...but I just don't see it.
Infact, in this same forum, I was told that the Ruger Mk II is just as hard if not harder than the Buckmark to disasemble. That's even one reason why I put off buying a Mark II, infact, because I own a Buckmark and I think it's a pain the butt to take apart. Now that I own a Mark II, I really don't see what the big deal is.
I can even break down the steps from memory. For each weapon, to do basic 'field stripping' (breaking down into main components) and the tools needed goes like this:
For the Buckmark
Tools needed: flathead screwdriver and hex wrench of a certain size
-Unscrew the hex screws on top of the bolt and barrel
-Remove TINY washers
-Remove top strap thingie
-Compress and remove mainspring
-5 times out of 10 the little washer that holds the mainspring will come off, and this extremely, extremely tiny part will come off and probably fly across the room
-Remove bolt
-Remove plastic buffer
-Unscrew barrel screw and remove barrel
Now, to achieve pretty much the exact same amount of field stripping with the Ruger:
Tools needed: None, possibly a generic prying tool (Spent case, pocket knife, car key) if you have weak, girly fingernails like me.
-Pry the little clamp thingie out on back strap
-Remove this clamp and pin assembly, all of which is one, hard to lose part
-Remove the bolt. Note that, unlike the Buckmark, it's not neccessary to remove the mainspring
-Remove the receiver by pulling it forward and out
That's it.
The point is, I am fully convinced of something i've known all along: the Browning Buckmark is poorly designed when it comes to ease of disassembly. I'm not saying it's better or worse or less accurate or reliable than the Ruger. It's just harder to take apart, even though i've been told thousands of times by people on the internet that it's not. My eyes are open!
Also to people who say: "But you don't need to take apart .22's!" That's basically BS, I think. People go on and on about the mechanical simplicity of Glocks and 1911s and how this is an ASSET, as if mechanical complexity is something to be avoided. Why should it be any different for rimfire pistols? This is like the "Never clean a .22 barrel" argument. I know this is going to get alot of people riled up, but i've heard so many arguments for this and it still makes no sense.
Anyway, that's my rant. Go ahead and tear me apart.
Infact, in this same forum, I was told that the Ruger Mk II is just as hard if not harder than the Buckmark to disasemble. That's even one reason why I put off buying a Mark II, infact, because I own a Buckmark and I think it's a pain the butt to take apart. Now that I own a Mark II, I really don't see what the big deal is.
I can even break down the steps from memory. For each weapon, to do basic 'field stripping' (breaking down into main components) and the tools needed goes like this:
For the Buckmark
Tools needed: flathead screwdriver and hex wrench of a certain size
-Unscrew the hex screws on top of the bolt and barrel
-Remove TINY washers
-Remove top strap thingie
-Compress and remove mainspring
-5 times out of 10 the little washer that holds the mainspring will come off, and this extremely, extremely tiny part will come off and probably fly across the room
-Remove bolt
-Remove plastic buffer
-Unscrew barrel screw and remove barrel
Now, to achieve pretty much the exact same amount of field stripping with the Ruger:
Tools needed: None, possibly a generic prying tool (Spent case, pocket knife, car key) if you have weak, girly fingernails like me.
-Pry the little clamp thingie out on back strap
-Remove this clamp and pin assembly, all of which is one, hard to lose part
-Remove the bolt. Note that, unlike the Buckmark, it's not neccessary to remove the mainspring
-Remove the receiver by pulling it forward and out
That's it.
The point is, I am fully convinced of something i've known all along: the Browning Buckmark is poorly designed when it comes to ease of disassembly. I'm not saying it's better or worse or less accurate or reliable than the Ruger. It's just harder to take apart, even though i've been told thousands of times by people on the internet that it's not. My eyes are open!
Also to people who say: "But you don't need to take apart .22's!" That's basically BS, I think. People go on and on about the mechanical simplicity of Glocks and 1911s and how this is an ASSET, as if mechanical complexity is something to be avoided. Why should it be any different for rimfire pistols? This is like the "Never clean a .22 barrel" argument. I know this is going to get alot of people riled up, but i've heard so many arguments for this and it still makes no sense.
Anyway, that's my rant. Go ahead and tear me apart.
