Buck Mark Challenger or Ruger Standard

[Frandy]

Only these two choices, ladies and gentlemen.

I've owned Rugers and still have a new Hunter, and I've shot a Browning model. Just want a "bottom feeder."

Which one and why?

http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/firearms/detail.asp?value=006B&cat_id=051&type_id=391

http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=10104&return=Y

Frandy

 

[kbheiner7]

They are both solid options - get the one you like the feel of best.

I have the Browning and have loved it from the first shot.

 

[jhco]

ruger im sure the buckmark is a great gun but for me you cant beat a ruger 22 for the price

 

[Confederate]

The Bucks I had were all forged steel and had nice, polished wood handles. The bluing was beautiful and I wish I had kept one.

But the Ruger is so much better that it's hard to put into words....

 

[sigma 40ve]

I have had both. Now the Ruger is what I have. I have had several other Rugers in the past. Just what I prefer.

 

[Craig M. Arnold]

I've had Rugers in the past. They are good 22lr pistols. However, for me, the Buckmarks are far better.

Try both and see which one feels best to you.

Bets regards.

 

[mjrodney]

The Ruger first hit the market in 1952.

In similar fashion to the venerable 1911, the basic design has been selling well ever since, and for very good reason.

The Buckmark is a fine handgun in it's own right, but I feel safe in saying that the Ruger design and action has the edge in simplicity and ruggedness.

Rugers also do very well in Bullseye competitions until you get to the highest eschelons where only high dollar, high-end pistols will do.

 

[Frandy]

Nearly two to one.

Thanks!

 

[DevilDog0402]

I would go with the Ruger, preferably with a bull barrel.

 

[HB]

your choice

I bought the browning with a 7 in barrel, but it really comes down to the grip angle.

HB

 

[dispatch]

Either- both great pistols. I prefer the Buckmarks, but do what works for ya.

 

[JBP]

If you had said a Ruger 678 I would have voted for that over the Buckmark. You can not go wrong with either one; it's just a matter of which one feels better to you. My wife prefers her Buck Mark Plus since the barrel is shorter and for her the balance is better than my Ruger.

 

[DaleCooper51]

Although I much prefer the ruger rimfires, between the two I would go with the buckmark because it comes with adjustable sights. If the ruger had adjustable sights, thats the would get my vote.

 

[wally]

Both are great, but my Rugers give more problems with the cheap bulk pack ammo than all the rest (I have Neos, Buckmark, S&W M22A, P22, and Ruger MKI, MKII, 22/45, & 2245MKIII) Only the MKI is a s problem free with the cheap ammo as the Neos, Buckmark, M22A, & P22 are.

--wally.

 

[skoro]

I've never shot a Buckmark, but they sure look good. Having said that, I really like my MkIII and it's fired a couple of thousand rounds of all kinds of bulk ammo with minimal problems. Just a couple of dud rounds. Accurate, dependable, and feels right in my big fat hand.

But if a guy were to say his Buckmark was just as good, I couldn't argue. I doubt you'd go wrong with either.

 

[genetics_jo]

Although I much prefer the ruger rimfires, between the two I would go with the buckmark because it comes with adjustable sights. If the ruger had adjustable sights, thats the would get my vote.

The new Mark III's come with adjustable sites...at least mine did. Also come with rails for glass sites.

I was really torn between the Buckmark and Rugers Mark III. Went with the Ruger since my wife already had a Ruger Mark I and I was used to field stripping and cleaning. Never shot a Buckmark and don't know how difficult it is to fieldstrip it...but it has to be easier than the Ruger.

Really...you can't go wrong with either one.

 

[wally]

Never shot a Buckmark and don't know how difficult it is to fieldstrip it...but it has to be easier than the Ruger.

Not really, you need two different size hex head wrenches to take it apart, and under the right side grip panel there are small parts and a spring that are easy to get lost

--wally.

 

[jhansman]

Yep, shoot 'em both. I have 80s vintage MK II and a newer Buckmark, and I much prefer the Browning-how it holds, shoots, & disassembles.

Not really, you need two different size hex head wrenches to take it apart,

Or, do what I did and keep the appropriate hex bits that fit a screwdriver handle in your range bag/cleaning kit. Much easier than wrestling with allen wrenches.

 

[Baneblade]

I have recently had a bad experience with the Ruger (magazine disconnect failed-gun won't fire and can't be taken down). I sent it in and was not impressed with their customer service. The gun had been fired twice, approximately 200 total rounds.

I have no experience with the Browning though.

 

[19-3Ben]

I like both but for my money, when I get a .22 autoloader, it'll be a buckmark. the one's I've felt just are fantastic. I find them to have slightly nicer fit and finish and they just feel....right.

 

[Comanche180]

Buckmark vs Ruger

Frandy are going to buy a gun based on a poll? Why don't you figure out which one YOU like and go with that? I have both and don't really have a preference.

 

[Quoheleth]

Bought a Buckmark about 8 years ago and haven't regretted it yet.

The only reason I would consider a Ruger - and I was a few weeks ago - is for optics. Adjustable sighted Rugers come drilled & tapped for an included scope mount. Buckmarks not only do not have the mount, you have to replace the topstrap with the mount to accomplish the task, therefore everytime you break it down for cleaning (which honestly I haven't done in a couple bulk-paks worth of shooting) you have to re-zero your scope rig.

I would buy another Buckmark in a heartbeat, but it's up to what feels good for you.

Q