Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Rimfires Buck Mark

What is the major difference? I have owned every series except a Mark IV, and prefer the Mark III.

I like my Buckmark better than any ruger 22lr pistol I've ever had because I like the firearm to operate as advertised and hit what I'm aiming at. Ruger couldn't do that. Buckmark could.

It's a VERY accurate gun. During my CCW permit class, I used my Buckmark for the shooting part. It drew some funny looks and goofy smiles until I shot a smiley face on the target. The instructor took note and said "cute."

Same here. Barrel that long waving about with a short little handle makes you feel like you should be witching for water.

I have a MK II competition. I think it has the 6 inch barrel.

Its a bit too long to be handy, but its okay as that is all I have.

My buddy has a bushel basket of Buck Marks. They are fine pistols.

The MKII has the mag release moved to a standard pistol configuration and not toward the bottom of the mag well. It also has the mag disconnect so if you remove the mag you can't kill your enemy with a single shot. This also makes an already difficult reassembly more difficult. It also has an internal lock if you feel the need to internally lock your pistol.

I prefer the Buckmark to the Ruger MK III 22/45. But that is not the same as saying I prefer the Buckmark to the Ruger MKIII. For me the Buckmark has proven more reliable so I have held onto it more longer.

It's one of the most accurate and reliable rimfires I've ever owned.



Dave

I have one also and feel the same about it not being too handy but I will say it is one accurate sob.

Thank you. Good info. I at one time had a Mark I/ Standard, MK II Govt, a few variations of MK IIIs, a Buckmark 7.25" with the heavy barrel and an S&W 41 "a series." I took them all out and spent most of a day shooting 4-5 different types of ammo through them back-to-back. The MK II Govt was by far the most accurate, but I don't love the position of the mag release on the butt and the 6 7/8" bull is a tad barrel heavy for me, but love the gun. The rest shot about the same, which is to say they were all really accurate and all are reliable until you have at least 1,000 to 1,500 rounds through them and then some need cleaning. The 7.25" Buckmark was too barrel heavy for my taste and seemed complicated to disassemble in that I don't think Browning recommends it so I gave it to a friend that wanted to try one. The 41 is the most refined, but I have a hard time loving it for some reason. I walked away realizing I love the MK III in 5.5" bull, 5.5 fluted and 6 7/8" slab side configurations. I haven't tried a MK IV because I shoot a high hold and don't like the position of the controls plus have no problems taking down a MK III.

The above experiment is what drove my starting this thread. There are many vocal Buckmark fans on here and I wondered why. After my "testing" I thought the Buckmark to be similar to the Ruger but liked Rugers slightly more. I guess it is all personal tastes. Maybe I should buy a 5.5" Buckmark some day and try it again. One cannot have too many .22 pistols.

1911's are my favorite handguns to shoot and the buckmark has a similar feel. The ruger is a nice gun but I shoot the browning better and prefer it's familiar 1911 ergonomics.