Ruger MKIV ves Browning Buckmark .22lr

Good luck. I was set on getting a Buckmark when a good deal on a Mark III happened upon me. The Ruger came home with me. If you think you might tinker or customize, there will be more aftermarket for the Ruger, but there is some for the Browning as well, just not as much.
There are a gazillion configurations for the Buckmark and a few for the Ruger. Have you thought much about barrel length and what you are going to use it for?
The Ruger 22/45 and Buckmark both have a 1911ish grip angle. The Ruger standard has Luger like grip angle. Buckmark has an aluminum grip frame. Ruger standard has a steel grip frame and the 22/45 has a polymer grip frame.

I don't think you'd go wrong with any of them.
 
Ruger 22/45 is my favorite. These pistols can do some amazing shooting and have an entire catalog of aftermarket enhancements.
 
Thanks for your comments, once more thing I searched on line about Holsters but I didnt found more than 2 nylon models, do you know where I can find kydex holsters?
 
Buckmark are simplicity itself to strip & clean.

Ruger Marks are well known for how big a PITA they are to strip & clean.

They shoot exactly as well as each other. Trigger Nut makes more difference.
So it's all in the brand and how much you wanna cuss when you break 'em down.
 
Big Shrek said:
. . . . Ruger Marks are well known for how big a PITA they are to strip & clean. . . .
Click to expand...
That was true up until the Mark IV, but not any more. With the Mark IV, push a button, pop the top, and you're ready to clean.

I have zero experience with Buckmarks, so I have no reason to knock 'em. The folks that own them seem to love 'em. I do, however, have some experience with Ruger Marks. Mrs. McGee and I currently have 2, a 22/45 Lite and a 22/45 Target. I love the Mark series, but which Mark I got would depend on how I intended to use it.
 
I have a Buckmark and a Ruger 22/45, and prefer the Ruger. I posted a few comments about the Buckmark in another thread here.
 
Buckmark are simplicity itself to strip & clean.

Ruger Marks are well known for how big a PITA they are to strip & clean.
Click to expand...

Not really, the Buck Mark has screws and a small plastic recoil buffer to deal with if you want to fully field strip it. Even the Ruger Mk III is easy to deal with if you read the instructions, and the Mk IV is far easier.
 
Having owned/shot both, these are observations:

Both are well-made and accurate, and both are good choices.

The Buck Mark has a better stock trigger and better stock ergonomics.

The Ruger is a bit more reliable with a wider variety of ammo and has far more aftermarket support. It is easier to fully field strip (no tools needed), provided you read the instructions.

Ultimately, I prefer the Ruger slightly, but YMMV.
 
I’ll preface this with I have 3 MkIIIs, a MkIV arriving tomorrow and my wife has a Buckmark. I’ve had a MkIV, 2 MkIII 22/45s, SW Victory & a SW 422.

To correct some things mentioned up thread:
-A MkIV will be faster & easier to detail strip than any other 22 pistol, it’s one button and the receiver just pops off and you pull the bolt out
-A MkIV has 3 frame options: 22/45 is polymer, black metal grip is aluminum, stainless grip is steel.

My preference are the Rugers, particularly the Luger style stainless grips. I like the weight. My wife’s Buckmark just doesn’t feel quite right to me, but I said the same thing about the 22/45 frames.

What do you want to do with it?
 
Fishbed77 said:
Not really, the Buck Mark has screws and a small plastic recoil buffer to deal with if you want to fully field strip it. Even the Ruger Mk III is easy to deal with if you read the instructions, and the Mk IV is far easier.
Click to expand...
Off topic, but +1 to this. I can strip my MkIII faster than my wife’s Buckmark. Same is true for reassembly.

MkIIIs just take all the hate.
 
UzFTqEr.jpg


This thread lacks pictures. My wife’s Buckmark and one my my MKIIIs.
 
BBarn's post that was referenced is from my Buckmark thread. I was ready to buy a Buckmark but a Mark III came along for a good deal. I realize you are considering the Mark IV, but I'll post a pic of my newly acquired Ruger anyway. It's a Mark III 22/45 Target stainless.
 

Attachments

  • rps20190320_143152_399.jpg
    rps20190320_143152_399.jpg
    133.8 KB · Views: 41
Last edited:
Both are good guns. Out of the box the trigger on the Buckmark is slightly better than my MKIV Target.

Both are exceptionally accurate.

The MKIV wins hands-down for ease of cleaning and maintenance. Could not disagree MORE about the Buckmark being "Simplicity itself".
 
I went through the same decision about 3 years ago. I ended up with a SS MK iii target. It is true of that the MK i - iii can be a big PITA to take apart and put back together until you learn a procedure that doesn't jam you up. And, many of the videos I've watched just make matters worse. This one however, has worked well for me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7nDefvB1Io

The MK iv is a totally different design than the MK i-iii and is just as easy if not easier than the Buckmark to take down and reassemble and it needs no tools to do so.
 
Last edited:
I held out for a Mark IV Hunter. Love the simplicity. Plus I'm a sucker for stainless and wood. I like Browning too but Rugers reputation is tough to beat.
 
T0feaBKh.jpg


I have a Mark III Hunter and two Mark IV 22/45 Lites. I really like the Mark IV. It is simple to add an excellent trigger perfect for target shooting. One has all Volquartsen parts including their LLV 6 upper. My new one has the VQ accurizing kit and that's all.
 
I shot my new MkIV Competition last night. Love the weight, love the look, but hate he factory trigger. It’s just bleh. I’ll get a VQ kit and TK trigger to correct that. Otherwise, it ran great and I’m pleased with the purchase.

Likewise the Buckmark ran great last night and I’m happy with that trigger with simply putting the TK trigger in it and no internal mods.

Really can’t go wrong either way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top