Advice for .22 pistol, Ruger or Buck Mark?

[Paul-K]

Greetings,
I'm very new to shooting, and I'd like to get a .22 pistol for target shooting, maybe someday even get good enough to compete a little. I'm not very familiar with too many manufacturers but I have seen both Ruger and Browning Buck Mark. I realize that this might be a personal preference question but any help, advice and/or experiences is appreciated.

Thanks,

Paul-K

[dwatts47]

Both are great and accurate, however the ruger will have an edge in parts and accessories availability.

Accuracy and function of both is near identical... handle/shoot them both and see which one you like.

I have the ruger...its one of the few guns I own that is completely unmodified. Got it when I was a kid... never needed to upgrade it.

[GATMOG]

www.rimfirecentral.com has a wealth of information about both guns, personally I like the ruger--but which fits you best is for you to decide :D

GATMOG

[CajunBass]

Another "I like the Ruger, but you might like the Buckmark" reply. They're both good guns.

[Charles S]

You won't go wrong with either choice.

I selected the Ruger simply because magazines cost about 1/3 of what the Browning mags cost locally. I love my Ruger.

The Browning is a great gun also.

[SW40F]

You do mean, "Which one shall I buy FIRST, right?" :D

Flip a coin, buy one, shoot it a lot.

Save for the other one, buy it, and then shoot them both a lot.

[tlm225]

I've owned both. I liked the Ruger, loved the Buckmark.

[ActivShootr]

I have had nothing but good experience with the ruger mkII.

[mikejonestkd]

I like the ruger quite a bit, and have owned a few.

I love the buckmarks and have owned and will continue to own more in the future.

[Magnum Wheel Man]

both are great guns... I'm more familiar with the Ruger line up... if you are thinking about getting good enough to compete, Ruger has a full line of competition grade 22's

this is my Gov. Target model with a bull barrel... it was reasonably priced, & shoots much better than I do...

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=26965&stc=1&d=1190122219

[Fremmer]

Paul, I'd pick the Browning Buckmark over the Ruger, because the Buckmark is far easier to reassemble than the Ruger. Try a search on this forum for threads by new Ruger owners who can't put their new Rugers pistols back together after cleaning; you'll find several threads like that.

Both guns should be accurate. But the more I gain experience with firearms, the more I realize how important the simple and quick assembly and reassembly of a firearm are. And don't even get me started on a 1911 with a full-length guide rod.....:p

[Paul-K]

Wow, thank you everyone for your quick responses! Fremmer brings up another point, what has your experience been with disassembly/reassembly of your Ruger or Buck Mark? And what has your experience been with mis-fires of your Ruger or Buck Mark?

Thanks,
Paul

[mikejonestkd]

The ruger isn't hard to disassemble...its putting it back together that is a little tricky but not too bad once you practice it.

The browning needs an small allen wrench to take off the sight base to dissasemble it. Not a big deal IMO, and it is pretty easy to clean and put back together. One minor problem with a few buckmarks - the two screws that hold down the topstrap/ sightbase can work a bit loose over time and need to be retightened. I put a dab of loctite blue on the threads and it solved the problem.

Both are very reliable when fed ammo that they like. IMO the ruger mkII has better reliability reviews than the MKIII.
My personal favorite plinker browning has 20,000 + rounds through it with only a few FTF, and they only happened with old ammo or when the gun was very dirty.

Hope this helps.

Both are well made and quality .22 pistols, you can't really go wrong with either.

[CajunBass]

Paul, I'm one of those who had trouble reassembling my Ruger MK III the first couple of times I tried. I found the "secret" to it is to just follow the directions TO THE LETTER. I know I just sort of glanced at them, and thought, I can do this. No. You have to read and follow them step by step. Once I started to do that, I haven't had any trouble since. Each step is important. Now I can do it in a few seconds, but I still keep the book handy. :D

[JWT]

The Ruger Mark III is a very nice gun. Typical Ruger - very solid. The target model shoots great.

It is a bit tricky to reassemble until you get the hang of it. The secret is to follow the instructions in the manual EXACTLY. Get's easier each time and should not be a reason to avoid this excellent gun.

[jakeswensonmt]

Great guns both, I have one of each, you can't go wrong.

[chris in va]

Another option to muddy the waters a bit.

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/4001/imgp0130gh7.jpg

CZ 75 Kadet.

[281 Quad Cam]

Buckmark's trigger is nicer out of the box. In fact it's the best trigger of any gun I've ever owned. Like breaking a glass rod.

Can't go wrong with either one of them though.

http://bellsouthpwp.net/i/m/imnotryan/shooters/buck3.jpg

[Tom2]

Ive had both and more of the RUgers. I get better durability vibes from the RUger. But the Ruger is a pain to field strip and assemble until it loosens up. SOme guy is selling a deal that is aftermarket for the Ruger to make it easier to take down though. Probably the Browning has a better trigger pull out of the box and Rugers can too if you buy additional custom parts. I feel like I could drop the RUger on a pile of rocks and it would still work fine but not so sure about some other 22's. Maybe rent both at a range if that is possible.

[Tim R]

Both are fine pistols.

I have a Buckmark 5.5 target I used to use for shooting indoor B/E. Now it's my back up to a Smith 41. The trigger on the Buckmark needed so cleaning up so a buddy did it for me. After about 5K the trigger went south. I sent it back to Browning expecting to pay for a new trigger and the time spent installing it. The Buckmark came back with a trigger that may even be a little crisper than the 41's at no cost to me. Parts are easy to get if you need them. Another nice feature of the model I have is putting a dot sight on is a snap as it has a top rail. With the right ammo, the Buckmark is a tack driver.

[bodab]

well i guess by now you know you cant go wrong with either but there is something know one has talked about..service.. I COULD not get my RUGER back TOGETHER. I BROKE some little piece trying to get it back together. I had my dealer send it back for me and RUGER fixed it and cleaned it for FREE. That is why i now buy ruger. Yes i find it hard to get back together but I just spray it down with gun cleaner and reoil. ITs a strudy gun that you cant go wrong with but Brownings buckmark is like all other Brownings.. GOOD!! yeap sure is hard to pick just one.......let us know what you go with.

[Black Adder LXX]

Both are great. I love my Buckmark, and shoot my friend's MKIII a lot as well. I prefer the Browning, but will probably end up with a ruger as well...

[Taurus_9mm]

They're both very good .22s and you'd be well served by either IMO.
I currently have a MK III 22/45 and like it quite a bit. Good ergos, well built and accurate. :)

[FirstFreedom]

Though there's been hundreds of threads on this issue, it still bears repeating:

1. One is easy on the eyes; one is not.
2. One has the correct grip angle; one does not.
3. One is easy to field strip & re-assemble, and one is not.
4. One company abstains from using your money to fund campaigns urging congress to pass gun bans; the other does not so abstain.
5. One has the pride of ownership of a Browning; one does not.

Need any more help? :)

http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/firearms/category.asp?value=006B

http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/firearms/category.asp?value=006B&offset=12

[OldShooter]

Another of the same 2 cents.

If I had the money I would have an S&W 41, but I don't.

I started out with a Buckmark Camper with 5.5 bull barrel as a first gun in 35 years, pretty happy. About 35 guns later, I still have the Buckmark and amoung other things, a Ruger Mk II with 5.5 bull barrel. I think the Ruger has a very tiny advantage in accuracy and the Buckmark has a definite advantage in tolerating being dirty. I have used both in bulls eye competition where I get humbled every time competing with iron sights against the shooters with red dots. I don't care, I'm doing the best I can and enjoying it. Both guns have good triggers. The Ruger was used but very little. The only trouble I had was cured with locktite on the sights. Buy either, go out and shoot and you will get better at it. It's cheap, have lots of fun.

[281 Quad Cam]

Actually being reminded of the whole Ruger politics thing would sway my decision, although I already picked one of them years ago. :p

[chupps]

I chose the Buckmark over the Ruger because the Buckmark is easier to tear down, clean and re-assemble. I am happy with my Buckmark, but be aware that the sight base is plastic. Not only do the screws back themselves out if not tigthened, but I cracked my plastic sight base because I over tighened it.

The sight base does need to be removed for a decent cleaning. All in all, I'd buy the Buckmark again. Just be careful with the sight base.

[Paul-K]

Whew! I REALLY appreciate everyones feedback, so here's my next question:

I've looked at the Ruger MKIII678 and the KMKIII678GC (shinny!) but with Buck Marks there are SO many models I can't tell what would be equivalent models the these two Rugers. I've been to 2 local dealers and they either can't tell me or don't want to spend the time helping me figure it out (I can't tell which :mad:). I'm thinking that once I narrow it down to a couple of models, I can go shoot them to help me decide...

[CGSteve8718]

I own a Buckmark Challenge and tested it out recently. It gave me many misfires however many people have told me that .22s are really picky with ammo, and I have only put one brand of ammo through it (CENTURION, 5000 rnds at a buck and change couldn't pass it up).

I still have yet to fire it with a different make, but I'm sure the problems will stop there as that Challenge is a great gun. The trigger is great, and it feels great overall. Also, it is very easy to take down as mentioned.

Yes, they do have many models, I chose a "middle ground" model which I believe what the Challenge is. MSRP for most of them are 300 and change anyway. I didn't need any of the signature series models, or ultra target models. The Challenge, and the Camper also don't look too fancy either, which I'm sure affects the prices.

[Lunker]

Does anyone have a preference, and why, as to which Ruger style rimfire they would choose or did choose. I was thinking that the 22-45 made sense for me because the grip angle is so similar to my current pistols, and I could use the 22 to become a better shot. The standard Ruger 22's have a steeper angle, more like an old Luger. Is there some advantage to this angle? Thanks.

[gopack]

I don't see any real difference in the standard grip angle and the 22/45 grip angle. The MKIII 22/45 grips are a bit thin. I thought this was a problem when I bought my first Ruger and opted for the Hunter model. I later bought a 22/45. Turns out that it took about 2 mags to adjust to the skinny grip.

The choice between the Ruger and Buck Mark is a matter of shooter's preference. I have the BM Standard, MKIII Hunter and MKIII 22/45. All are excellent shooters. Each has it's strong points. Haven't found any serious weak points. Each is loads of fun to shoot and sometimes I shoot them with pretty good accuracy.

[CajunBass]

I too have both grip angles. I've got a MK III 22/45, and a MK II with the standard "Luger/Glock" type grip. I don't think there is much difference either. (Same as i don't think the difference between a Glock and an XD is a big deal.) I suppose some might find the 22/45 grip to be thin, but it doesn't bother me. I shoot the 22/45 better, but (1) I shoot it a lot more, and (2) the 22/45 wears a BSA red dot sight and it's a bull barrel target model, where the MK II is a fixed open sight "standard" model, so I really can't say it's the grip. The 22/45 should shoot better.