my ignorance, but I've never competed: What's the most distant target used in the Steel competition?

anothernewb
March 28, 2013, 12:44 PM
buckmark is available in stainless too. just not in the long barrel version that I know of.

The hunter I have looks like it's parkerized. it's coated similar to my AR, and has proven to be very durable.

5-SHOTS
March 28, 2013, 12:58 PM
I had the same dilemma monts ago and red a bunch of treads obout the Ruger vs the Browning and for me was a tie match. Ended up getting the Norinco TT-Olympia because it is an all steel gun and very simple to take down.

Crunchy Frog
March 28, 2013, 10:45 PM
I looked at this issue myself when a local club started offering Steel Challenge matches.

I shot my first match using a borrowed Buckmark. By the next month I had purchased a Ruger 22/45. I like the Buckmark but there were two factors that favored the Ruger.

First keep in mind that you will need five magazines. The Ruger came with two, the Bucky with one. The Ruger mags were less expensive than the Brownings to boot.

Also you will be dry firing your pistol during the match. When you finish shooting each stage, the range officer will have you drop the magazine, show a clear chamber, drop the slide/bolt, then point the gun downrange and pull the trigger.

The Ruger is perfectly fine to dry fire. The Browning? It's questionable. There was a fellow at one match with a Bucky that he was really concerned about dry firing. He stuffed a little plastic strip into the edge of his chamber at the end of each stage, to cushion the blow of the firing pin. To me that would get old fast.

Pilot
March 28, 2013, 10:47 PM
I have three Ruger MK II's, and a MK II era 22/45. The Rugers are reliable, over built, accurate, and very easily modified to have really nice triggers.

PGT
March 28, 2013, 10:51 PM
He stuffed a little plastic strip into the edge of his chamber at the end of each stage, to cushion the blow of the firing pin. To me that would get old fast.

actually, that's the norm with most any rimfire. I've got a ton of those plastic inserts because I have half a dozen 22LR's and they come with them.

ZeSpectre
March 28, 2013, 10:53 PM
I have owned both Ruger and Browning .22 pistols and consider them both to be fine firearms but they definitely have some differences.

Accuracy – It’s a wash. I’ve shot several (stock) models of both types and all were pretty much equal in accuracy. The design of the Browning lets you swap out to a different grade barrel whereas the Ruger barrel/chamber is swapped out as one piece but either is a simple process so I consider that a wash as well.

Reliability – Ruger does it’s typical overengineering (built like a tank) while Browning has what appear to be some lighter duty parts. In practical use I haven’t seen any difference as all of the models I’ve ever used, of either brand, functioned well so this is a draw.

Cleaning – Ruger and Browning are at opposite ends of the spectrum here. The Ruger is definitely designed to be “field stripped” for regular cleaning (though I consider the process a royal pain) whereas the Browning has no “field strip” but has an “open” chamber that is easily scrubbed down with a toothbrush and then a quick swab down the bore. In my opinion this makes the regular post range-trip cleaning easier on the Browning, however it does make things quite a bit more complicated if the Browning does need a serious cleaning because then you have to actually disassemble (not just “field strip”) the Browning.

In practical terms I still vote for the Browning because my experience has been that, due to the overall design, I almost never have to actually go so far as to disassemble the gun though I will say that if you do have to disassemble there are a lot of loose parts and it’s a real hassle.

Trigger and general design - Here’s where we get into the serious design commentary. Out of the box most Ruger 22 pistols have an “okay” trigger. If you put a Volquartsen trigger kit into it you will have an AWESOME trigger, but then you are also adding another $110.00 to the cost of the gun. Nearly every Browning I have owned has a trigger –at least- as good as the Volquartsen right out of the box.

Another problem I have with the Ruger design is that it actually seems to funnel crap from the chamber right down into the trigger assembly whereas the Buckmark design separates the trigger mechanisms from the chamber crud so it stays clean and crisp far longer between cleanings.

Additionally, I hate the Ruger's slide lock with a purple passion but that's because I'm a lefty and that slide release lever is in the worst place for me (not to mention that you can’t just “slingshot” a Ruger.

Accessories – Another wash. There are so many accessories and mods for either gun you can pretty much build anything you can imagine.

Don’t misunderstand me, the Ruger is a fine pistol and buying one would not be a mistake, but overall I’ll take the Browning.

greyling22
March 28, 2013, 11:45 PM
I grew up with a ruger so I am naturally biased that way. Now, with that out of the way:

I've run them both. Not in competition, but just out and about plinking. (note: all my ruger comments are based on pre-mk3, all steel guns)

The buckmark feels better in hand. particularly with the udx grips. (or whatever the 3 letters are. the finger groove grips) The buckmark tends to become problematic as it gets dirty. I don't like taking it apart. {Did they ever change the top sight rail back to metal? They were platsic for a bit and were breaking as I recall.}

The ruger didn't mind being dirty as much. most of what you need for a trigger job can be had just by buying a $30 sear. or go nuts and add a $30 trigger too. no need for the whole kit. As a lefty I really like the mag release on the bottom of the gun. It slingshots just fine . I generally just rack one of the ears with a knuckle, it doesn't require much.

Between those 2 guns, without any childhood preference coloring my decision, I would buy the buchmark all the way. Worst case scenario: you don't like the one you buy, sell it. Used guns are commanding so much these days you won't take much of a hit.

Eb1
March 29, 2013, 12:06 AM
I'd go with the Buckmark. My dad has had one since, well forever, and it is super accurate and very reliable.
I don't think I have ever seen if fail to fire, and it is plenty good for hunting. He just has a standard model.

As a matter of fact, I am wrestling with the idea of a Buckmark or a .44 Magnum with a 4 5/8" barrel. I have a 5.5" SBH now. I will probably go with the Browning. Everyone needs a Browning, a Colt, and a lever action in their collection IMO.

788Ham
March 29, 2013, 12:24 AM
Get the stainless Browning, the one with the fluted barrel, "Very accurate" piece! I had the opportunity to shoot one some time ago, was amazed at how accurate they really are. Don't remember the model #, not hard to find.

wild cat mccane
March 29, 2013, 12:37 AM
I honestly would like to hear someone says what gun has a worse feeling grip than the 22/45. The grip, to me, feels like gripping a deck of cards; thin and weird.

MaterDei
March 29, 2013, 12:46 AM
I have them both. I suggest you go and handle them both. The grips are very different so one is bound to fit you better than the other. Buy that one.

I have big hands and the Buckmark fits like a glove, the 22/45, not so much.

Good luck

hentown
March 29, 2013, 09:19 AM
I have large hands and find that the 22/45 fits me just fine. If the 22/45 grip feels like a "deck of cards," then I suppose a 1911's grip would feel the same to you?

I'm using a fatter 1911 grip on one of my 22/45s. Has a thumb rest, kind of like the Woodsman.

I'm of the opinion that a great deal of the fretting and whining about grip angle, etc. is psychosomatic. :rolleyes:

Bill4282
March 29, 2013, 02:32 PM
Ever wonder why there are so many aftermarket accurizing parts for Ruger and few for Buckmark? Could it be because the Buckmark is already better out if the box? Own a 5.5 Field for many years. NEVER any problems, big or small and a tack driver.

SDGlock23
March 29, 2013, 04:08 PM
I've always been a Buckmark fan. I shot one years ago and fell in love. I've had one of my own since 1998 and it's eaten a bunch of ammo, and it's accurate.

hentown
March 29, 2013, 06:45 PM
Ever wonder why there are so many aftermarket accurizing parts for Ruger and few for Buckmark? Could it be because the Buckmark is already better out if the box? Own a 5.5 Field for many years. NEVER any problems, big or small and a tack driver.

Nah, I never wonder about it, because I know the answer. It's because so few people have any interest in Buckmarks. It really is just as simple as that! :cool:

wickedsprint
March 29, 2013, 06:49 PM
Nah, I never wonder about it, because I know the answer. It's because so few people have any interest in Buckmarks. It really is just as simple as that! :cool:

Not sure if supply or demand driven, but Buckmarks seem to be a lot harder to find.

loose noose
March 29, 2013, 11:24 PM
Sure wish I could find a Ruger MKIII 22/45 with 5.5" barrel. I've been told they have a 4-5 month manufacturers delay for some reason.:(

nathan
March 29, 2013, 11:43 PM
I got the Ruger 22/45 with the replaceable grip . I got it last Feb and runned about 350 rds of Winchester Super X and Remington thunderbolt , all went with no hitch except for a few misfires attributed to the ammo. At 20 yrds on sandbag it was averaging like 1 -1.5 inch groups. That is good enough for me. Only thing i need is an extra third mag . I see Rugershop has them and all factory new comes with the 20 percent discount on all accessories. So, that s a big plus for me.

Jlr2267
March 29, 2013, 11:58 PM
Had both and sold the Ruger. Basically, what others here have said here is also true for me. The BM feels better and has a better trigger. The Ruger I had was a fine pistol and was less particular about ammo. It would eat anything, even Thunderbolts...come to think of it, that pistol never jammed on me once and I even tried to choke it on purpose.

Only bad thing I can say on the BM is that the top 2 screws holding the sightbase WILL loosen up if not threadlocked, and you will start to have FTF's.

Kynoch
March 30, 2013, 01:06 AM
Pardon my ignorance, but I've never competed: What's the most distant target used in the Steel competition?

For Steel Challenge it's 35 yards. Local matches can be a bit further. The targeting is fairly simple and it's hit or miss. The competition is timed though and a misfeed or a FTF can be very costly.

The need for extreme reliability is why I don't go with an S&W M41. The are superb pistols but they are simply not as reliable as the Rugers. I know competitors have have given their meticulously maintained/shooting only good ammo M41's a try before switching to a Ruger.

Kynoch
March 30, 2013, 01:09 AM
Had both and sold the Ruger. Basically, what others here have said here is also true for me. The BM feels better and has a better trigger. The Ruger I had was a fine pistol and was less particular about ammo. It would eat anything, even Thunderbolts...come to think of it, that pistol never jammed on me once and I even tried to choke it on purpose.

Only bad thing I can say on the BM is that the top 2 screws holding the sightbase WILL loosen up if not threadlocked, and you will start to have FTF's.

Why the FTFs? Does the base movement actually impede the pistol from cycling?

Does Loctite fix the problem once and for all?

Kynoch
March 30, 2013, 01:11 AM
Not sure if supply or demand driven, but Buckmarks seem to be a lot harder to find.

Very true. Buck Marks aren't a big deal around here. It's all Ruger and S&W.

Kynoch
March 30, 2013, 01:13 AM
I honestly would like to hear someone says what gun has a worse feeling grip than the 22/45. The grip, to me, feels like gripping a deck of cards; thin and weird.

For me? The Ruger MK I-III.

mdauben
March 31, 2013, 05:46 PM
Cons:

Shorter sight radius.

Less ergonomic grip for those with big hands.

Trigger needs work to bring it to the Buck Mark's level.
Are you locked into the 22/45 frame? I know a lot of people think the 22/45 grip angle is better, but some people (like me) actually find the regular Mk III grip angle preferable for one-hand, bulls-eye target practice. In the end, of course, it comes down to which feels best in your hand; Buckmark, 22/45 or Mk III.

If you decide to look at the regular Mk III, the Competition model has a longer, 6 7/8 inch barrel and very nice iron target sights. It also comes with thumb-rest, target grips. I've got somewhat large hands and they fit me just fine. Admittedly, the trigger can be improved, but swapping the stock trigger from one from Vorquesen or KIDD is a kitchen table mod.

http://www.ruger.com/products/markIIICompetition/images/10112.jpg

PGT
March 31, 2013, 07:18 PM
Kidd makes a MkIII trigger?

Kynoch
April 2, 2013, 04:52 PM
Are you locked into the 22/45 frame? I know a lot of people think the 22/45 grip angle is better, but some people (like me) actually find the regular Mk III grip angle preferable for one-hand, bulls-eye target practice. In the end, of course, it comes down to which feels best in your hand; Buckmark, 22/45 or Mk III.

If you decide to look at the regular Mk III, the Competition model has a longer, 6 7/8 inch barrel and very nice iron target sights. It also comes with thumb-rest, target grips. I've got somewhat large hands and they fit me just fine. Admittedly, the trigger can be improved, but swapping the stock trigger from one from Vorquesen or KIDD is a kitchen table mod.

http://www.ruger.com/products/markIIICompetition/images/10112.jpg

I have a MKII and I don't care for it. I would like something that felt a bit "larger" in my hands.

Dentite
April 2, 2013, 07:11 PM
I honestly would like to hear someone says what gun has a worse feeling grip than the 22/45. The grip, to me, feels like gripping a deck of cards; thin and weird.

I have to agree that the 22/45 MkIII with the molded grip panels integrated into the frame felt too thin right to left. Not "palm filling" with all the pressure on the front and the back.

I bought mine before there was a removable panel version and I followed others lead on grinding off the raised checkered area and installed 1911 grip bushings and grips.

This made the grip feel much better in my hands and IMO it looks better too.

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n507/jschmiddy/R%202245/DSC05256800.jpg

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n507/jschmiddy/R%202245/DSC05301800.jpg

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

I have also removed the mag disconnect (which improved the trigger and allows mags to drop free) and replaced the LCI with a filler panel.

Maybe I should have given the standard MkIII a chance but it looked weird to my novice eye back then. Now I might prefer it to the 22/45...I don't know, I've never held one for the fear that I might buy one.

Buckmark vs Ruger is like Ford vs Chevy. They'll both get the job done. The Ruger has a clear advantage when it comes to aftermarket goodies and usually has better availability. New features like the threaded barrel versions equal more variations on the Ruger side.

Satasaurus
April 3, 2013, 05:38 AM
I've wanted a Ruger Mark III forever, so I would go with that personally, but probably whichever fits your hand better and or looks cooler to you. I've heard really good things about both, but the Ruger just looks awesome to me.

Greg528iT
April 3, 2013, 11:04 AM
I have never even seen a Buck Mark Hunter

Better trigger than the Ruger out of the box.

If you've never seen one, how can one claim a better trigger?? Don't you have to shoot one to know, let alone see it. I've shot 1 Buckmark, so granted my experience is limited, but it's trigger was not any better than my Mark III or I.

Granted, that monster custom grip would certainly fit some hands better. I dare say, you can find a larger custom grip for a Ruger Mark I, II, or III that fits your hand better for about or less than the $75 price differential.

I don't know about these competitions, I mounted reflex sites on both my Rugers, far better site radius than even a rifle.

http://www.woodgrips.com/ruger_mkiii.htm

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=ruger+mark+grips

from mild to wild, lots of grip options out there for less than $75

mdauben
April 3, 2013, 12:48 PM
Kidd makes a MkIII trigger?

D'oh! You're right, they don't. I've been looking into trigger mods for my 10/22 and just threw it in there without thinking. :uhoh:

Sniper66
April 3, 2013, 03:04 PM
I have a Buckmark and my brother has 2-3 Rugers. we both prefer the Browning because of the feel in your hand and the trigger. The Rugers are good shooters and I would be happy to own them. My brother plans to keep his Rugers.

Jlr2267
April 3, 2013, 05:03 PM
Why the FTFs? Does the base movement actually impede the pistol from cycling?

Does Loctite fix the problem once and for all?

The slide is actually held in place by the sight base. When it loosens up, you will start seeing firing pin marks just barely catching the edge of the rim, and eventually FTF's. Yes threadlock will cure it if you let it set up for 24 hours or so. I don't even strip mine now, just clean the accessible areas, swab the bore and put it away. Runs like a champ.

Kynoch
April 4, 2013, 06:44 AM
If you've never seen one, how can one claim a better trigger?? Don't you have to shoot one to know, let alone see it. I've shot 1 Buckmark, so granted my experience is limited, but it's trigger was not any better than my Mark III or I.

Granted, that monster custom grip would certainly fit some hands better. I dare say, you can find a larger custom grip for a Ruger Mark I, II, or III that fits your hand better for about or less than the $75 price differential.

I don't know about these competitions, I mounted reflex sites on both my Rugers, far better site radius than even a rifle.

http://www.woodgrips.com/ruger_mkiii.htm

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=ruger+mark+grips

from mild to wild, lots of grip options out there for less than $75

"Better" sight radius? "Better" = LONGER and if your Ruger pistols have longer sight radius than your guns they're either illegal (too short of a barrel) or someone is playing a joke on you and they moved the sights together.

The Browning seems to have far more advantages for me in addition to better grips:

* Longer sight radius.

* Larger physical size (I have big hands.)

* All metal construction.

* Easier field strip.

* Fiber optic sights.

* Ready to go should I want to mount a red dot.

* Better trigger.

Greg528iT
April 4, 2013, 10:48 AM
Kynoch, I believe you mis understood.

I have a reflex sight on my rugers. It's like a scope, it does not rely on the barrel length for sight radius. I have it zeroed in at 12 yards. I put the 3 MOA dot on the target that's where the bullet goes. Reflex is a red dot that does not have a barrel. easier to see off angle. OK so yeah technically it doesn't have a site radius anymore or it's infinite.


A Mark III is ALL metal, well the stock grips are plastic, unless you get the wood option. I provided links to aftermarket wood grips of multiple sizes that, were cheaper than $75 and will fill most any large hands. I bet one can find grips even bigger than the Buck Mark if wanted.

My Mark III trigger breaks at 2 lbs. I haven't even gone in to polish or smooth anything. My Mark I breaks at just over 1 lbs. but it has countless trigger pulls and it's broken in quite well, so well I may need to FIX it soon.

Kynoch
April 4, 2013, 05:45 PM
Kynoch, I believe you mis understood.

I have a reflex sight on my rugers. It's like a scope, it does not rely on the barrel length for sight radius. I have it zeroed in at 12 yards. I put the 3 MOA dot on the target that's where the bullet goes. Reflex is a red dot that does not have a barrel. easier to see off angle. OK so yeah technically it doesn't have a site radius anymore or it's infinite.


A Mark III is ALL metal, well the stock grips are plastic, unless you get the wood option. I provided links to aftermarket wood grips of multiple sizes that, were cheaper than $75 and will fill most any large hands. I bet one can find grips even bigger than the Buck Mark if wanted.

My Mark III trigger breaks at 2 lbs. I haven't even gone in to polish or smooth anything. My Mark I breaks at just over 1 lbs. but it has countless trigger pulls and it's broken in quite well, so well I may need to FIX it soon.

For the additional cost I would be getting a heck of a lot more than different grips with the Browning vs. the Ruger.

FWIW The Ruger Hunter is priced at $679.00. $729.00 if you want upgraded grips: http://www.ruger.com/products/markIIIHunter/models.html

The Browning Buck Mark Hunter is priced at $479.99: http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/firearms/detail.asp?fid=006B&cid=051&tid=403

Ruger has raised their prices by a remarkable amount!

kludge
April 4, 2013, 05:54 PM
Ditto what Ze Spectre said...

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8838703&postcount=22

Also, I have both a Buckmark Camper and a Ruger 22/45 w/ cocobolo grips. Both feel good but the Buckmark feels better. Buckmark trigger is better, so that saves you $100. You can slingshot a Buckmark, the Ruger can't - it's annoying. And the button is hard to use even though I'm right handed.

To top it all, the Ruger WILL NOT feed standard velocity ammo. Worse even, it dent's the case, so that it won't even chamber, and that's just unacceptable.

I won my club's "Champion Challenge" last year with the Buckmark. Both divisions, irons and optics. And I don't have an optic for it.

Regarding the cleaning, I can field strip and clean the Buckmark twice in the time it takes me to do the Ruger once.

Kynoch
April 4, 2013, 06:18 PM
Ditto what Ze Spectre said...

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8838703&postcount=22

Also, I have both a Buckmark Camper and a Ruger 22/45 w/ cocobolo grips. Both feel good but the Buckmark feels better. Buckmark trigger is better, so that saves you $100. You can slingshot a Buckmark, the Ruger can't - it's annoying. And the button is hard to use even though I'm right handed.

To top it all, the Ruger WILL NOT feed standard velocity ammo. Worse even, it dent's the case, so that it won't even chamber, and that's just unacceptable.

I won my club's "Champion Challenge" last year with the Buckmark. Both divisions, irons and optics. And I don't have an optic for it.

Regarding the cleaning, I can field strip and clean the Buckmark twice in the time it takes me to do the Ruger once.

YOUR Ruger may not. Mine and many others I have observed in competition certainly will. That's really the reason my choice comes down to either the Browning or the Ruger -- the very best reliability going.

wild cat mccane
April 4, 2013, 06:32 PM
Someone mentioned the Ruger MKIII hunter/comp has a great sight....

I would argue it has one of the worst. That V is terrible. What other gun has a V sight?

Greg528iT
April 5, 2013, 12:21 AM
I had not realized the Mark IIIs had jumped so much in price. When I bought mine it was only slightly more expensive than the 22/45. So, i was just using the data points in the OP.

Kynoch
April 5, 2013, 03:46 AM
I had not realized the Mark IIIs had jumped so much in price. When I bought mine it was only slightly more expensive than the 22/45. So, i was just using the data points in the OP.

The baseline MKIII is "only" $389.99 http://www.ruger.com/products/markIIIStandard/models.html

But if you want a longer barrel you have to buy stainless and it has to be either slab-sided or fluted. Ruger seems to be fairly adept at maximizing their $$$.

I would love to see a 22/45 with a blued 6 7/8" barrel for $389.99, but nothing like that exists anymore. This thread has been informative -- it has sold me on the Browning.

Pilot
April 5, 2013, 10:23 AM
Those prices are all MSRP. Actual retail will be much less depending on where you buy them. Shop around.

Greg528iT
April 5, 2013, 10:45 AM
http://www.ruger.com/products/markIIITarget/images/10159.jpg

Now there is a grip that should fill the biggest of hands. Put a red dot or a reflex sight on it and sight radius / barrel length is a non issue.

jrdolall
April 5, 2013, 11:17 AM
I am NOT a competition shooter but you all wish I was becasue you could stomp me. I do own a Buckmark and a Ruger and use them extensively for training youngsters and people that are new to the sport of shooting. 100% of the people I have worked with prefer the Browning because it "feels better" in their hand. I really like the Ruger but I agree about the feeling of the Browning. My Buckmark tends to prefer Stingers while the Ruger runs any high velocity. Probably just because the Buckmark is older and has had 10s of 1000s of rounds run through it with no work other than an occasional cleaning.

kludge
April 5, 2013, 01:56 PM
YOUR Ruger may not. Mine and many others I have observed in competition certainly will. That's really the reason my choice comes down to either the Browning or the Ruger -- the very best reliability going.

My buddy's $600 MKIII Hunter also consistently jams with SV ammo.

Kynoch
April 5, 2013, 07:38 PM
http://www.ruger.com/products/markIIITarget/images/10159.jpg

Now there is a grip that should fill the biggest of hands. Put a red dot or a reflex sight on it and sight radius / barrel length is a non issue.

As I said in my original posting, I shoot in a class that precludes optics/dots.

Kynoch
April 5, 2013, 07:41 PM
My buddy's $600 MKIII Hunter also consistently jams with SV ammo.

I am very surprised to hear that...

Greg528iT
April 6, 2013, 02:15 PM
I'm looking for a rimfire pistol for use in Steel Challenge shooting. I want to use iron sights

Steel Class has 2 divisions for rim fire. Optics and suppressors and non optics non suppressor. So I did drift off subject a bit, but really if you are worried about sight radius get a red dot.. OK yeah it does feel like cheating.. but I like always hitting what I aim at. :D

As I said in my original posting, I shoot in a class that precludes optics/dots. to my defense, you didn't say you were only going to shoot that one class.

Kynoch
April 6, 2013, 05:31 PM
Steel Class has 2 divisions for rim fire. Optics and suppressors and non optics non suppressor. So I did drift off subject a bit, but really if you are worried about sight radius get a red dot.. OK yeah it does feel like cheating.. but I like always hitting what I aim at.

to my defense, you didn't say you were only going to shoot that one class.

Sorry but the Ruger loses big time to the Browning for the application I defined in my first posting no matter how you might try to spin it by trying to redefine what I asked.

Pilot
April 7, 2013, 08:13 AM
My three Ruger MK II's, and my MK II era 22/45 feed, and fire just about any .22 ammo except Remington Golden Bullets which I have not bought for years. My friend just bought a MK III 22/45 Target Model BNIB at Cableas for $289. I don't see ANY Rugers priced nearly as high as you state Kynoch, even the MK III Hunter. I see Buckmarks pushing $500 or actually a bit over.

Kynoch
April 7, 2013, 08:42 PM
My three Ruger MK II's, and my MK II era 22/45 feed, and fire just about any .22 ammo except Remington Golden Bullets which I have not bought for years. My friend just bought a MK III 22/45 Target Model BNIB at Cableas for $289. I don't see ANY Rugers priced nearly as high as you state Kynoch, even the MK III Hunter. I see Buckmarks pushing $500 or actually a bit over.

I didn't state the price -- Ruger does on their website whose URL I provided: http://www.ruger.com/products/markIIIHunter/models.html

My apologies but I would need to see proof to believe your "friend just bought a MK III 22/45 Target Model BNIB at Cableas for $289." The baseline price for a 22/45 is $359.99 and sellers are getting at least that -- when they are even available. http://www.ruger.com/products/2245Target/models.html

Kiln
April 7, 2013, 08:44 PM
I am very surprised to hear that...
Me too. My MK3 is the only .22lr pistol besides the Beretta Neos that has never malfunctioned on me in any way. The MK3 has over 10k rounds through it and the Neos has approximately 2k.

Geno
April 7, 2013, 11:04 PM
I looked at the Browning and the Ruger 22/45 LITE. I settled on the 22/45 LITE, with threaded barrel and target sights. It is an extremely accurate little pistol, with any ammo, and is fully reliable. Last week, I went to the indoor range and put well over 500 rounds of target and hollow point ammo through it. In total, I experienced 3 failures to extract. The accuracy never dropped. I brought it home, cleaned with a Q-Tip, and good as gold again. Edit to add, I purchased mine for small game hunting, and so I do wish I had fiber optic sights. It didn't matter much, because I do plan to use a electronic dot sight.

Geno

Kynoch
April 8, 2013, 01:35 AM
Me too. My MK3 is the only .22lr pistol besides the Beretta Neos that has never malfunctioned on me in any way. The MK3 has over 10k rounds through it and the Neos has approximately 2k.

I am surprised a second time. I have never seen a Beretta Neos that did not malfunction. Otherwise like the S&W Model 41 and even the 22A, it's a fine pistol.

Kynoch
April 8, 2013, 01:40 AM
I looked at the Browning and the Ruger 22/45 LITE. I settled on the 22/45 LITE, with threaded barrel and target sights. It is an extremely accurate little pistol, with any ammo, and is fully reliable. Last week, I went to the indoor range and put well over 500 rounds of target and hollow point ammo through it. In total, I experienced 3 failures to extract. The accuracy never dropped. I brought it home, cleaned with a Q-Tip, and good as gold again. Edit to add, I purchased mine for small game hunting, and so I do wish I had fiber optic sights. It didn't matter much, because I do plan to use a electronic dot sight.

Geno

I have to agree with you on Ruger's reliability. In tactical shooting matches, Ruger's reign supreme around here. If you have the real bucks you replace almost all of the gun with third party parts from Volquartsen, Tactical Solutions, etc.

If all guns feed and ignited .22LR ammo perfectly I would buy a S&W Model 41 with a 6 7/8" barrel and be done with it. But they don't, hence my interest in the Browning.

Given the positive reviews about Browning reliability, build quality and ergonomics, I suspect I will go with the Browning Buck Mark Hunter.

Kiln
April 8, 2013, 02:13 AM
I am surprised a second time. I have never seen a Beretta Neos that did not malfunction. Otherwise like the S&W Model 41 and even the 22A, it's a fine pistol.
I swear mine works great and it hasn't had anything besides the cheapest bulk ammo that was available. I bought it for my wife because she liked the pointer finger mag release and ease of disassembly.

I never intended to love it as much as I do but honestly the trigger could be better, that's the only real complaint I have.

Pilot
April 8, 2013, 08:54 AM
MSRP on a manufacturers website is MUCH higher than what you pay in most gun stores. If you are paying MSRP, you are buying in the wrong place.

Kynoch
July 23, 2013, 04:12 AM
Steel Class has 2 divisions for rim fire. Optics and suppressors and non optics non suppressor. So I did drift off subject a bit, but really if you are worried about sight radius get a red dot.. OK yeah it does feel like cheating.. but I like always hitting what I aim at. :D

to my defense, you didn't say you were only going to shoot that one class.

"Compensators" not "suppressors".

italianbreadman
July 23, 2013, 05:01 AM
So what did you end up going with? Right from your initial post it sounded like the Browning would be the right gun for you. I suspect that even if you did go with the Ruger, you'd always wonder about the Buckmark and perhaps even regret not choosing it.

I, on the other hand, just bought a Ruger 22/45 Target last week, and I totally dig it. I didn't get the "deck of cards" grip, though - and I'd say that description is spot-on about the base 22/45. I opted for the one with removable "wood" grips; it feels 20x better than the all-plastic, molded-grip version. I find that it shoots wonderfully for putting inexpensive holes in paper in my back yard, but I couldn't comment on competition level.

For what I paid - $309 at Sportsman's Outdoor Superstore - I'm absolutely happy with it and have no remorse. I nearly got into that Neos for $250, but thought better of it before doing something stupid. It was the almost combat-style sights that turned me off. I wanted a target .22, not another Glock!!

jsnake
July 23, 2013, 10:57 AM
I happen to have both. Out of the box, the browning is a far better shooter. Go with the browning hunter. I happen to love mine.

Prince Yamato
July 23, 2013, 10:58 AM
All .22s have reliability issues. In the case of the buckmark and mark iii, it's usually the ammo, not the gun. The .22 just doesn't lend itself to reliable feeding the way center fire guns do.

Honestly, pick whichever is most comfortable to you, they're both great guns.

Pilot
July 23, 2013, 11:03 AM
All .22s have reliability issues. In the case of the buckmark and mark iii, it's usually the ammo, not the gun. The .22 just doesn't lend itself to reliable feeding the way center fire guns do.

Honestly, pick whichever is most comfortable to you, they're both great guns.
My Ruger MK II's do not have feeding issues. Using Federal 550 bulk, Automatch and CCI Minimags they are very reliable. I would imagine the Buckmark is the same, especially with the CCI's.

Speedo66
July 23, 2013, 12:42 PM
Can't comment on the Ruger except to say my new Buckmark feels better to me than the Ruger.

I just did a little range report http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=722872&highlight=browning+buckmark and found the Buckmark fed, fired, and ejected perfectly everything I fed it. This included Federal bulk, CCI Mini Mags, CCI standard velocity, and Remington HV solids (Thunderbolts).

After reading of the many troubles with Sigs, Berettas, and Walther .22's, I'm very happy to have a trouble free pistol.

mdauben
July 23, 2013, 02:51 PM
A bit late to the discusion. Has the OP bought his gun yet?

The Browning seems to have far more advantages for me in addition to better grips:

* Longer sight radius. - Marginally (~1/2 inch?).

* Larger physical size (I have big hands.) - Haven't actually compared, but the MkIII fits my larger than average hands okay.

* All metal construction. - My MkIII Competition is all metal. The Hunter model is, too.

* Easier field strip. - Okay, no argument there! It does generally get easier with practice, though.

* Fiber optic sights. - The MkIII Hunter has FO sights, too.

* Ready to go should I want to mount a red dot. - AFAIK, all MkIII's come predrilled with a factory scope rail included.

* Better trigger. Probably, although my own MkIII isn't bad out of the box.

FWIW The Ruger Hunter is priced at $679.00.
I don't recall what the MSRP was at the time, but last fall I bought a MkIII Competition (currently MSRP $20 less than the Hunter) for less than $475 OTD so there are deals to be found.

To top it all, the Ruger WILL NOT feed standard velocity ammo. Worse even, it dent's the case, so that it won't even chamber, and that's just unacceptable.
Sounds like this may be a problem with your gun? My MkIII works just fine with CCI SV ammo.

Someone mentioned the Ruger MKIII hunter/comp has a great sight....

I would argue it has one of the worst. That V is terrible. What other gun has a V sight?
Actually, the Competition and Target models have square notch rear sights. The Hunter does have a v notch, but it has a FO front sight, which IMO isn't suited for the finest target accuracy anyway so I don't mind the FO/v-notch combo, myself (YMMV). If it does bug you, swapping the Hunter rear sight for the Competition/Target rear sight would be easy enough, or just use a red-dot or scope. Or just buy the Competition or Target model to start with! No one says you can't hunt with them, too.

Still, the Buck Mark Hunter is a great gun, and its not like he can go wrong with it if the OP likes the Browning better. ;)

skt239
July 23, 2013, 05:03 PM
I was given a Ruger MKIII 22/45 for my birthday last year and it is without a doubt my favorite handgun I currently or have ever owned. Mine is the bare bones model; 5.5 inch barrel, target sites, fixed grips. The only modification I've made is adding a HiViz front site, which cost around $30 off amazon. I was surprised to read so many complaints about...

Reliability - Mine feeds anything. I've gone through 1000's of the Remi gold bullets and I just finished a large zip lock freezer bag of mixed ammo of unknown age or origin. Other than primer issues, hardly any mis feeds.

Trigger - After a year of use the trigger is great. For someone like who does not compete, I'm not sure i require much more out of it. The trigger makes it easy to shoot the pistol fast and accurately.

Accuracy - For how I like to shoot, no rest and inside of 25 yards, the Ruger is great in the accuracy department. I'm sure that on a rest or in more capable hands, it's a tack driver.

Ergonomics - I was given the Ruger as a surprise and had never held before I was holding my own. I will admit that the grip felt a bit narrow to me but once I familiarized myself with it, I had no issues.

Controls - I'm a lefty so nothing is ever in have right place. I'd love it if the pistol could sling shot but its not for defense or competition so I'm not worried about.

I love my Ruger and I'm sure I'd like a Buckmark just the same. Maybe I'll get one of those next. Until then, this one is my favorite...

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/07/24/za3a8uza.jpg

Kynoch
July 24, 2013, 02:59 AM
I bought a used S&W Model 41 with a 6 7/8" barrel for two reasons. First, it was a terrific deal. Second, the Browning Buck Mark Hunter is not on the approved handgun roster for California -- something that most here won't have to worry about.

As a consequence I have to meticulously maintain the Model 41 (even during the midst of a match) and I cannot run just any ammo in it. So far it has been pretty darned reliable but it's still not a common .22 pistol for Steel Challenge because it's not as reliable as the Ruger or likely the Browning.

I might bring a Browning Hunter into CA via the "single shot exemption" (long story) if the Model 41 begins to falter. There is absolutely no question that I would choose it over a Ruger 22/45.

Kynoch
July 24, 2013, 03:03 AM
All .22s have reliability issues. In the case of the buckmark and mark iii, it's usually the ammo, not the gun. The .22 just doesn't lend itself to reliable feeding the way center fire guns do.

Honestly, pick whichever is most comfortable to you, they're both great guns.

Some more than others. The Rugers (MK X and 22/45), the Volquartsen Ruger upgrades and the Brownings seem to be more reliable than any other .22 pistol.

cdb1
July 24, 2013, 07:34 AM
Bought a MkIII 22/45 in 07 for my son. It was the base model with a bull barrel. It was stolen in 2011. I bought a Buck Mark Camper base model to replace the Ruger and like it much better. It seems to be more accurate than the 22/45 was but that may be b/c the trigger on the Browning is so much better. If I were going to be shooting competition and tricking a pistol out, I would lean towards a Ruger. For a pistol to shoot right out of the box with no mods it is definitely a Buck Mark. With stock sights it is deadly on rabbits and squirrels out to 25 yards.

If you enjoyed reading about "Browning Buck Mark Hunter vs. Ruger 22/45?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!