Tacoma
Member
I own both (and have seen this question asked a dozen times on another forum.) My findings summarized:
- Both are outstanding .22 rimfires capable of VG accuracy. Likely the two best choices out there in Sub $500 "target" rimfire pistols
-Buckmark has a better out of the box trigger but the Ruger's trigger can be made the better of the two with inexpensive drop in parts
- Aftermarket support (grips, mags, internal parts, sights, etc) for the MK II/III serie is way better ( and cheaper).
- You'll see 3-4 MK II/IIIs for every Buckmark on the bullseye /gallery leagues. That says something.
-Factory sights on the Buckmark are more solid.
- There are models of each that are not factory ready for optics. (Important if you plan to compete)
- Tear down of either is not hard once you take the time to understand the guns internals.
-When in doubt, buy em both
p.s. Should be lots(!) of deals on new/used MK II/III . Since the MK IV came onto the market, folks are clearing them out .
- Both are outstanding .22 rimfires capable of VG accuracy. Likely the two best choices out there in Sub $500 "target" rimfire pistols
-Buckmark has a better out of the box trigger but the Ruger's trigger can be made the better of the two with inexpensive drop in parts
- Aftermarket support (grips, mags, internal parts, sights, etc) for the MK II/III serie is way better ( and cheaper).
- You'll see 3-4 MK II/IIIs for every Buckmark on the bullseye /gallery leagues. That says something.
-Factory sights on the Buckmark are more solid.
- There are models of each that are not factory ready for optics. (Important if you plan to compete)
- Tear down of either is not hard once you take the time to understand the guns internals.
-When in doubt, buy em both
p.s. Should be lots(!) of deals on new/used MK II/III . Since the MK IV came onto the market, folks are clearing them out .