Ruger Mark III/Browning buck mark

[MagnunJoe]

Fellow shooters,
I'm thinking about getting a Ruger of Browning .22LR gun.
Please tell me the difference between a Ruger Mark III 4.75 inch barrel and a 6 incher. Also what's the difference between a bull barrel and a taper barrel?
I'm looking for a fun plinking gun, and yes, I have plenty of ammo.
I would imagine the 6 inch barrel is for hunting?
Bull barrel is for weight distribution?
I like thin barrel myself.
Thanks a bunch.

 

[Outlaw Man]

I have a couple Buckmarks, one with a bull barrel and one with a thin one (Camper model). I honestly can't tell much difference between the two in terms of accuracy. I can tell you which I'd rather shoot for an extended period.

As to the difference between the Ruger and Browning, I find the Brownings a bit more accurate on average, but it could easily just be ergonomics for me. The Ruger is extremely accurate itself, particularly if you're just hunting and plinking.

My Buckmarks are a little picky about ammo. The cheap stuff will gum them up quick at an extended range session. The Rugers I've shot seemed to eat about anything.

If you're wanting to train, I might steer you toward the 22/45, since it is more like a 1911 (or get one of the many 1911-22s). Otherwise, I say get whichever one feels and points better for you.

 

[weblance]

The difference between the Ruger 4.75, and 6" barrels is simply the barrel length. The Bull barrels tend to be easier to shoot accurately because of the added weight dampens the jump from recoil, and your hand shake. The thin barrels have fixed sights, the bull barrels have adjustable sights. There used to be a tapered Target model with adjustable sights, but its out of production. The Ruger is an excellent entry-level target pistol, that is very accurate. Try an optic, and you will see just how accurate they can really be.

 

[tuj]

I have competed with both guns. They are both accurate enough for top level competition. The buckmark has a better trigger out of the box. The Ruger can be made to have a better trigger with the kit from VQ. The Ruger is harder to take apart.

I own several Ruger MK pistols.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

I have two Browning Buckmarks. One is a long barrel heavy barrel model with a 4x scope that will shoot the buffaloes nose off of a nickel and the other is the regular tapered barrel with the engraved furniture. I regularly shoot spent 12 ga shotgun shells at 15 to 20 yards with open sights with it. I went to the store both times to by the Ruger but the balance of the Buckmark just felt better to me.

 

[Weevil]

Had a Ruger 22/45 MK II, currently own a Buckmark.


Both good guns but I do prefer the Buckmark, just a little better feel in my hand and a nicer feel to the trigger.

I also had some extractor issues with the Ruger and had to replace it. I learned there is a large aftermarket in Ruger .22 extractors so I must not have been the only one having issues.

You won't be horribly disappointed with a Ruger but IMO the Buckmark is a better gun if only by a small margin.

 

[viking499]

I have had both. Only have the Buckmark now. Fits my hand better. I like the trigger better too. Both those things translates into better accuracy by me.

 

[Jim K]

To go back a bit, a bull* barrel is a barrel with the diameter of the breech all the way out. Ruger makes the standard 4" tapered barrel, a bull barrel (5", IIRC) and used to make a 6 7/8" tapered heavy barrel sometimes called a "tapered bull barrel" even though that term is a contradiction. The taper was to reduce weight while keeping the long sight radius. That is now achieved by fluting the long bull barrel.

*Not named for the animal, but for Freeman Bull, who was Master Armorer at Springfield Armory (the government factory) and pioneered the use of heavy barrels for target shooting.

Jim

 

[zeek96]

I have shot both and helped people who owned them clean both. Both are good guns. The ruger can be updated into a great gun. The new brownings have plastic pieces inside. The reason I know this is because my friends buckmark would not function soon after purchase a year ago and the plastic inside the read assembly had broken in several places. She had a hell of a time with brownings customer service in the repair took a few calls to convince them that it happened along with emailed pictures. Took a month and a half to sort out. She had it repaired and works fine now but made me leary of the plastic parts. the Ruger MK III eats everything and is built like a tank. Personal I would go with ruger but it depends what fits your hands and style.

 

[Pilot]

I have four Ruger MK II's, although I do like shooting a friend's Buckmark. I like the Rugers because you can easily tune, and customize them to make it like you want. Many install the VQ trigger/sear parts as well as the aforementioned extractors, but my four never had ejection problems so haven't needed extractors.

 

[DIXIEDOG]

I disliked my Buckmark....the trigger was nice out the box but the Ruger 22/45 was fine also. The 22/45 was always more accurate for me and I prefer the take down of the Ruger that doesn't require any tools. The Buckmark required removing a rear sight screw to get the slide/bolt out which makes no sense to me. The Ruger takes seconds to tear down and reassemble after you learn how to tip the pistol when assembling it. Another dislike I had with the Buckmark is that it ejected brass forward of the shooter.....I shoot at an indoor range so often times you would need to cease the line if you were going to clean up your brass when it was time to go which was a pain to me.


After several years of not really liking the Buckmark I traded it off since it was just collecting dust. I still have the 22/45 stainless and it still shoots excellent.

The Buckmark was a nice looking pistol though, I can't take that from it.




My favorite .22 semi is my GSG 1911 .22.....I put a set of Dawson Precision sights on it and have been having a ball with it. It's a very realistic weight and size to mimic a true 1911, even the mags are heavy. It's an excellent little pistol.

 

[340PD]

I have a pair of MK III's hat have been converted to MK II's with Volquartsen kits. A few years ago I competed in Bullseye matches with a Pardini, Hammerli 280, and an SP 20.

A worked on Ruger will shoot right with either if these two guns. If you are going to keep the gun out of the box stock, I may lean to the Buckmark.

 

[Captain33036]

I have shot both and own a Ruger MK III Competition.

The Buckmark is a very nice gun, and out of the box, I think better balanced, with a better trigger.

Accuracy seems a toss up between the two. Both are highly accurate guns, completely capable of being used in many BE competitions.

I like the Ruger because you can do a VQ trigger job to it and make the trigger competition level very easily.

And then, you can replace the ruger upper with any of 3-4 after market ones, 3 of which may take the gun to near Olympic level accuracy.

Add in all the other after market things you can get...grips, sights, bolts, etc....and you have a gun that you can customize to any degree you wish.

 

[mdauben]

Please tell me the difference between a Ruger Mark III 4.75 inch barrel and a 6 incher.

About 1.25 inches?

Seriously, the shorter barrel is handier to carry, the longer barrel provides a longer sight radius which theoretically can make accurate shooting easier.

Also what's the difference between a bull barrel and a taper barrel?

The bull barrel generally suffers less from POI variations during long shooting sessions. The lighter, tapered barrel can flex as it heats up, changing the POI of the gun. Balance and weight distribution is somewhat personal, but generally for carrying in the field and casual plinking the taper barrel would be most people's choice. I've got a Mk III Competition with a 6 7/8 inch bull barrel and a red dot sight that I use for bullseye target shooting, but its a darn heavy gun that takes a bit of strength to hold steady at arms lenght!

 

[osteodoc08]

I'm a bit biased. I had a Buckmark that I had to send back to Browning twice and needed to go a third, but sold it with full disclosure.

I had a Mk2 that I sold for funding a Mk3. I prefer the magazine release location. The mag disconnect can be fixed and the LCI doesn't bother me. I've got a talo Hunter model as a Talo slab sided 22/45.

Gonna hit up the gunshow this weekend for a 22/45 Lite.

I'd be willing to give the Buckmark another chance, just can't find the old Field model.

 

[PistolPete45]

Mk III or Buckmark

I have a Mk III bull barrel Real happy with it have a old AMT Lightning as well, I had a Buckmark years ago .. No problems with it about the same as the old lightning ,, wanted good ammo and not the cheapest I could find. copper washed always worked but the plain lead heads would hang up sometimes .

 

[Esoxchaser]

Rugers and Buckmarks are both reliable and accurate, but my Rugers are amazingly accurate compared the the Buckmarks. To the extent that the Buckmarks have been either sold or are guarding the safe..........

 

[DAdams]

The Hunter. It's Fun to shoot and everything I have magged up has gone off. Easy to clean, one of my best buys. Totally reliable.

 

[mdauben]

I had a Mk2 that I sold for funding a Mk3. I prefer the magazine release location.

I normally like the "normal" release position as used in the Mk.III... except my gun is a Competition model with the oversized wood target grips. These grips make it almost impossible to access the button release next to the trigger wiht the shooting hand, and the old Mk.II style heel release would be much better on this particular gun.