Buckmark vs MarkIII

D

-Doug-

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Looking into getting my first handgun and I've decided I want to get a .22 to start off with so I can afford to shoot it all day and practice.

I have been stuck on getting a ruger .22 however I started looking into the browning buckmarks

Which one do you guys favor and why. Pros/cons of each or any information would greatly be appreciated.

Thanks,

Doug
 
Ruger has more aftermarket support, and can also be used as a hammer if need be. It can be taken apart without tools (albeit with some difficulty, apparently).

The Buckmark is lighter, though it would last just as long IMO. It comes in various grip choices, sight choices, etc. For me, the Buckmark is super, super easy to shoot. Takes an Allen key to take apart. Can be cleaned with a Boresnake, option action without really needing to break down further. I love the trigger.

If you want to modify it in the future, go for the Ruger.
If you want a lighter gun that's damn accurate but has less aftermarket support, go with the Buckmark.

I have the Buckmark pistol and the Ruger 10/22 rifle so I'm not brand loyal. :D
 
-Doug- said:
Looking into getting my first handgun and I've decided I want to get a .22 to start off with so I can afford to shoot it all day and practice.

I have been stuck on getting a ruger .22 however I started looking into the browning buckmarks

Which one do you guys favor and why. Pros/cons of each or any information would greatly be appreciated.

Thanks,

Doug
Click to expand...

I looked at getting either of those pistols but could not locate a Buckmark anywhere. I ended up with a MKIII 22-45 from Al Simmons. I put custom aftermarket grips on it and could not be happier. It is a pain to re-assemble but Youtube is a big help. This pistol is a ton of fun, reliable and very cheap.
 
I've tried both and I have an Ruger mkIII.

I really like my mkIII. I have a lot of guns, and the one that is almost always coming with me is the ruger. Very sturdy no jamm-o-matic, and very pecise. I can hit bowling pins at 60y on a rest with cheap AE ammo (10 rounds 5 pins).

The ruger is a little bit hard to dissasemble the 2-3 first times, but when you get the trick, it's very easy. Anyway there is a lot of YouTube videos on it. You can get the mk III for around 450$ and the 22/45 for less.
 
I was looking at both, I liked the look of the Mark III plus it gives you a more realistic centre fire weight and I ended up getting it on sale which ended up being cheaper than the Buckmark that was available at the same store.

I still boresnake my Mark III so wasn't sure why it was an advantage of the Buckmark above.

YouTube is your friend the first few times you field strip it but it's so easy once you get the hang of it.

I am brand loyal and love Rugers for their price / quality
 
Coke or Pepsi?

The best way to determine is to hold/fondle or perhaps even fire both. I love my Buckmark in spades. Fits my hand like a glove, trigger gets along very well with my finger, etc.

Those are my reasons, but ultimately, you must find your own. As for reliability, I'd say they are about equal. It just comes down to preference.
 
I don't have a Mark III but had shot at least 300 rounds last year. It is indeed a nice starter pistol. Just last month, I bought a Buckmark Contour. Shot at least 400 rounds to date, updated the sear spring, so far, nothing to complain. I think a Buckmark is better than a Mark III. Don't get me wrong, it now boils down to your preference. Just like a Canon hardcore against a Nikon loyalist. Both pistols are good. Try both pistols. Compare handling, grip, sight picture, loading, recoil, weight and simplicity.
 
Ruger, by far. Take down, at first, is different but once you get the hang of it and learn it, you can see why it is a superior semi-auto 22.

Revlovers are more my thing and I suggest you at least look at the Single-six, M17 S&W and the Ruger bearcat.
 
Try both.

You will be disatisfied with neither.

For my wife, we chose the buckmark stainless camper over the mkiii. Lighter, F/O front sight, nice grips, nice satin finish and easy to clean.
 
I'll chime in with similar comments to all above.
The Ruger shoots almost any .22 brand reliably, but is a bit of a pain to field strip. Ruger guys seem to get by this. The Buckmark required removal of 2 hex screws and lock washers to field strip. No big deal unless you drop them in the carpet! My Buckmark tends to vibrate the rear screw loose occationally at the range (which results in FTF or FTE), however a quick twist of a hex wrench fixes it. Comparing my buddy's Ruger to my Buckmark, I'd say my Buckmark is slightly more fussy on ammunition brand, but again, no big deal.
Bottom line is they are both great .22's. Handle them both and see which one feels best for you.
 
I have the Buckmark. I like it. When i was looking I liked the feel and look better than the ruger. Shoots great.

DSC_9835.jpg
 
Both are great.

I went with the Ruger because it fit me better. The only downside to the Ruger is the learning curve and blood letting that must be done when first breaking it down and reassembling.
 
The Buckmark has a nicer grip angle and fits the hand better if you are two hand shooting in the modern manner. It also has a better feel for balance where the Ruger can feel a touch top heavy due to all the steel in the outer tube style receiver AND the bolt. The 22/45 models with their polymer lower frames are especially bad for this.

All that aside I like my Rugers though. When you look up "reliable" in the dictionary you'll find a picture of a Ruger Mk or 22/45 as a good example of the meaning of the word.
 
Thank you all for your comments, all your advice is appreciated.
I am leaning towards the Ruger however it seems that they are sold out every where.
I do want a chance to hold a buckmark before I set my mind though so I am going to keep looking around for one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom