View Full Version : Buckmark or MKIII

September 22, 2005, 08:45 AM
The wifey-poo told me the other day to get my christmas list together and I've decided that this year I want a target pistol in .22. I narrowed it down to three choices The buckmark, mkIII, or Beretta NEOS. Well I went to the gun shop yesterday and held all three. I really didn't like the way the NEOS felt in my hand so that's out. I really liked the trigger on the buckmark. SO what do you guys think? Which one and why and does anybody own one of both. I looked at the buckmark standard, camper, and hunter. I really liked the standard. The mkIII I held was a target model with a fluted bull bbl and I really liked it too. What cha think?

September 22, 2005, 11:28 AM
The ruger serier has many, many more aftermarket parts and accessories. The mark iii mag disconnect makes are harder then usual to take down gun every a little harder to take down. The only real advantage, and only in the target versions, is ALL mark III targets come drilled and tapped for the included scope rail.

Many people like the buckmark, I had one and sold it pretty quickly I hated the grips and there where not may aftermarket available at the time.

September 22, 2005, 02:05 PM
I liked my Buckmark and the only reason I got rid of it was to fund another gun. I really miss that gun, I will be getting another in the near future. No there are not as many Aftermarket parts for it, but I don't have a reason to mod a .22 gun. If oyu get the Buckmark, I think you will really like it.

September 22, 2005, 02:20 PM
The Buckmark is an outstanding gun that I doubt you'll be unhappy with. Your biggest problem will be determining which model to buy. There are some interesting flavors of Buckmark out there and you should see which one suits your tastes.


Northslope Nimrod
September 22, 2005, 02:51 PM
Buckmark - better trigger, better ergonomics.

Ruger - feels more sturdy. Stainless models are very sweet looking.

September 22, 2005, 02:58 PM
I just bought a stainless, bull-barrel MK III as my first pistol and really like it. I strongly considered the Buckmark but ended up going with the Ruger in the end because I had been able to rent a similar MK II and found it to be accurate, comfortable, and reliable. In doing my research, I pretty much found that the Ruger .22 autoloaders along with the Buckmarks are equal in terms of accuracy, features, and reliability. Therefore, I went with what I was familiar and got the Ruger.

We are fortunate to have such healthy competition and you can't go wrong with either the Buckmark or the Ruger. f I were you I would just get whatever one you think fits best in your hand. There are tons of aftermarket items for the Ruger line with more to come for the relatively new MK III, though many parts are interchangable between the older MK II and III. Out of the box my MK III has been a pleasant surprise and the only think I would think of adding are some Hogue grips.

On balance I like the Ruger for a .22 because it has that fun-to-shoot, utilitarian, "old-school" feel.

Good luck

September 22, 2005, 05:00 PM
Question about the new Buckmark - I heard the only way to field strip this weapon is to remove the rear sight as part of the field strip process. Is this true?

September 22, 2005, 07:33 PM
Actually you have to remove 2 screws that remove the entire sight base including the sight. Takedown is very easy.

I chose the Buckmark over the MKIII because I heard thet takedown was easier and the trigger better. IMHO the Ruger is better looking but my Buckmark is soooo accurate that it makes even ME look good.

I got the Camper to save money... but in retrospect, I shoulda got the Standard. The difference is that the standard has a metal sight base and the camper a plastic one. Legend has it that the plastic ones crack. Mine has not cracked yet (3500 rounds). But just in case, I bought a weigand sight rail and a BSA Red Dot ($50 total) and shoot almost exclusively with the RD. My 50 year old eyes love it! Geez .22s are fun AND inexpensive to shoot!


September 22, 2005, 08:23 PM

In my entire Internet gun forum experience, this is the first thread in which I agree with EVERY post!!!

I have both the Browning Buck Mark Hunter and the Beretta NEOS. Both are excellent. The trigger on the Buck Mark is better. Takedown on the NEOS is the simplest in the world.

I have shot both at 25 yards, especially the NEOS, which I have also shot at 100 YARDS and made sub-two inch groups using a Bushnell Holosight.

The Buckmark, with a 2x scope is currently my off-hand gun. (My eyes are like topspin43 + 6 years.)

Here are links to a WHOLE BUNCH of pictures of both pistols with A LOT of different optics . . .

Beretta NEOS Inox DLX 7.5" Barrel NIB (http://www.billnkc.com/images/Beretta%20NEOS/Beretta%20NEOS%20Out%20of%20the%20Box.htm)

Beretta NEOS Inox DLX 7.5" Barrel and Leupold 2.5-8x32 Scope (http://www.billnkc.com/images/Beretta%20NEOS/S9.JPG)

Beretta NEOS Inox DLX 7.5" Barrel and Nikon 6610 Red Dot (http://www.billnkc.com/images/Nikon%206610/S1.JPG)

Beretta NEOS Inox DLX 7.5" Barrel and Bushnell Holosight (http://www.billnkc.com/images/Bushnell%20Holosight/M1.JPG)

Beretta NEOS Inox DLX 7.5" Barrel and Bushnell Trophy Red Dot (http://www.billnkc.com/images/Bushnell%20Trophy%20Red%20Dot/S4.JPG)

Beretta NEOS Inox DLX 7.5" Barrel and Bushnell Elite 3200 2-6x32 Scope (http://www.billnkc.com/images/Beretta%20NEOS/Bushnell.jpg)

Browning Buck Mark Hunter 7.5" Barrel NIB (http://www.billnkc.com/images/Browning%20Hunter/S2.JPG)

Browning Buck Mark Hunter 7.5" Barrel and Nikon 6610 Red Dot (http://www.billnkc.com/images/Browning%20Hunter/N2.JPG)

Browning Buck Mark Hunter 7.5" Barrel and Bushnell Trophy 2x32 Scope (http://www.billnkc.com/images/Browning%20Hunter/S1.JPG)

--seal killer

September 22, 2005, 10:27 PM
I've done the Ruger route x3 and ended up with a Buckmark. My 3 shooting buddies have also made the same trek. The Buckmark is a much better gun.

Blue Heeler
September 23, 2005, 12:24 AM
Have to agree the Browning is the one.
I did have a Ruger Mk 2 bull barrel and it was as accurate as any other .22 of it's type (that means everything except Hammerli's and the other strangely contorted European .22's used by 'Booth Shooters') . What really put me off the Ruger, apart from the fact that it looked like a piece of plumbing, was it's infuriating take down and re-assembly procedure. I swear, there were times when I felt like chucking it down another piece of plumbing and pulling the chain.
Sending it back to mother?

September 23, 2005, 01:14 AM
I like my Buckmark. Very crisp trigger. Easy to field strip. Now that I know the sight base and red-dot sight are $50, I might get those.

Well there may not be many after market parts, but what do you really need to change? I added a fiber optic front sight because I don't like black-on-black sights. I like that red dot sight. After that, there aren't so many things.

September 23, 2005, 02:04 AM
Buckmark or MKIII
Should be which one to buy first, not either/or.
I have 3 Buckmarks and 3 Rugers...so far.

September 23, 2005, 02:42 AM
I own the Buckmark Plus with the Truglo front sight and wood grips and love it. I rented and shot the NEOS and Ruger before buying, no contest the Buckmark fit my hand better and had the best trigger. If you think you will put a red dot on then get the Hunter with 7.25 Barrel, it begs you to put a scope on with the rail ready to go. If you don't think you'll get red dot get one without the rail and with truglo front sight if possible.

September 23, 2005, 07:52 AM
Thanks for all the replies. Sounds like the buckmark is the one for me from your tetimonies.

September 23, 2005, 10:22 AM
Topspin - would you then have to re-zero your buckmark everytime you field strip it? Or does the sight retain the zero?

Thanks. Going to a gunshow this weekend in search of a new .22 - this thread will help me decide. :p

September 23, 2005, 10:23 AM
I dislike the MkIII because of the magazine disconnect, but they shoot okay.

I've done a lot of shooting on the MkII, and I loved it. Very accurate gun.

Disassembly is easy once you get the hang of it, but if you throw temper trantrums or get easily discouraged, don't buy the Ruger. Took me 3 times before I finally got down.

Quickdraw Limpsalot
September 23, 2005, 10:27 AM
I'm with Hal.

You can't go wrong with either one, IMO. I went with the Ruger MkIII 22/45 because I liked what it had to offer as a total package most. I've shot several of each and they were ALL good.

September 23, 2005, 11:27 AM
They have an after market part that makes reassembly easy for those that have some trouble with the, point up, and hold upside down then sacrifice your first born chid sequence that you use with the Ruger. :D I still vote for the Ruger Mk ll Government Target Model if you can find any out there, it comeswith a target that verifies it will group within 1'' or 1/2'' at 25 yds.

September 23, 2005, 08:55 PM
Seems like I would have to rezero after every takedown don't it?

But I don't... and it's tight on... don't know why???

Maybe its because the set screws are truncated.

Still is dead on after every cleaning. If it ain't broke....

September 23, 2005, 10:15 PM
Did the Ruger . . . love my Buck Mark. Glad I changed.

If you get the rifle all your mags interchange!


. . . and you'll LOVE the rifle!!

September 24, 2005, 11:14 AM
Love my Buckmark Plus. I went the Ruger route first but the gun's esthetics and breakdown were unsatisfactory for me. The Buckmark shoots like a dream (accurate with an excellent trigger) and the wooden handle that comes with it is pleasing to the eye.

Either would be fine. For my needs it was the Buckmark - a beautiful gun that is very well made.

September 24, 2005, 08:19 PM
Thanks Topspin. That does it. The pendulum swings to the Buckmark. Always wanted a browning.