.22: Ruger vs. Buckmark

Of the following, my fave .22 plinker is:

  • Ruger Mk. II

    Votes: 51 50.0%

  • Ruger 22/45

    Votes: 14 13.7%

  • Browning Buckmark

    Votes: 37 36.3%
  • Total voters
    102
P

pdmoderator

New member
Hi, all,

I'd like to hear from Ruger Mk. II, 22/45, and Browning Buckmark owners about what you feel are the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Thanks,
- pdmoderator
 
The MarkII is the best all-around choice for a dozen reasons. So I'll tell you reasons why you might want the others.

22/45: Not only do the controls mimic a 1911, the grip angle is the same as well.

Buckmark: Some of the higher-end ones are gorgeous and at least as accurate as the Rugers.

Any of these pistols pay for themselves, ammo-wise, quickly.
 
I own 7 Ruger MkIIs with at leat one of every barrel length offered. So my vote goes to.....

I shot IHMSA competition for 2 years wth the 10" version. Very accurate.

Can't comment on the Buckmarks because I've never owned one. I ordered a Buckmark Carbine Bull-barrel(not sporter) last winter that still is not in. It is a really 'neet' design. Looks kinda like a SWAT entry weapon.
 
I voted for the MKII. The Buckmarks DO NOT stand up to heavy use very well. You'd better keep a nice allen wrench around to put the dang thing back together at the range. Either that, or you can Loctite it together. The only edge the Buckmark has is that it has a better trigger.
 
I can't compare the two because I have never even shot a Buckmark. But, I have owned four Ruger autos. The first two were what ever they called them prior to Mk.II (Mk. I ?). I got a Standard Model 4" at the age of nine, and later bought a 5" blued bull barrel. I presently own two. A standard model 4" Mk. II with a Tasco Pro-Point red dot sight on it and a 5" stainless bull barrel Mk.II with Millet sights. After 10-20 thousand rounds I really don't have anything negative to say about them.
 
Hmm I think this subject may have been covered before. ;) I have both. I loved the Ruger but my Buckmarks are far better IMO.
VS. the 22/45
(1) the Buckmarks have REAL 1911/HiPower controls not the 22/45`s hard to use recessed buttons in more or less 1911 places.
(2)The grip has the same angle as and *actually feels like* a 1911/HiPower/ CZ grip not like a plastic brick with their grip angles.
(3) The mags don`t have that huge plastic baseplate.
(4) The mags eject smartly (spring boosted).
(5)The mags are easier to load
(6) The trigger usually is much better.
(7)It`s WAY better looking.
VS. the standard Rugers
See 1(except the standards still have the hokey heel release and the hard to use buttons aren`t recessed),2(except that it`s the angle not the shape),3,4,5,6
The Rugers are still great guns don`t get me wrong. A relative`s 22/45 with an Optima sight on it is an outrageously accurate piece and should be even better after EGW gets done with the trigger. My own MK-512 was a beaut before it was stolen and rusted fast before it was recovered. :mad: But for the above reasons I just prefer the Buckmarks. Well,those and the cool gold trigger. ;) Marcus
 
I personally Love the Buckmarks. Especially the Rifle stock ones. I don't know what they are called but they're pretty cool.


How are the Buckmarks compared to the MKII pistols as far as assembling and disassembling? I sold My MKII because I hated cleaning it. I held on to the Single Six though.

Hey Marcus I picked up a Ruger 10/22 a couple days ago:D
 
Had both, now just have the Buckmark. The MkII was a great pistol, but the angle and feel of the grip just didn't feel natural with my 1911's. I don't care for the "Olympic" angle. Disassembly... the Ruger just looked too easy to FUBAR. I never did take it down. The Buckmark is a piece of cake. I have the Camper model, by the way.

Mikey
 
I went through the same decision a few months ago , myself. The mkII grip angle was uncomfortable for me and I didnt think I could get used to it , so that's out. Buckmark's grip is more contoured and comfortable than the 22/45's. The sights and trigger seemed more precise, and the control levers were much nicer to operate. But I wound up going with the 22/45 instead because the grip angle was closer to my USP and it felt much more solidly constructed. What turned me off to the Buckmark was that it needs to be unscrewed to be taken apart, and also that the slide was alot harder to pull back.

With that said, some problems I've had with the 22/45 after 3 briks of Walmart ammo:
-front sight fell off, had to epoxy back on
-"jam-o-matic" jams once every 3 magazines or so. usually it will try to feed a round at too steep an angle and end up bending the bullet in its case
-when trying to clear the jam, it will sometimes kick the magazine out. I swear I didnt touch the mag release!!!

But still, I like it, not that I was expecting much more out of a gun at that price point.
 
I have both, I think the Buckmark is a better gun. FWIW, Ronin, My buckmark has more than 5000 rounds through it and is still very solid. I dont like the aluminum frame, that's the one nod I'll give to the Ruger. If Browning made this with a steel frame, then we'd have something.
 
ME TOO!!!..I'm going out to get one of the two this week end.
Ruger has a grip angle like a 1911....so what. I don't mean to be a smart a$$, but what does that mean to me...I don't own a 1911.
Tamara.....what stuff is available for the Ruger that isn't for the Browning???
I was leaning to the field model of Browning, so I can put a red dot or scope on it.
Where can I get some pics of a 22/45...when I go to Ruger's web site all I seem to find are MkII's.
Needless to say I'm still totally confused.
Thanks for the info on this thread.
RH Factor
 
Buckmark aluminum frames

I'd heard the same thing about the aluminum Buckmark frames, but I'm wondering if there is a real failure problem or just prejudice against aluminum.

Has anyone here seen the Buckmark frames fail in practice?

- pdmoderator
 
Of 5 buckmarks that are owned by me or friends, 2 have serious wear at the slide stop groove in the frame. Oddly, these 2 were probably the most meticulously maintained. Mine has been rather roughly treated and has the most rounds through it, yet shows no signs of any wear there.

My theory is that the grip panels werent' installed right or the screws loosened, and the damage was caused by operating the stop with it out of the slot, but I cant prove it. The guys who own them say "no way"

One got his gun replaced free, and the other is just running it.

My main gripe about the ruger is the steep feed ramp, making it ammo finicky.
 
Rhino48- We have 3 Buckmarks at our club. My guess is that they have 15000+ rounds through each of them. That's probably why they're so hard to keep together. The sight rail comes loose on each one at nearly every practice now. They're good pistols but IMHO they don't stand up to heavy amounts of shooting. All of the Ruger's work fine and they probably have even more rounds through them than the Buckmarks.

Dan
 
"Ruger has a grip angle like a 1911....so what. I don't mean to be a smart a$$, but what does that mean to me...I don't own a 1911. "

I think the logic behind that is that in formal bullseye competition people have traditionally shot both a .22 and a 1911. So, having a gun that feels the same is a plus.
 
22/45:

kp4b.gif
kp512b.gif


From Ruger's website. Specifically, from the rimfire autoloading pistol catalog page.

Personally I don't like the 22/45. The grip is okay, but it feels very plasticky, and the controls are annoying...but that's a matter of taste.
The grip of the Mk.II, especially when complemented by custom wooden grips (I should post a few pics of mine) is simply perfect. :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top