Ruger Mark III, 22/45, or Browning Buck Mark?

The Scientist · May 4, 2012, 11:00 AM

I'm looking for some thoughts on why you prefer one over the other, if you do. I'm in the market for a nice .22 and am leaning towards the Mark III Hunter. Just looking for comparison from guys that know alot more about these guns than me. But I do I love guns, and my kids enjoy shooting too. (Unfortunately, I don't have the time to shoot often enough.)

Thanks for your time.

aarondhgraham · May 4, 2012, 11:12 AM

You are going to get a lot of comments on this topic,,,
Primarily from owners who love their pistols.

In my (not so) humble opinion,,,
Performance-wise and quality-wise,,,
There's not much difference between the two brands.

Both are of excellent construction,,,
Both are inherently very accurate pistols,,,
And depending on the versions the prices are more or less comparable.

My sincere advice to you is to handle both of the pistols,,,
Determine which one fits your hand the best,,,
Does one make your smile light up?

Years ago when I got back into shooting,,,
I was enamored of the looks and specs of the Mk-III Rugers.

Then I picked one up,,,
No smiles at all.

I was also looking at the Browning Buckmarks,,,
But again when I picked them up something was wrong.

Fortunately for me I was able to handle a Ruger MK-III 22/45 pistol,,,
That was my (not to big-hard-hot & not to small-soft-cold) Goldilocks pistol,,,
This one was "juuuust right".

The point I'm circling here is,,,
Both of the pistols you mentioned are high quality,,,
So the one that fits your hand will be the best one for you to buy.

Aarond

.

BigJimP · May 4, 2012, 11:14 AM

The biggest issues between the Ruger and the Buckmark ...

a. the grip angle...personally I like the Buckmark a lot better. Chances are one of them will come up just right for you ...and the other will not. I shoot a lot of 1911 platforms...so the Buckmark is way more natural to me on its grip angle.

b. the takedown procedure for cleaning ( Ruger is a lot more difficult / not impossible / but almost "fussy" to get things just right. So again I prefer the Buckmark.

I think the Buckmark's fit and finish is a little better - than the Ruger. I think the Buckmark will run a wider variety of ammo than the Ruger seems to ....but neither one of them are bad guns / they're just different.

zincwarrior · May 4, 2012, 12:18 PM

Some discussions from this slightly earlier thread may be helpful.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...93#post5070293

tom234 · May 4, 2012, 12:33 PM

Do a search and read up. This question is asked several times a week here and on other Forums.

The Scientist · May 4, 2012, 01:59 PM

Thanks for the help. I knew this was a common comparison, but when I searched this forum earlier, it came up empty... which is just a snafu that can't be explained. So I posted the question. Now I can find all sorts of stuff, not sure what was wrong. Anyhow, thanks again.

IA7.3 · May 4, 2012, 02:12 PM

I own a mark III 22/45 target. My biggest complaint about the gun was the magazine safety, which i took out the day i bought it.

The gun is cheaper than the browning and, (100% opinion) feels more comfortable and intuitive. The safety and slide release are just naturally where they should be.

A lot of people complain about the takedown of the mark III, i find no problems with it. No tools required which is a major plus for me.

The gun is one of the most accurate handguns i own. its been a tack driver since the second i bought it. its not picky about ammo, it feeds anything from the WIN 555 to CCI minimags (obviously).

Another plus for me, and this varies by your intended purpose, is that its much easier to get upgraded uppers, trigger assemblies, sights, they seem to have a very sound following in regards to aftermarket parts and support.

But, when the noise stops, its all about what you feel most comfortable with, you won't ever go wrong with either pistol and both will provide years of enjoyment and accuracy.

wild cat mccane · May 4, 2012, 03:00 PM

My biggest complaint with the Rugers (both MK and 22/45) that no one seems to talk about is the horrible 'slide.' It is pretty unnaturally the way it is set up.

I know it should be easy not to pinch yourself, but when you do it hurts.

Stealth01 · May 4, 2012, 05:11 PM

Hey Scientist,
I've shot the Buckmark (can't speak against it... they are nice guns) but, I own 2 Rugers and love them!! I have a MK III SS Hunter and a MK III 22/45 TB. Both guns have complete VQ "innards" (hammer, trigger, sear, MK II hammer bushing, have lost the magazine safety, the LCI and both are 'comped')! I've equipped both with red dots, a Burris FastFire II and a Bushnell Trophy and replaced the grips. By now you have figured out that I LOVE TO TINKER with guns... and the Rugers are GREAT GUNS for modifying... that's why I love them! And how do they shoot... Both drop bowling pins at 100 yards (if you haven't tried this you really have to... it's a hoot!!)

excelerater · May 4, 2012, 05:57 PM

buckmark .........having owed both brands
the buckmark was better in every way IMO

Crunchy Frog · May 4, 2012, 07:02 PM

Both are excellent. Here's why I chose the Ruger 22/45 for a Steel Challenge pistol:

1. Steel Challenge encourages shooters to have five magazines; the Ruger came with two (the Bucky with one) and the extra magazines for the Ruger cost less than the Browning mags;

2. In Steel Challenge, at the completion of the stage, the shooter has to show a clear chamber, then pull the trigger to drop the hammer or striker. The Ruger can be safely dry fired. Not so sure about the Bucky; I saw a shooter who what concerned about peening the edge of his chamber inserting a plastic tab into his slide to cushion the firing pin. A pain.

Bird3897 · May 4, 2012, 07:04 PM

Ruger MkIII is my choice. Browning is nice piece also but the ruger felt better to me. Mine has been 100% reliable with about 400 rounds through it. good luck with your choice

jfrey · May 4, 2012, 07:37 PM

Get the Buck Mark. You won't be sorry. After thousands of rounds through mine, I never have been.

Fishbed77 · May 5, 2012, 01:28 AM

Both the Ruger and Browning are great guns.

I give the slight edge to the Rugers, as they have been more reliable in my experience, and are easier to break down and clean (don't need an allen wrench to do so).

The trigger out-of-the-box is butter on the Buck Marks, but the Rugers are easily upgraded.

IMightBeWrong · May 5, 2012, 04:47 AM

Call me an oddball, but I prefer the Ruger disassembly to the Buckmark's. It doesn't require a torx, there aren't any tiny parts that could get lost, and it's actually extremely easy after one or two takedowns (at least for me). I would go with Ruger just based on that, Mk. III or 22/45 depending on what feels better. Although if the Buckmark fits your hand better, go with it. I've been shooting the Mk. II for a long, long time. It was the pistol I grew up learning to shoot with. It's the only pistol I've never traded, ever. Love it. That's just me.

Lateck · May 5, 2012, 10:27 AM

I just went through with this question.
I got the Browning (& I'm a Ruger owner).
To me, the Buckmark fit my hands.....
Nothing more or less.

Try them out!

Lateck,

skoro · May 5, 2012, 03:21 PM

I have a MkIII 22/45 Hunter and a buddy has a Buckmark. Each of us has shot the other guy's 22 plenty. They're both very good pistols. If I had the Buckmark and he had the MkIII, we'd both be just as happy.

Either way you go, you will be, too.

Clifford L. Hughes · May 5, 2012, 03:35 PM

The Scientist:

When I ahot on several Marine Corps pistol teams I shot the Ruger MK1, 6 7/8 inch tapered barrell. I shot master scores with it. I think that the MKlll Hunnter is a more refined pistol and that it's super accurate. For some reason Browning has made only one match grade .22 pistol and it never became popular at pistol matches and it was droped. I'm not knocking the Brownning but I think that ypu would be happier with the Ruger Hunter.

Semper Fi.

Gunnery Sergeant
Clifford L. Hughes
USMC Retired

BillyJack3 · May 5, 2012, 04:03 PM

Both great pistols. I went to pick up the Ruger yesterday and the Buck Mark was sitting there also. I asked to hold it and the feel was as if it was made for me. It just comes down to preference. I'm going with an optic so the rail is an added expense. The Ruger came with it. I walked out owning the Browning.

soapboxpreacher · May 6, 2012, 11:48 AM

I just bought the buck mark camper in stainless with 3 mags. It is in shipping you guys are making me worry about my choice! It was under 400. It has fiber optic front and the URX grip. I looked at the 22/45 and liked it but no stainless and I do not like the handle on the regular mkIII...plus not fiber optic. Am I missing something here? The 22/45 seems to be missing a few options.

wild cat mccane · May 6, 2012, 12:39 PM

To make the Ruger trigger equal to the Buckmark you have to spend 60+ dollars. So...no. they aren't comparable.

The Scientist · May 6, 2012, 09:11 PM

Wow, just got home from a weekend away and I was surprised to see all the responses.... thanks a bunch guys! I'll have to go in and handle them, just to see what I like. Cost is not a concern to me, I've got more than enough Cabela's points racked up.

And Stealth, nice Rugers! (It looks like I will have to try tweaking mine after the purchase too.) It is hard to beat the fun of a .22! Thanks again.

Shotgal · May 6, 2012, 10:01 PM

Quote:

I prefer the Ruger disassembly to the Buckmark's. It doesn't require a torx, there aren't any tiny parts that could get lost, and it's actually extremely easy after one or two takedowns

I've been looking at these same pistols and also briefly the S&W 22a.
Looking at videos - the Ruger looked easy to do - and the Browning required tools and had parts coming out from all over the place. That's at least what I saw - as a novice.

Fishbed77 · May 6, 2012, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Call me an oddball, but I prefer the Ruger disassembly to the Buckmark's. It doesn't require a torx, there aren't any tiny parts that could get lost, and it's actually extremely easy after one or two takedowns (at least for me).

No - you're not an oddball. The Ruger is definitely easier to disassemble/reassemble than the Buck Mark. The plastic buffer and recoil spring on the Buck Mark are fiddly and can be a major pain to reinstall, and I personally hate any takedown sequence that requires removing and reinstalling screws. Likewise, having to remove a scope mount or rear sight to allow disassembly is just plain silly.

That said, the Buck Mark is still a great pistol with a really good out-of-the box trigger, but I just prefer the Ruger. A Volquartsen sear and trigger swap (skip the hammer) more than make up for the difference in trigger feel and the Rugers are more reliable in my experience.

pilpens · May 7, 2012, 12:09 AM

I like the Buckmark more than the Ruger MKxx.
If the Bullseye model is still available, it is the one to get (or similar model -- with trigger stop and maybe a sear spring adjustment screw).
I have 2 buckmark bullseye. Both were good out of the box. 1 had issue with screws bcaking out but were fixed with locktite. Both bucks have ejectors that wobble but does not seem to affect function. I have shot easily a couple of thousand rounds on 1 buckmark without any ejection issues. The movement may have been there before, I just have not noticed.
I have 3 ruger MKIIs. 1 is NIB. The two I use needed trigger jobs.
Ruger MKxx seems to get dirty faster than the Bucks and must be disassembled for cleaning periodically. Bucks stays cleaner longer and are easier to clean. Ruger feels more durable.
Accuracy is the same. Both are good pistols. One just requires more to get started and more maintenance.

May 4, 2012, 11:00 AM	#1
The Scientist Member Join Date: November 25, 2009 Posts: 46	Ruger Mark III, 22/45, or Browning Buck Mark? I'm looking for some thoughts on why you prefer one over the other, if you do. I'm in the market for a nice .22 and am leaning towards the Mark III Hunter. Just looking for comparison from guys that know alot more about these guns than me. But I do I love guns, and my kids enjoy shooting too. (Unfortunately, I don't have the time to shoot often enough.) Thanks for your time.

May 4, 2012, 11:12 AM	#2
aarondhgraham Senior Member Join Date: December 1, 2009 Location: Stillwater, OKlahoma Posts: 8,638	Hello Scientist,,, You are going to get a lot of comments on this topic,,, Primarily from owners who love their pistols. In my (not so) humble opinion,,, Performance-wise and quality-wise,,, There's not much difference between the two brands. Both are of excellent construction,,, Both are inherently very accurate pistols,,, And depending on the versions the prices are more or less comparable. My sincere advice to you is to handle both of the pistols,,, Determine which one fits your hand the best,,, Does one make your smile light up? Years ago when I got back into shooting,,, I was enamored of the looks and specs of the Mk-III Rugers. Then I picked one up,,, No smiles at all. I was also looking at the Browning Buckmarks,,, But again when I picked them up something was wrong. Fortunately for me I was able to handle a Ruger MK-III 22/45 pistol,,, That was my (not to big-hard-hot & not to small-soft-cold) Goldilocks pistol,,, This one was "juuuust right". The point I'm circling here is,,, Both of the pistols you mentioned are high quality,,, So the one that fits your hand will be the best one for you to buy. Aarond . __________________ Never ever give an enemy the advantage of a verbal threat. Caje: The coward dies a thousand times, the brave only once. Kirby: That's about all it takes, ain't it? Aarond is good,,, Aarond is wise,,, Always trust Aarond! (most of the time)

May 4, 2012, 02:12 PM	#7
IA7.3 Member Join Date: May 3, 2012 Location: Northwest Iowa Posts: 20	I own a mark III 22/45 target. My biggest complaint about the gun was the magazine safety, which i took out the day i bought it. The gun is cheaper than the browning and, (100% opinion) feels more comfortable and intuitive. The safety and slide release are just naturally where they should be. A lot of people complain about the takedown of the mark III, i find no problems with it. No tools required which is a major plus for me. The gun is one of the most accurate handguns i own. its been a tack driver since the second i bought it. its not picky about ammo, it feeds anything from the WIN 555 to CCI minimags (obviously). Another plus for me, and this varies by your intended purpose, is that its much easier to get upgraded uppers, trigger assemblies, sights, they seem to have a very sound following in regards to aftermarket parts and support. But, when the noise stops, its all about what you feel most comfortable with, you won't ever go wrong with either pistol and both will provide years of enjoyment and accuracy. __________________ If "pro" is the opposite of "con" whats the opposite of "progress?"

May 4, 2012, 05:11 PM	#9
Stealth01 Senior Member Join Date: November 16, 2010 Location: Missouri Posts: 240	Hey Scientist, I've shot the Buckmark (can't speak against it... they are nice guns) but, I own 2 Rugers and love them!! I have a MK III SS Hunter and a MK III 22/45 TB. Both guns have complete VQ "innards" (hammer, trigger, sear, MK II hammer bushing, have lost the magazine safety, the LCI and both are 'comped')! I've equipped both with red dots, a Burris FastFire II and a Bushnell Trophy and replaced the grips. By now you have figured out that I LOVE TO TINKER with guns... and the Rugers are GREAT GUNS for modifying... that's why I love them! And how do they shoot... Both drop bowling pins at 100 yards (if you haven't tried this you really have to... it's a hoot!!) __________________ Ken

May 5, 2012, 04:47 AM	#15
IMightBeWrong Senior Member Join Date: March 22, 2009 Posts: 814	Call me an oddball, but I prefer the Ruger disassembly to the Buckmark's. It doesn't require a torx, there aren't any tiny parts that could get lost, and it's actually extremely easy after one or two takedowns (at least for me). I would go with Ruger just based on that, Mk. III or 22/45 depending on what feels better. Although if the Buckmark fits your hand better, go with it. I've been shooting the Mk. II for a long, long time. It was the pistol I grew up learning to shoot with. It's the only pistol I've never traded, ever. Love it. That's just me. __________________ "Intelligence is nothing more than discussing things with others. Limitless wisdom comes of this." - 山本常朝

May 4, 2012, 11:14 AM	#3
BigJimP Senior Member Join Date: February 23, 2005 Posts: 13,195	The biggest issues between the Ruger and the Buckmark ... a. the grip angle...personally I like the Buckmark a lot better. Chances are one of them will come up just right for you ...and the other will not. I shoot a lot of 1911 platforms...so the Buckmark is way more natural to me on its grip angle. b. the takedown procedure for cleaning ( Ruger is a lot more difficult / not impossible / but almost "fussy" to get things just right. So again I prefer the Buckmark. I think the Buckmark's fit and finish is a little better - than the Ruger. I think the Buckmark will run a wider variety of ammo than the Ruger seems to ....but neither one of them are bad guns / they're just different.

May 4, 2012, 12:18 PM	#4
zincwarrior Senior Member Join Date: July 1, 2011 Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex Posts: 2,259	Some discussions from this slightly earlier thread may be helpful. http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...93#post5070293

May 4, 2012, 12:33 PM	#5
tom234 Senior Member Join Date: February 14, 2008 Location: Kansas Posts: 753	Do a search and read up. This question is asked several times a week here and on other Forums.

May 4, 2012, 01:59 PM	#6
The Scientist Member Join Date: November 25, 2009 Posts: 46	Thanks for the help. I knew this was a common comparison, but when I searched this forum earlier, it came up empty... which is just a snafu that can't be explained. So I posted the question. Now I can find all sorts of stuff, not sure what was wrong. Anyhow, thanks again.

May 4, 2012, 03:00 PM	#8
wild cat mccane Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2011 Posts: 3,625	My biggest complaint with the Rugers (both MK and 22/45) that no one seems to talk about is the horrible 'slide.' It is pretty unnaturally the way it is set up. I know it should be easy not to pinch yourself, but when you do it hurts.

May 4, 2012, 05:57 PM	#10
excelerater Junior member Join Date: June 27, 2011 Location: Memphis TN Posts: 694	buckmark .........having owed both brands the buckmark was better in every way IMO

May 4, 2012, 07:02 PM	#11
Crunchy Frog Senior Member Join Date: December 26, 2008 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 591	Both are excellent. Here's why I chose the Ruger 22/45 for a Steel Challenge pistol: 1. Steel Challenge encourages shooters to have five magazines; the Ruger came with two (the Bucky with one) and the extra magazines for the Ruger cost less than the Browning mags; 2. In Steel Challenge, at the completion of the stage, the shooter has to show a clear chamber, then pull the trigger to drop the hammer or striker. The Ruger can be safely dry fired. Not so sure about the Bucky; I saw a shooter who what concerned about peening the edge of his chamber inserting a plastic tab into his slide to cushion the firing pin. A pain.

May 4, 2012, 07:04 PM	#12
Bird3897 Senior Member Join Date: January 19, 2005 Posts: 269	Ruger MkIII is my choice. Browning is nice piece also but the ruger felt better to me. Mine has been 100% reliable with about 400 rounds through it. good luck with your choice

May 4, 2012, 07:37 PM	#13
jfrey Senior Member Join Date: May 16, 2008 Location: Coastal South Texas Posts: 557	Get the Buck Mark. You won't be sorry. After thousands of rounds through mine, I never have been.

May 5, 2012, 01:28 AM	#14
Fishbed77 Senior Member Join Date: November 23, 2010 Posts: 4,862	Both the Ruger and Browning are great guns. I give the slight edge to the Rugers, as they have been more reliable in my experience, and are easier to break down and clean (don't need an allen wrench to do so). The trigger out-of-the-box is butter on the Buck Marks, but the Rugers are easily upgraded.

May 5, 2012, 10:27 AM	#16
Lateck Member Join Date: December 22, 2010 Location: Arizona, USA Posts: 72	I just went through with this question. I got the Browning (& I'm a Ruger owner). To me, the Buckmark fit my hands..... Nothing more or less. Try them out! Lateck, __________________ Proud Ruger & SIG owner in the Free State of Arizona!

May 5, 2012, 03:21 PM	#17
skoro Senior Member Join Date: April 30, 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 1,952	Ruger Mark III, 22/45, or Browning Buck Mark? I have a MkIII 22/45 Hunter and a buddy has a Buckmark. Each of us has shot the other guy's 22 plenty. They're both very good pistols. If I had the Buckmark and he had the MkIII, we'd both be just as happy. Either way you go, you will be, too.

May 5, 2012, 03:35 PM	#18
Clifford L. Hughes Senior Member Join Date: February 24, 2011 Location: Southern Californis Posts: 795	The Scientist: When I ahot on several Marine Corps pistol teams I shot the Ruger MK1, 6 7/8 inch tapered barrell. I shot master scores with it. I think that the MKlll Hunnter is a more refined pistol and that it's super accurate. For some reason Browning has made only one match grade .22 pistol and it never became popular at pistol matches and it was droped. I'm not knocking the Brownning but I think that ypu would be happier with the Ruger Hunter. Semper Fi. Gunnery Sergeant Clifford L. Hughes USMC Retired

May 5, 2012, 04:03 PM	#19
BillyJack3 Senior Member Join Date: May 2, 2012 Posts: 423	Both great pistols. I went to pick up the Ruger yesterday and the Buck Mark was sitting there also. I asked to hold it and the feel was as if it was made for me. It just comes down to preference. I'm going with an optic so the rail is an added expense. The Ruger came with it. I walked out owning the Browning.

May 6, 2012, 11:48 AM	#20
soapboxpreacher Member Join Date: March 22, 2012 Posts: 24	I just bought the buck mark camper in stainless with 3 mags. It is in shipping you guys are making me worry about my choice! It was under 400. It has fiber optic front and the URX grip. I looked at the 22/45 and liked it but no stainless and I do not like the handle on the regular mkIII...plus not fiber optic. Am I missing something here? The 22/45 seems to be missing a few options.

May 6, 2012, 12:39 PM	#21
wild cat mccane Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2011 Posts: 3,625	To make the Ruger trigger equal to the Buckmark you have to spend 60+ dollars. So...no. they aren't comparable.

May 6, 2012, 09:11 PM	#22
The Scientist Member Join Date: November 25, 2009 Posts: 46	Wow, just got home from a weekend away and I was surprised to see all the responses.... thanks a bunch guys! I'll have to go in and handle them, just to see what I like. Cost is not a concern to me, I've got more than enough Cabela's points racked up. And Stealth, nice Rugers! (It looks like I will have to try tweaking mine after the purchase too.) It is hard to beat the fun of a .22! Thanks again.

May 7, 2012, 12:09 AM	#25
pilpens Senior Member Join Date: April 24, 2008 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,696	I like the Buckmark more than the Ruger MKxx. If the Bullseye model is still available, it is the one to get (or similar model -- with trigger stop and maybe a sear spring adjustment screw). I have 2 buckmark bullseye. Both were good out of the box. 1 had issue with screws bcaking out but were fixed with locktite. Both bucks have ejectors that wobble but does not seem to affect function. I have shot easily a couple of thousand rounds on 1 buckmark without any ejection issues. The movement may have been there before, I just have not noticed. I have 3 ruger MKIIs. 1 is NIB. The two I use needed trigger jobs. Ruger MKxx seems to get dirty faster than the Bucks and must be disassembled for cleaning periodically. Bucks stays cleaner longer and are easier to clean. Ruger feels more durable. Accuracy is the same. Both are good pistols. One just requires more to get started and more maintenance.