You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ruger Mk series versus Browning Buck Mark
- Thread starter gryphon
- Start date
MKII
I vote for the MKII, I have both, a Buckmark Silhouette and a MKII 10" that I have used for IHMSA competition. I can shoot 40x40 with the Ruger, never have been able to do it with the Browning.
Other than that I like the way the Ruger is built.
Just bought a new MKII 6 7/8 competition slab side and never even gave a thought to another Buckmark.
And boy, is it a sweet shooter.
I vote for the MKII, I have both, a Buckmark Silhouette and a MKII 10" that I have used for IHMSA competition. I can shoot 40x40 with the Ruger, never have been able to do it with the Browning.
Other than that I like the way the Ruger is built.
Just bought a new MKII 6 7/8 competition slab side and never even gave a thought to another Buckmark.
And boy, is it a sweet shooter.
They are different
The Ruger is a much more rugged or robust design, with a lot fewer tiny little parts. By contrast, the Buckmark has a LOT of tiny little parts, including a plastic recoil buffer that needs replacing every few thousand rounds. The "c" washer that holds the recoil spring on the recoil spring guide rod is about this big: o.
I have both the MkII with 6 7/8" barrel and the Buck Mark Plus with 5 1/2" barrel. I honestly couldn't pick between them. The Browning is a delight to shoot, even to hold in your hand, and the stainless Ruger is virtually maintenance free. The MkII probably has more aftermarket parts available, but Volquartsen is now selling custom parts for the Buck Mark as well, if you're into that.
The only upgrade I have done to either pistol (besides optics) is the OnTarget trigger shield or whatever it's called that keeps things clean inside the grip frame of the MkII. My MkII is currently wearing a laser on the trigger guard and a Streamlight Scorpion on the barrel for backyard nighttime varmint duty.
http://www.ontargetguns.com
Good luck. I think you have to have one of each, but I would start with the Ruger.
Regards.
The Ruger is a much more rugged or robust design, with a lot fewer tiny little parts. By contrast, the Buckmark has a LOT of tiny little parts, including a plastic recoil buffer that needs replacing every few thousand rounds. The "c" washer that holds the recoil spring on the recoil spring guide rod is about this big: o.
I have both the MkII with 6 7/8" barrel and the Buck Mark Plus with 5 1/2" barrel. I honestly couldn't pick between them. The Browning is a delight to shoot, even to hold in your hand, and the stainless Ruger is virtually maintenance free. The MkII probably has more aftermarket parts available, but Volquartsen is now selling custom parts for the Buck Mark as well, if you're into that.
The only upgrade I have done to either pistol (besides optics) is the OnTarget trigger shield or whatever it's called that keeps things clean inside the grip frame of the MkII. My MkII is currently wearing a laser on the trigger guard and a Streamlight Scorpion on the barrel for backyard nighttime varmint duty.
http://www.ontargetguns.com
Good luck. I think you have to have one of each, but I would start with the Ruger.
Regards.
I`ve had a couple of each. They`re both very good pistols. To choose it`s necessary to nitpick since neither has any real faults IMO. Personally I prefer the Browning for the following reasons: better trigger out of the box,1911 style grip(I don`t care for the feel of the 22/45 and the mags hang up on my hand when I try to release em),magazines pop out smartly when the release is pressed ,mags are easier to load,and the front sight doesn`t snag on holsters as bad. In defense of the Ruger,you can get great aftermarket triggers ,the 22/45 has the 1911 grip angle and you may like the grip ,you can get magazine loaders cheap, and some aren`t bothered by the undercut front sight and holsters but I had it tear up a few. All that being said a relative has a 22/45 I set up for him with an Optima 2000 that is an outstanding shooter,like 5/8" groups are 25yds. from a rest! My Browning Micro Plus SE shoots about 2" at the same range with open sights. The Browning shoots better than the Ruger offhand though probably because the trigger is much better( the Browning`s groups stay almost the same and the Rugers grow quite a bit). Check both pistols out and get what you like,the Browning is better for me but they`re both great guns. You really can`t go wrong. Marcus
I just bought a Ruger Competition after months of chat and online review. I will go to the range later this morning and try it out ( had a lot errands today + I wanted to clean it thoroughly first). I already own a Super Single revolver from Ruger and it is a wonderful piece. Take your time and do some researh (search mode) here and elsewhere before shelling out the $$$
abrahamsmith
New member
I just had to make the same decision last fall. I decided on the Buck Mark.
Why? It was prettier (with wooden grips), seemed to have a similar repuation, and FIT MY HAND A LOT BETTER.
To me, that was the kicker . Fondle them, and you'll knwo which is for you.
To me, both styles of Ruger grips felt blockish and angular.. the Browning was perfect for my hand.
Why? It was prettier (with wooden grips), seemed to have a similar repuation, and FIT MY HAND A LOT BETTER.
To me, that was the kicker . Fondle them, and you'll knwo which is for you.
To me, both styles of Ruger grips felt blockish and angular.. the Browning was perfect for my hand.
Can't say anything about the Ruger since I've never fired one, but I have a Buckmark and enjoy it immensely (shoot it once or twice a week just to keep in practice). But Ledbetter is absolutely right about lots of little parts. Having to unscrew the sight assembly, make sure I don't lose the tiny lock washers, make sure the recoil buffer doesn's skip off the table into the carpet... you'd better be one of the weirdos like me who actually enjoys the act of cleaning a pistol.
On the plus side, it looks great, feels perfect to me, and is very easy for me to shoot well.
On the plus side, it looks great, feels perfect to me, and is very easy for me to shoot well.
Forget The Big 2
I'm not quite sure if everyone is over their spat with Smith & Wesson yet, but if your options go beyond the MkII and the Buckmark try out a S&W Model 22.
Available with interchangeable barrels in blue or matte stainless from 4" to 7" (no 4" stainless), 10 round magazines and prices starting at $179 for the blued 4 inch, I can personally vouch for this gun as I was a recent owner.
I tried a MkII and wondered what all the fuss was about, the grip angle was terrible and the gun looked like it was an air pistol replica of a Luger, on top of that just how in the heck does anyone manage to clean one properly. I envisioned hours of bending Q-Tips into awkward shapes and dipping them in Hoppes #9. The Buckmark was the better of the 2 but was pricier than the 22A. The Smith looks, feels and shoots great, the cheap and nasty plastic grips on the blued models can be replaced with the rubber version found on the Stainless, only the sights left something to be desired, but at least they were adjustable.
The gun never jammed right out of the box, and digested everything from standard to hyper velocity ammo without a hitch. I found it to be very accurate and superb value, I intend to buy another just as soon as circumstances permit,
Mike H
I'm not quite sure if everyone is over their spat with Smith & Wesson yet, but if your options go beyond the MkII and the Buckmark try out a S&W Model 22.
Available with interchangeable barrels in blue or matte stainless from 4" to 7" (no 4" stainless), 10 round magazines and prices starting at $179 for the blued 4 inch, I can personally vouch for this gun as I was a recent owner.
I tried a MkII and wondered what all the fuss was about, the grip angle was terrible and the gun looked like it was an air pistol replica of a Luger, on top of that just how in the heck does anyone manage to clean one properly. I envisioned hours of bending Q-Tips into awkward shapes and dipping them in Hoppes #9. The Buckmark was the better of the 2 but was pricier than the 22A. The Smith looks, feels and shoots great, the cheap and nasty plastic grips on the blued models can be replaced with the rubber version found on the Stainless, only the sights left something to be desired, but at least they were adjustable.
The gun never jammed right out of the box, and digested everything from standard to hyper velocity ammo without a hitch. I found it to be very accurate and superb value, I intend to buy another just as soon as circumstances permit,
Mike H
abrahamsmith
New member
Take a look at these related threads about the BuckMark:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=54297
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=50380
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=54297
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=50380
44rugerfan
New member
I have a Ruger 22/45 Target 5.5 stainless. My hunting buddy has a bull barrel Buckmark with a red-dot scope on it, and I can outshoot him with open sights. And he is a damn good shot. A ruger target model is next on his list.