I was reading another thread and several were recommending the Buck Mark over Ruger Mark pistols and others. Why is that? I have several Rugers and had one Buckmark with the 7.25" heavy barrel. The Buck Mark was a fine .22 but it is now gone and my Rugers are still here. What do you prefer about Brownings?

That they ain't Rugers.......

Thank you. Helpful answer.

DesertMuleDeer: I will try to give you some first hand "non-smart ass" information from MY experiences over the years (decades with some!) with the MK series of Ruger pistols and the Buck Mark line of pistols.
First of all I currently own 15 (fifteen) Ruger MK pistols in all four model variations (MK-I, MK-II, MK-III and MK-IV) most of them are heavy barrels and some are equipped with optical sighting devices - I also currently own and shoot 4 (four) Buck Mark pistols and 1 (one) Buck Mark Rifle - all of them have heavy barrels and all have optical devises for sighting.
I think, based on my experiences, that the two brands of pistols are very comparable in accuracy, trigger pull (crispness) and reliability (functioning).
They both are very handsomely designed (with the slightest of edge in my opinion going to the Ruger MK's in this regard).
I also think the Ruger MK series of pistols hold their value slightly better than the Buck Mark series of pistols - in other words you are going to realize a better return on your dollar spent for a Ruger MK pistol than a Buck Mark pistol - again this is a slight advantage.
IF... and I was there once during my lifetime, initial cost is the deciding factor in obtaining one or the other then the Buck Mark holds the slight edge here.
In fact I was dealing today on an absolutely mint Ruger MK-II pistol with 6 1/2 barrel that the price today was probably right at TWICE what that mint pistols sold for NEW!
I don't see the Buck Marks doing quite that well in retention of and/or increase in value.
I fully intend to return to that gun selling venue tomorrow and bringing that sixteenth Ruger MK pistol home with me if its still available!
The Buck Marks are fine pistols and come in an amazing variety of models, styles, finishes - the magazines are a bit more pricey for the Buck Marks than for current model Ruger MK's.
Of my squad of Varmint and small game Hunting friends who own BOTH Rugers and Buck Marks omnly ONE of them clearly prefers the Buck Marks to the Ruger MK's.
I like them both but the edge goes to the MK's for me (not so much the MK 22/45 series - esthetics here sway me on this model being slightly less desirable.)
Best of luck to you if you are considering either one!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy
P.S.: huntsman22 - see now that was not so hard was it!
I see no reason what so ever to burp up some of the schitt you do so often!
Sheesh.

I have always found favor with Ruger MK series pistols and have owned several. Stone cold reliable and accurate. A couple months ago I held several MK series pistols a Buckmark and an S&W Victory back to back. The Buckmark and the Victory felt much better in my hand than the MK. The Buckmark had the edge. With the rebate going on Buckmarks and CDNN's already low prices, I think they are the way to go.

I don't have nearly the experience with these pistols as VarmintGuy does - I have one MkII and a Buckmark. The MkII is a stainless 5.5" bull barrel. To me, it feels muzzle heavy and doesn't balance as well as the Browning. I think my Browning has about the same barrel length with the flat sides. It points much more naturally for me and I think the grip fits me better as well - it just feels better to point and shoot. I know that Ruger has at times made a slab-sided 5.5" barrel, and I suspect I would like that better than the full bull barrel I have, which just feels heavy and bulky to me.

My Buckmark's trigger is unquestionably better than the one on my MkII. The Buckmark is more accurate, or at least easier to shoot more accurately. My wife is not really a shooter, but much offers the Buckmark when plinking. Maybe if I stuck $75-$125 into a trigger job, the MkII would shoot as well or better than the Browning, but it still won't feel as good in my hand. The MkII was a gift from my wife, so I don't see getting rid of it, but if that was not the case, I would have traded for a second Buckmark long ago. Maybe I still will. It's not like it is a horrible gun, not at all. Just maybe kind of a disappointment.

Yeah Rugers hold their value, but..............how much do those POS Buckmark Varmint or Silhouette models go for these days?
Had Buckmarks and Rugers........both are decent.
Just depends on what features you want.
For an iron sighted hunting rig...........I like a Colt Match Target 6" Woodsman way better.
For iron sighted target stuff............Kart slided 1911.
For optics...........Buckmark or Ruger.
For less $ and all around............Buckmark or Ruger.
Had a High Standard that was pretty badazz..........but my eyes say optic mandated anymore.
.22 pistol is just a fun rig anymore.
So..................USED Buckmark or Ruger.........whatever deal comes along

Nor do I have the extensive experience of VarmintGuy, but when I needed some small parts for my Buckmark they were "out of stock" and backordered for months. I could perhaps understand if these were not parts that wear, or were for a discontinued model, but these included a firing pin and springs for current models. This wasn't my only such experience with Browning parts.

Just my experience, and I don't know that Ruger is necessarily better in that regard.

I will say that continuing support with parts and service plays a large part in my purchase decisions.

Paul

Thank you, Varmint Guy. I have been trying to figure out why so many on this site prefer Buckmark. That is a good explanation. I have had first and second gen Woodsmans, a heavy barrel 7.25" Buckmark, have a S&W 41 and 6-7 Mark II/IIIs. Overall I prefer Mark IIIs to all others. .22 handguns are one of my favorite things.

I can't say which is better, I've never owned one of the MKs but they seem to be as well liked as the Buckmarks I got a Buckmark over 25 years ago. Good trigger and it's been shot a lot with no problems. I'd say try to handle and if possible shoot both. Get the one you like the best. You probably can't go wrong.

Prefer the slab sided reg Buckmark for looks. But like the target stuff for the adj sear.
Too much $ to piece one together.
Standard was pretty decent, but shot it in IMHSA and the trigger needed to be better.
Pops had target 5.5 and 14".
The Varmint 10" was the one I wanted. 14" just too long (I never shot unlimited class).

Trigger on recent MK2 purchase............sucks. Need to order a sear.

Don't forget, there is a major difference between the Mark II and Mark III. And this is mostly why the Mark II's command such good prices used.

On another note, I have owned plenty of Rugers and several Buckmarks. PIck the one that fits your hand the best and has the finish and options you like.

The BuckMark for me. I've owned one of each and shot a few others of each. The Ruger was the slab sided Comp, Target MKII model. I have no doubt that it was more accurate than I could shoot it. Killed a few squirrel and some pest birds with it. Using it to rabbit hunt, it was a pain to try and get the safety flipped quickly (although now I think there is an extended safety available).

The Browning fits my hands better, the safety is easier to flip quickly and it is lighter (model has a lot to do with that). I have probably in the neighborhood of 4 - 5k rounds through it and can't remember ever having an issue, not that I ever did with the Ruger either. The trigger could stand a little work, the MKII could've too. (Didn't I read somewhere that you could do a little 5 minute trigger job on the Browning by reversing a spring or something?) I've never had it apart to look. I agree that it is easier to shoot accurately than the Ruger. Even with the shorter sight radius I can shoot it as accurately as the Ruger with open sights. I've never put a scope on the Browning or even shot it from a bench but I'd be willing to bet that it is about as accurate as the Ruger I had.

I don't really have a dog in this hunt, my go-to rimfire pistol is a Nelson conversion on a dedicated 1911 frame. I am an experienced smith and have worked on many Rugers and Buckmarks. The reliability and accuracy are about equal out of the box, the choice boils down to feel. The pistols feel different and one will feel more "right". I agree that CDNN's prices on the Buckmark is unbeatable.

Just an anecdote,
Buddies dad had a Bm Silhouette with an Aimpoint,
off a bench or resting against a pole that thing would
break clay birds at 100 yards easily. Then you could
hit the pieces. Darn thing impressed me, both that it
could do that. And that, helped by the gun, that I could.

It's called the Heggis Flip. People seem to report mixed results and potential safety issues. It's just me but I'll pass on it. YMMV

Click Here

Thanks Ned. I didn't know what it was called and had never studied on it. Looks to be a lot of controversy on this mod.One of these days I'll take the gun apart and study the inner workings and make up my own mind. Probably end up doing some stoning and smoothing or the Volquartsen route.

Just saw this thread on the Buckmarks and thought I'd put my 2 cents in.

I own both the 10" Varmint and Silhouette models, both of which are spot on at 100 yards. Can knock down 4" steel animal silhouettes all day long.
Also own a 14" Unlimited class Buckmark which is just as deadly accurate.
All 3 have heavy straight bull barrels on the with no taper. I believe these three models are the only models with adjustable triggers in the rear just below the slide. They are definitely what you would expect a target pistol to be.

I also own some of the current model River MK IV hunter 7.25" bull barrels in SS. I think they are well built and shoot just as nice. I don't think they are as accurate long range as my bull barrel Buckmarks.

I would highly recommend the 10" Buckmarks if you can find them at a reasonable price? There was one on here last year on the classifieds that went for $975.00. A little steep I say?? Also seen them in stores used for that price.

Another impressive piece that I have is a S&W 22S model. It is a 5.5" heavy barrel with an oversized laminate grip. This pistol is also very impressive and affordable.

Good luck with your future purchases!

Best,

Kimbo

I had 3 completely different models or Ruger's and could never shoot any of them well. The last change was to a Buckmark and it was what I needed.
Everyone is different and what they shoot best will be what "fits" them.
Absolutely NOTHING wrong with the Ruger 22s.

Oh except takedown reassembly, I never got good at that with the Rugers.

I'm just the opposite. I'd highly recommend throwing the 10" barrel away and going with 4". Something to be said for 'handy'. If I need a full-length rifle, I'll grab a rifle.....

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.