Browning Buck Mark?

[Panzerschwein]

Hey guys, I've sold a gun for some fat cash and I've decided to... what else... BUY ANOTHER GUN!!!

So I've been wanting a new .22 handgun for some time. I actually own an NAA mini revolver but pray tell, that is not so much a good target gun, to say the least.

In my search for a fun and good quality .22LR semi-automatic pistol for target shooting, plinking, and low-cost training I am leaning towards the Browning Buck Mark pistol. I went to the Browning website and looked for the model I wanted most, which is the Challnge with Rosewood grips:



http://www.browning.com/products/fi...-production/buck-mark-challenge-rosewood.html

I really like the way this one looks. It also doesn't appear to have finger grooves, which is a nice thing for me as I don't so much like them. It really checks off some boxes in my search... but how good are these Browning guns?

How, would you say, do the Browning Buck Mark pistols compare in terms of reliability, accuracy, ease of maintenance, and overall quality over the .22 semi-automatics (specifically the Mk. III and 22/45) from Ruger?

Any feedback on the current production Buck Marks would be greatly appreciated. Are they well made guns? Where, in fact, are they manufactured? Are they reliable and accurate?

Thanks so much all!

 

[Tommygunn]

I have one (Buck Mark) and I love it. Well, mine does have the finger grooves (but they work OK for me -- it's a personal thing) on a rubber grip, and a "bull" barrel.
The Buck Marks have a good reputation.
Plus, IMHO they do look a bit "James Bondish." (A early publicity photo from the '60s shows Bond holding a gun that, while in reality was a BB gun, looked very "Buckmarkish." )

I also have a Ruger Mk III.
Both are good guns, and I have had no problems with either. It's really I guess a matter of taste. The Ruger has a loaded chamber indicater that turns some people off. I've heard of people removing it -- there's someplace that sells an insert to fill the space, but I don't remember who it is.
If price makes any difference use that and buy the less expensive.
Oh, keep in mind the Ruger has a weirdly funky disassembly method that takes a little experience to get used to, so if that's a consideration....
But either way you really can't go wrong.

 

[Brian425]

Ive had one since the 80's, a 'Hunter' model with the rubber grips and bull barrel. I have a red dot on it. A little finicky on ammo, doesnt like Winchester Wildcat for some reason. Also, if you have a misfire, racking the slide is very hard. I sent my slide to a guy who installs what looks like a little AR style charging handle on the back of the slide. Very reasonable pricing and it works like a champ. I havent owned a Ruger so I have no comment on those. Either way you can't go wrong!

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

 

[FL-NC]

I would go for Ruger. My 3 (MK1, MK2, 2245) have all been solid, accurate, reliable along with many others I have fired that weren't mine. More models to choose from, reasonably priced, excellent customer service.

 

[Panzerschwein]

I would go for Ruger. My 3 (MK1, MK2, 2245) have all been solid, accurate, reliable along with many others I have fired that weren't mine. More models to choose from, reasonably priced, excellent customer service.

Thank you. Have you had experience with the Browning pistols?

 

[Ed Ames]

I have used both the MkII (specifically a Gov't Competition Target Slab-side) and Buckmark (Specifically a Camper Whisper threaded-barrel model) pretty extensively. As in maybe 20k Rds between the two. Maybe more, I wasn't really tracking that closely.

I have shot a MkIII and 22/45 but never cleaned or done other ownerly things with them.

If I had to buy again today I'd get the Buckmark. I'm not knocking the Ruger really - it is a well built gun - but honestly I'm still bitter about the MkIII; I think the MkII was a better gun. Anyway...the Buckmark is a good 1911 trainer (in other words it competes with the 22/45 more than the Mk series). I find it easier to strip for cleaning. Maybe that (feels like I'm missing a word here) takedown lever on the mkII loosens over time but after 25 years and a whole bunch of use I still have to fight with it. As far as I know the mkIII has the same lever.

A few years ago the Ruger was a clear winner on things like ultralight barrels. Now not only can you get lined aluminum barrels for both, the Buckmark versions are $90 cheaper.

They both have magazine disconnects. The magazines cost about the same amount.

 

[Everready73]

Might want to also look into the S&W Victory. It's newer but has great feedback. A breeze to take down and there are after market barrels etc available.

 

[usp9]

I can vividly recall the first rounds out of my first Buckmark Field 5.5. I was amazed at the ease of accurate placement, the smooth clean trigger, the good ergonomics. I could only compare it to my Woodsman Match Target. I've since added a "fun" Buckmark Micro and it too is more accurate and fun than expected. You can't go wrong here... great guns.

 

[pockets]

I have owned a Buckmark Micro Bull for years., It is wonderful pistol! I shoot it far far more than my Ruger Mk....or more than any of the many other .22LR pistols I own.

As for James Bond holding one in a poster? I must have missed that. Perhaps you are thinking of the early posters that featured him holding a Walther LP53 air pistol...close in looks to a Buckmark. The Walther LP53 was never used in a Bond film though, only in theater posters.

 

[Skyshot]

I have a Buckmark challenge 5.5 that I bought back in 03. It's been flawless and super accurate. I also have a High Standard supermatic and a Ruger mkll government. I couldn't really call one more accurate than the other. But I do tend to carry the buckmark the most when I'm hiking or just knocking around the farm because it's nice and lightweight.

 

[lincen]

This question comes up a lot but the best answer that I've seen is to buy both. I have a Buck Mark Challenge with the older style 7.25" barrel. It is a JMB commemorative that now has a set of polished walnut Browning grips on it. Also have a Ruger MarkII with the 4.50" pencil barrel. Really would hate to get rid of either one.

 

[Kookla]

Have never shot a buckmark, but would like to one day. I have shot each of Ruger's MK series- 1,2 and 3. All have shot extremely well- the MK 1 didn't like some CCI hollow points I had. The MK 2 and 3 (22/45) were neck and neck- maybe slight edge to the MK3.

I've never seen an MK that was worn out. I've never heard of an MK that has been worn out.

 

[Tallball]

My FiL has a Ruger MKII target model. I have a Buck Mark. Neither is more accurate than the other. Neither has a better trigger. The Buck Mark is much easier to field strip. They both eat every kind of ammo we have ever fed them.

Don't just take my word for it. My daughter is spoiled rotten when it comes to firearms. For her to enjoy shooting something it has to have great sights, a great trigger, and has to be very accurate in her hands. Otherwise she rolls her eyes at me, tells me it's "junk", and sets it down to shoot something else. She likes the Buck Mark and the Ruger equally well.

(Her favorites of the handguns I own are the Buck Mark, Single Sixes in 22 and 32, Colt 1903, and Colt Government 380.)

 

[ATLDave]

I have a Buckmark and love it. It goes with me every trip to the square range, and I've put uncountable rounds through it over the last ~8 years. It's certainly more accurate than I am. One of my favorite range activities is putting up a quarter-sized sticker, and shooting it from 5 to 10 yards until the sticker is entirely shot away... towards the end, you really have to aim at half inch and smaller scraps of paper, and the Buckmark can hit them if I do my part.

I've used it to introduce at least half a dozen new shooters to the joy of shooting. Take down for cleaning is a relative breeze, requiring only a couple of hex wrenches, and reassembly is a damn sight easier than the (otherwise awesome) Ruger MK's. And, like many .22's, it runs and shoots just fine even when it is fairly filthy.

 

[RainDodger]

My Buck Mark is boringly perfect. It's accurate, it works well, it has a great trigger and it just seems to go on and on, hitting whatever it's generally pointed at. Great .22 pistol. Well made. Not much else to say.

 

[Speedo66]

I've had a Ruger bull barrel, High Standard Victor, and now a Buckmark target pistol. I sold the Ruger when I acquired the HS. I sold the HS, big mistake, and eventually replaced it with the Buckmark. My thoughts are the HS was the nicest; best fit and finish, best trigger, and most accurate.

I would rank the Buckmark next best. Close, but not quite up to the HS. Was never thrilled with the Ruger, looked and felt cheap to me and didn't care for the trigger.

I think you'll be very pleased with the Buckmark.

 

[bannockburn]

Cooldill

A friend of mine had one and I was impressed with the design, build quality, and performance. Like the look of the Challenge Rosewood.

 

[71velle]

I have the 22/45 but is quite modified, if I were to buy again I would likely go for the new Smith. The buckmark is a great shooter but seems to need more cleaning to keep running.

 

[Tommygunn]

I have owned a Buckmark Micro Bull for years., It is wonderful pistol! I shoot it far far more than my Ruger Mk....or more than any of the many other .22LR pistols I own.

As for James Bond holding one in a poster? I must have missed that. Perhaps you are thinking of the early posters that featured him holding a Walther LP53 air pistol...close in looks to a Buckmark. The Walther LP53 was never used in a Bond film though, only in theater posters.

If you were refering to my post, what I said was;

IMHO they do look a bit "James Bondish." (A early publicity photo from the '60s shows Bond holding a gun that, while in reality was a BB gun, looked very "Buckmarkish." )

So, you're right, it never appeared in the film, only a poster, and it was a "airgun" or BB --or pellet gun, if you prefer -- and, I'd forgotten the model #, a LP53 Walther. I have always suspected when they went to take that publicity photo they forgot to bring along a prop gun and someone had a air gun (the Walther) and it looked cool and modern, so they simply used that.

 

[FL-NC]

cooldill- I have shot a friend's buckmark, and it worked fine. I just prefer the Rugers for the reasons I stated.

 

[maxxhavoc]

You won't regret buying either a Buckmark or Ruger MK series. They are both fine pistols, and either selection may easily become the most accurate pistol in your safe.

I like the Ruger better, because that's what I have and it ain't going anywhere. The Ruger is harder to strip for cleaning, but once you get the hang of it, it's not bad (at least on a MKII - no experience with MKIII.)

 

[Steelharp]

Might want to also look into the S&W Victory. It's newer but has great feedback. A breeze to take down and there are after market barrels etc available.

This. They are tack drivers, and SO much easier to maintain. That Buckmark IS gorgeous, and I would never part with mine, but... if I was gonna do it over, I would snag a Victory.

 

[jogar80]

I have had both. They are both excellent quality and equally accurate. The browning is easier to strip and clean. To me that is it's one true advantage over the ruger.

 

[MedWheeler]

I don't see any way you could go wrong with the Browning.

 

[FL-NC]

I don't take the Rugers apart. I lock it to the rear, blast of compressed air for sand, swab the bore, a couple drops of oil on the bolt, wipe the outside with a little oil, done. Has worked fine for years.