Browning buckmark UDX vs Ruger mark I, I I or III Target

[Dave Bulla]

Want to buy a good shooting, reliable 22 auto pistol and I've narrowed it down to two basic choices. A Browning buckmark UDX or a Ruger mark I, II, or III Target. Years ago I almost bought a buckmark silhouette but never did. I also came close to getting a Ruger with a heavy barrel but never did that either.

I'm in a position finally to get SOMETHING but can't quite make up my mind. I've always heard great things about the rugers and have shot several of them over the years. One was a stainless, slab sided, bull barrel that was some sort of US Olympics commemorative version. I must say that I probably shoot that gun as well or better than any other handgun I've ever shot. We were popping turtles in the head in a stock pond in Texas and had a blast. I'm sure some of our shots were over 35 yards. I didn't think I was capable of making spots like that with a pistol.

About my only gripe with the Ruger is the grip angle just seems a bit unnatural.

I've never shot a Browning buckmark but know people who have them and they all say they are great guns and very accurate also. When I handled the buckmark UDX in the store just picking it up in my hand was an experience. I can't explain it but it was almost like I wasn't holding anything. The we're no high spots, no edges that detracted from the feel, nothing really but comfort. Sort of like putting on a really well fitting pair of shoes. You just kinda go "aaaah, that's nice! "

I was also told by the guy behind the counter that both the Ruger and the Browning were great guns but the Ruger was a bit harder to disassemble and work on. Something about needing a specialist tool???

Prices are not that far apart depending on which Ruger you look at. The Browning is $499, I think most of the rugers are a little less unless you get into some of the nicer stainless ones.

So, I'm leaning towards the Browning but they don't seem to be as common as the rugers so I don't know but one or two guys who have them and none have the UDX version.

Help me decide... point out pros or cons of either that you are aware of. Preferably first hand. I've got the itch and I gotta scratch it soon.

 

[anothernewb]

I'll admit I'm biased to the Buckmark. better trigger out of the box, and easier teardown IMO. Both my standard and hunter are good enough for bullseye out of the box.

$499 sounds a bit high to me. But prices do vary by area. I bought a buckmark standard for $400 and a hunter for $440. Buds has a udx right now for $336

Both platforms are scary accurate, but if you want to spend the $$$ the ruger can be modded to be very very nice.

If you want to buy a shooter and use it as it is out of the box - buy the buckmark.
If you want to tweak yours to be uniquely setup for you - the ruger is going to have a wider range of options.

 

[OldBrownDog]

I've had a Buckmark Camper for three or four years. It's my only dedicated .22 handgun right now. 4,000+ rounds through it without any issues. Other than a Tactical Solutions integrated sight rail, it does not need modification. If the UDX fit your hand as well as you say, I think your decision is made.

 

[MrBorland]

Can't go wrong with either, IMO. When looking, I was considering the Buckmark or the Ruger, ending up with a Ruger MkIII. I then installed a VQ trigger, the sight rail and an UltraDot, intending it to be used in bullseye shooting.

My FIL has a MkII and we noticed his MkII isn't drilled for a sight rail, so I'm guessing those (the drillings and the rail) are nice feature of the MkIII. The MkIII also has the mag release where it normally is on most pistols, whereas it's under the magwell on the MkII. Some don't like the mag disconnect of the MkIII, but it's a non-issue to me.

As far as grip angle, the grip angle of the Ruger 22/45 is designed to mimick the grip angle of the 1911, and some much prefer that.

Ruger was a bit harder to disassemble and work on. Something about needing a specialist tool???

A paperclip and a rubber mallet. The mechanics of disassembly & reassembly really aren't that hard, and there are very helpful vids to guide you through it. The hardest part is getting the upper off and on, particularly when the gun is newer. The mallet will be your friend.

 

[Fiv3r]

I've been happy with my somewhat discontinued Ruger 22/45 with the 4" barrel and solid polymer body (no grip panels). Basic as it gets but accurate and reliable. Once I can start getting .22 ammo again in reasonable quantities, I plan on taking mine out for a full day of fun.

 

[horsemen61]

If the browning felt that good in your hand then get that one and don't look back
Fit is key and if you listen to us and go get something else and the fit isn't as good you won't want to shoot it as much

 

[GyMac]

Buy the Browning and be happy! This, coming from a satisfied Ruger owner. Fit is very important and, while I am happy with the slant grip frame, it obviously does not work for you. As for disassembly of the Ruger, it is more complicated than newer guns, but the difficulty is vastly overstated.

 

[Dave Bulla]

Thanks for the replies guys. I hope I'm not too late and it's still there next time I go back.

Another question since there have been people who have both brownings and rugers who replied. Can these guns typically be shot reliably with subsonic target ammo or do you need the hotter hi velocity stuff for proper function? I shot a borrowed Ruger this past summer at a local shooting event and it would not cycle well with the target ammo I tried to feed it. It would actually not even retract far enough to stovepipe a round. The case mouth stayed in the chamber and it would feed right back in. This was a MK III target, heavy barrel, stainless Ruger that was fairly new. It appeared to be very well cared for and the person who let me borrow it usually takes very good care of his guns. Since the gun was borrowed, I don't know if this was an issue with that particular gun or 22 auto pistols in general. I've got a 1,400 round tub of the cheap Remington bulk 22 ammo that should be hotter than my target stuff but since so many people talk about using these guns for bullseye competition, I wondered if I should expect them to shoot target ammo, if they require some tuning to do it or, do I just need higher velocity ammo period for reliability.

 

[Dave Bulla]

Also, I hope it didn't seem I was bashing the Ruger grip too much. All I was trying to get across was that when I hold the Ruger, I feel multiple things in my hand, edges of the grip panels or rear strap, the checkering, the thumb rest etc. Not really anything bad, but just stuff I notice when I pick it up. Little distractions if you will. When I picked up the browning, it just felt like it melted in my hand. There was no sensation of any part of it that stood out. It was just there and it just plain felt good.

Again, I go back to the shoe analogy. Just today I picked up a pair of Ariat steel toed cowboy/work boots. In the store I was trying on about every brand they had. One would be tight across the middle of my foot but didn't feel that bad. Another would be a little floppy in the heel, but again, not that bad. The next might flop less on my heel but there might be a spot that felt like it was rubbing. If you've ever bought cowboy boots, you know what I mean. Then you might slip a pair on and you just kinda think, "hey, these feel good!" You take a few steps around the store and nothing comes to mind other than "I like this pair". No tight spots, no floppy or loose spots, nothing rubbing just a little. That's the way the Browning felt in my hand.

I guess that'll sell me on it. I swore years ago to never buy a pair of boots that didn't feel good the day I put them on in the store and have stuck by that rule ever since. Before that I don't know how many pairs I bought thinking they'd break in or I could soften them up or they'd stretch etc. etc. No reason to not apply the same logic to a firearm.

 

[MrBorland]

Can these guns typically be shot reliably with subsonic target ammo or do you need the hotter hi velocity stuff for proper function?

"Standard" velocity is 'bout all I run in my MkIII. That's what most target ammo is. It's typically a 40gr bullet running just under sonic. These guns ought not have reliability issues with it.

The really subsonic stuff like Aquila Colibri, and likely CBs, will certainly not cycle the action.

 

[Dave Bulla]

Thanks MrBorland. The ammo I was trying to run in the Ruger was Remington target. I'm sure it's subsonic but don't know the actual velocity without going to look. It was NOT short, long, CB cap or anything like that. Even in the short pistol barrel, it was pretty mild sounding compared to whatever all the others were using.

 

[gbran]

Luv my Buckmark. Prefer it over my Ruger.

 

[OldBrownDog]

50%+ of what I put through my Buckmark is CCI Standard Velocity at ~1040 fps IIRC. Thing runs like a champ.

 

[CraigC]

Pick the one you like best and don't look back. I've had several of each but the Browning is my preference. I too don't care for the standard Ruger grip angle but the late model 22/45 with replaceable panels is the only Ruger that suits me.

The boot analogy is a good one. I like Ariat's too!

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I'm a huge fan of the Ruger Mark II pistol. I know the Mark III is supposed to be a "better" pistol but I like the Mark II much better. IMO it's the most reliable 22 pistol available and it shoots well with everything I feed it...

 

[ColtPythonElite]

Five MK pistols at my house and zero Browning. Ruger disassembly/reassembly is easy once you learn how the hammer strut goes. I like Rugers sliding bolt in receiver design like a rifle. It is simple and strong....I will admit the Browning has the better outta the box trigger. No big deal. I can slick up a Ruger in no time flat.

 

[BCRider]

You won't go wrong either way. Both are superbly good guns for shooting accuracy.

To give Ruger a fair chance I echo the idea that the Ruger 22/45 version with the replaceable grip scales is also worth checking out.

Then there's the whole slide vs bolt thing. Browning uses a slide while Ruger's have a bolt. Since they both shoot so well anyway it pretty much comes down to which you like the best for looks.

Oh, and the Browning DOES have a nicer out of the box trigger. But both can be "fixed" with aftermarket parts.

 

[bannockburn]

Another fan of the Ruger Mk.II, preferably with the 5 1/2" bull barrel. The trigger on mine is decent enough and the overall balance and handling is great with that particular barrel length. Accuracy has always been first rate, especially with Wolf Match Target. I improved the feel of my Ruger with a nice pair of target grips.

 

[RussB]

I prefer the Browning Buckmark series of pistols over the Ruger's. I sold my MKII and bought another Browning!

 

[ricebasher302]

I can't speak for the Rugers, but my Buckmark has been as reliable as any of my centerfielder pistols, is very accurate, has a great trigger and is a joy to shoot. Mine was $326 with three mags.

 

[greyling22]

I grew up with rugers so that is where my bias is. That said, I'm not a huge fan of the mk3 designs, or even the 22/45's, and they are kind of a pain to take apart.

The browning udx feels simply awesome in hand, and I intend to get one some day. But, my experience with browning is that it is a little pickier on ammo, and you need tools to take it apart. Ruger needs a tool too: a paper clip or small screwdriver works best.

So, get either and you will be happy. since you like the feel of the browning more, get that one. You can always sell it later for about what you paid for it. It's not like guns depreciate much or are hard to sell. In a perfect world I would say buy one, use it for a while, then buy the other, use them both for a while, then sell the one you like the least.

 

[Dave Bulla]

I went back and looked at the Browning and several different rugers the other day. Kept coming back to the Browning simply feeling a lot better. I also liked the green fiber optic site on the Browning better than the red one on the Ruger.

I do like that the Ruger is all steel and not aluminum though.

I started looking closer at the Ruger grips and I've decided that the reason for the poor feel is the way they roll over the edge of the grip panels far short of the grip frame. If a guy was to make his own panels it would be easy to make them a lot more comfortable. They also had some sort of Ruger Target pistol with hideously oversize blocky grips. I mean, I wear an XXL glove and these things felt huge, square and uncomfortable. The wood wrapped around the front of the frame but was barely rounded. I told the guy behind the counter that if a guy bought that pistol the first thing he'd need to do when he got home would be to look for a wood rasp.

So, I'm back to liking the Browning best but then I went and looked at the used rifles and spent all my pistol money on a savage 99F in 300 savage. Made in 1923 and just a cool old gun.

So, I'm on hold for the pistol for a bit but still enjoying all the opinions and advice so keep it coming.

 

[greyling22]

I make my own grips for a mk2, and yes, I run them closer to the edge and taper them more front to back. It's a huge improvement over factory. Hogue makes a pretty good grip as well. Browning still feels better by a bit. Enjoy of the 99. You can't find ammo for a 22 anyway.

 

[HammsBeer]

I have a stainless buckmark camper with green fiber optic sight and rubber grips that feel awesome in the hand. At first I had feeding issues until I noticed the top strap takedown screws were coming loose, but a bit of purple locktite during reassembly cured that. Very easy to takedown for cleaning and nice trigger.

Only thing I would change is the green fiber optic front sight for a plain black sight. It's quick to pick up for rapid shooting, but for precise target shooting it's actually distracting.

 

[Strahley]

Buck Mark gets the nod from me. Better trigger, much easier to take apart, and feels better in hand to me. I would also prefer to spend my money with Browning, not with Ruger