Ruger Mark III and Browning Buckmark

wildmanh

wildmanh

Part time Leather Bender/Sheath maker
Joined
Jul 9, 2000
Messages
7,764
Was wondering if any of you have had experience with either the Ruger Mark III's or the Browning Buckmarks?

I've seriously been considering a semi auto .22 to go with my Single Six. I handled the Ruger 22/45 Mark III Saturday when I picked up my Single Six, had a good feel to it. A few years ago I got to handle the Browning Buckmark Hunter. Also felt pretty good.

I know it comes down to personal taist and how it feels. So I'll probably be renting both next time I'm at the local range. Even so, would love to hear your thoughts, feelings and stories regarding these two fine .22 pistols. Pics below for those not familure with the guns.

Ruger 22/45 Makr III: http://www.ruger.com/Firearms/FAPro...=54&variation=Bull Barrel&bct=Yes&type=Pistol

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

Thanks

Heber
 
Some years ago, I played with both.

I bought the Buckmark.

Think it is 6 of one, half-dozen of the other, really.

Both high-quality, dependable pistols.


Have fun.


(# 6 on the linked page.)
 
Thanks Kis! Got any shooting stories you'd like to share that involve your Buckmark?

Heber
 
I've never liked the look of the 22/45....personal taste. I've never handled it. It just looks blocky to me.
I have the 5 1/2 " bull barrel mark ll tho. Nice gun.

The browning is also a nice gun.

One thing is there are more after market products for the mark ll than the others.
 
I picked up a Mark III for the .22LR stage of the 2700 Bullseye Pistol course and it works pretty well. It is in about the same price range as a .22 LR conversion for 1911 pistols, but quite a bit more (i.e. "Match") accurate. Grip geometry is identical to the 1911 pistol and according to my postal scale the weight with an Ultra Dot sight attached is identical to a 1911 with an Ultra Dot.

They feed better than alot of .22s I've seen and can use any ammo, including those weird, hot-loaded .22s. The fancier brands of .22 Target pistols will usually handle only the standard-velocity ammo (sometimes hard to find) or it wrecks them.

If you want status, get a Hammerli but if all you are interested in is score, the Mark III will deliver.

BTW: Just noticed this is post #1000 for me.
 
There I was, crouched in the underbrush. I could feel the sweat trickling down my face, unsuccessfully trying to cool my over-heated body from the tremendous exertion of running the five miles up the mountain as the terrorists kept up their relentless pursuit.

They'd used infrared cameras on their ultra-lights to track me. My only hope was to be stealthy enough to hide my body heat among the wild-life in the brush. Thank gawd I'd grabbed the Buckmark and extra mag on my way out the window, in my flying tuck and roll leap to safety.



enough...


No, not really, Heber. I just shoots it. It goes "bang" every time I pull the trigger. I got an extra magazine and use the hell out of the pistol. I can step outside and run through both clips without attracting attention out here in the country, so I have no idea of how much I've shot it. Thousands of rounds have faultlessly fired from it.

I guess I could hunt with it. I'm accurate enough, although no marksman by any means. The furthest I've shot is at a 100 yard target down the valley. No benchrest, but with concentration, I'd imagine I could hit a rabbit (somewhere) at that range. (It is not the pistol, it is the pistoleer.:o )

If I'm going plinking, I wander afoot with a .22 rifle most often. Although sometimes, I'll take the Buckmark and toss twigs in the creek and shoot at the moving targets. Fun.

You have selected down to two excellent choices. Now it is a matter of your personal taste.

Have fun.
wacherass
 
I have a Mark 1. The earlier model of the III. I like it a lot. Shoots great. According to the ser# 1965 was the date of mfg.

wife22.jpg
 
I have six Mark II's (the immediate precursor to the Mark III), and one Buck Mark Challenge. Bought the Challenge for my wife since it has smaller grips and is lighter than any of the Mark II's. Both weapons are an excellent choice. I think the fit and finish on the browning is a little bit better. Ruger seems to have had a hard time getting the front sight on straight in many cases on the Mark II. As for accuracy, and portability, I like the 6-7/8" bbl. "Government Target Model" Mark II...I have both the blued version and the stainless...also have the slab sided competition model with the same barrel length...all are excellent shooters. Once broken in, I have had very few jams (only after many hundreds of rounds in one shooting session with some beeswax lubed ammo...a little quick cleaning, and was good to go.
 
Both pistols described are excellent, but the Mark III is the lawyer designed varient of the Mark I or II. I might be inclined to look at a used model :D
 
MkIII here. The factory sights don't do the pistol any justice; fortunately, there are aftermarket ones available and there is some parts commonality with the Redhawk sights. I don't like the magazine safety. The trigger is a bit stiffer than I'd like.

It hangs well in the hand and is actually more reliable than my revolvers, having only malfunctioned twice in...what, 6,000 rounds? 8,000? I lost count. It was going through a brick or two a week for a few months. Quite accurate. Needs little cleaning, which is great because it's a real PITA to clean. Disassembling the MkIII is more art than science, especially since the directions Ruger supplies in their manual are (by their own admission) incorrect. :)

For $240 out the door at Sportsman's, one could do much worse than this. I don't know how Ruger manages to sell them for so little. Actually, I do -- it has a plastic frame. As a confirmed Disciple of Gaston this doesn't bother me in the least.
 
You might want to look at a used Ruger Mark II if your going with that brand. The new Mark III has a magazine disconnect and a main spring lock. In my opinion, modifications that are supposed to make antigunners happy. I'm not big on a pistol that doesn't fire without a mag. I have two Ruger Mark IIs. Just my opinion.............Malcolm
 
I've never fired a Buckmark so I can't comment on it directly, but my carry pistol is a Browning Hi-Power and my deer & elk rifle is a Browning BLR. That should tell you how I feel about the Browning name.

I have a Ruger Mark III also. As others have mentioned, it's really a Mark II with a magazine disconnect, key-lock and chamber-loaded indicator added. None of these features are necessary or contribute anything to the pistol, but it's still a great shooter. It points very naturally in my hand and I'm able to shoot it quite well. The all-black factory sights that came on mine left something to be desired; I painted them and that solved the problem.

The price and quality should be comparable, so it boils down to taste. I'd recommend comparing both to see which feels best in your hand and go with that.
 
hollowdweller said:
I have a Mark 1. The earlier model of the III. I like it a lot. Shoots great. According to the ser# 1965 was the date of mfg.

wife22.jpg
Click to expand...

I have this guy too. A Mark 1 target w/ 6" barrel. I also have an RST4 (the Ruger Std. target), which they made about a million of I guess, the 4" model with standard sights. I bought it used in 1976 for $80 from a guy, and it's still going strong. I had my smith jewel the bolt and do a Grade 5 reblue on the frame years ago. Kind of like perfuming a pig I guess, but looks pretty.

I shot the 22/45 and it is nice that they mimic the 1911 grip frame, but I like the standard frame better. I like the little 4" bull barrel MkII a friend of mine has. Very handy little pistol.

On the RST4, it came with the black plastic stocks, but there was an old order form in the box that said I could get walnut target stocks for $4.50 shipped! I thought what the hell and sent it in and Ruger actually honored it. (-: Makes the pistol a lot nicer to shoot.

Norm
 
A side benefit of those Ruger guns is you can put one of these on it (got to type in "www"):

oneraggedhole.com/The_RUGER_One_Hole_Sight.htm

I got one on a Super Blackhawk and it is the bees knees. They fit on Mk IIIs too.
 
I've got the Ruger 22/45 which is similar to the Mark III. I'm not thrilled with it, nor have I felt it necessary to sell the gun and replace it with something else. In particular, the trigger is lousey, and the other controls (round knobs) end up huting my thumbs after about a half an hour of shooting. The controls on my larger guns are far superior. My other 22 is a .22 Magnum (AMT AutoMag II). If they made it in .22 LR, I'd buy one.
 
hp2spare said:
I've got the Ruger 22/45 which is similar to the Mark III. I'm not thrilled with it, nor have I felt it necessary to sell the gun and replace it with something else. In particular, the trigger is lousey, and the other controls (round knobs) end up huting my thumbs after about a half an hour of shooting. The controls on my larger guns are far superior. My other 22 is a .22 Magnum (AMT AutoMag II). If they made it in .22 LR, I'd buy one.
Click to expand...

That's interesting the trigger on my Mark 1 is great.

RE: Jamming. Mine does it occasionally when I near the 600 round mark. Then if I take it apart and clean it out it works fine again.
 
I like your plan to shoot different ones. Your decision may just come down to which feels and shoots better for you. Both are good guns.

I have two Ruger Mark II Targets with 5.5" barrels, one Browning Buckmark 5.5 Field, and one Browning Buckmark Bullseye Target. The gun shop owner swore the Bullseye would outshoot the Rugers. I haven't had a chance to formally test that. Just with informal shooting, I'm not sure it will. The Ruger magazines are a lot cheaper and more readily available which is a factor if you purchase many (I have quite a few for each). The Ruger is a pain to reassemble; but you can get a kit to fix that. I never really liked the feel of the Ruger 22/45 version.

Overall, if limited to one for plinking and hunting (squirrels, rabbits, etc.), I'd go with a regular stainless steel Ruger Target model with 5.5" barrel, get the trigger worked on or replaced, get the kit to make reassembly easier, and consider myself well equipped.

If you shoot the longer barrel much better, I'd check out the Ruger Hunter model or one of others.

One thing I certainly wouldn't do is go with one of the cheaper S&W's. Based upon my experience with ... can't remember model number, but it was cheap aluminum frame S&W semi-auto .22 (light, but an inaccurate jamamattic which I still have somewhere...); I think S&W's semi-auto .22s must start and end with the 41.
 
I have a Ruger bull barrel 5 1/2" with Ruger target grips. I love it. I had a longer barrel Ruger model before this one, with the 6 7/8" barrel and target sights. I liked them both, but prefer the shorter bull barrel. I put many thousands of rounds through the older model. It only failed to eject once - with an Eley target round.

They are great guns, and I like the steel frame models. I just can't warm up to plastic frames.

The test is always to shoot the gun. It has to work for you. I just can't shoot Colt 45s very well, and can even shoot a mini Glock better in that caliber. The handle shape and angle just doesn't work well for me. Guns are very subjective. You have to try it and see what you like best.

I took my daughter out shooting, and let her try out a few guns, including a S&W K22 revolver. She preferred the Ruger.
 
I got to shoot a Ruger 22/45 yesterday. I like it but there's a lot of plastic.

I think the magazine safety is a dangerous feature.

No built in trigger lock though. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top