Ruger MK III or Browning Buckmark for traget use?

[socalbeachbum]

My local gun shop has a nice Ruger Mk III 5.5" 22/45 with the replaceable grip panels laying next to a Buckmark 5.5" both are in nice condition.

I'd like to get one of them, have a trigger job done, and mount a red dot. I want no feeding problems, or at least minimal. Which one would be the better choice and why?

 

[Ohen Cepel]

I am a Ruger fan but don't like the MkIII with all the lawyer stuff on it. Chamber indicator, mag disconnect (makes the trigger worse).

The takedown procedure was tough on the MkII but the disconnect managed to make it ever worse on the MkIII.

So, I would likely get the Browning over a MkIII. If the MkII was an option I would get that one.

 

[bannockburn]

I,m also a Ruger fan though I prefer the Mk.IIs over the current Mk.IIIs. My favorite is a 5 1/2" bull barrel model that has a great trigger right out of the box and capable of some amazing accuracy with Wolf Match Extra and CCI MiniMags.

 

[JohnM]

I have to agree with the above. I wouldn't take a MkIII if someone gave it to me, unless I knew I could immediately trade it for a MkI or II.

 

[HDCamel]

I was recently torn by the same predicament. I went with the Mk III, but I kind of wish I went with the Buck Mark now.

 

[Tcruse]

I am a Ruger fan but don't like the MkIII with all the lawyer stuff on it. Chamber indicator, mag disconnect (makes the trigger worse).

The takedown procedure was tough on the MkII but the disconnect managed to make it ever worse on the MkIII.

So, I would likely get the Browning over a MkIII. If the MkII was an option I would get that one.

The mkiii works well with a red dot sight. The mkii trigger bearing will allow removal of the mag disconnect and fix the mag release and trigger issues mentioned. It is about a $6 purchase to fix.

 

[RussB]

The Buckmark will not need a trigger job, but then again, I'm a big Buckmark fanboi

 

[Milkmaster]

I like and own the Ruger Mark II series with w 5.5 bull barrel. One item not mentioned about your choice I noticed. You said it was a 22/45. I seem to recall the 22/45 being the pistol with the polymer lower on it. The 22/45 pistol to me handles different than the all metal pistol like I own. I would choose the Buckmark over the 22/45, but I would choose the Ruger if it was the all metal pistol. That would be how I would do it. Good luck with your shooting!

 

[Pilot]

Flip a coin, but I have four Ruger MK II's so you know where I stand.

 

[czhen]

Let me put my .2 cents.
I have a buckmark perfect grip, good at accuracy dept. with std ammo. Triger is not for match use, but improve withim +/- 800 rounds, some pple got a a better triger flipping a spring (chek rimfirecentral). Goes with me every range trip.
I gave to my son a mark 22/45 intead of markIII thinking about it's weight my bad. He grew but, the pistol is head heavier than our taste. Accuracy, not bad at all for less $270 idish pistol, plenty of parts to improve or customize.
Recently, I have bought the MarkIII competion model 6 7/8 SS, wood grips, heavier yet. On the other hand, talking about accuracy I did at our in local range during a family shooting a beatiful 1.5" at 10 yards with the cheap ammo you might guess. Beside, at the indoor range the lights were not helping much. So great pistol for just more than plinking if compete is your league.

 

[socalbeachbum]

I currently have a Smith and Wesson 22 a but no one seems to want to work on the trigger for me in at 4 pounds is a bit heavy for my taste. I have a high standard military super Madac with a 20 ounce trigger and I love the weight and the feel and the sites but I cannot get the thing to consistently feed and so, I wanted to give the Buck Mark and the Ruger the opportunity to be my range gun

 

[toivo]

I have a Buck Mark. I did the "Heggis flip" on the trigger (look it up on RimfireCentral.com) and put in a trigger that adjusts for overtravel. It works great. Trigger pull is around 2.5 pounds and very crisp. I used the Buck Mark as a bullseye pistol for four seasons until I bought a S&W 41. The Buck Mark is still in my box as a back-up and as a loaner for my friend, who can't always bring his own pistol to practices and matches (because of stupid policies about firearms in cars at work).

Another guy in my pistol league has a MKIII 22/45 that he put a Volquartsen accurizing kit in, to lighten trigger pull, etc. Now it's about comparable to my Buck Mark. The kit cost him around $100. The trigger for my Buck Mark was around $15. I came out ahead money-wise, but $100 is not a lot of money for accurizing a pistol either.

They're so close that I think it comes down to which feels better in your hand. I prefer the Buck Mark, but that's just me.

 

[Cee Zee]

That's a tough choice with no bad options.

 

[Fleetman]

We have both but much prefer the Buckmark by a wide margin.

We also have a Sig Mosquito but ours is a better paperweight than it is a shooter....Sig should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[wally]

I prefer the Buckmark for easier cleaning. While the Buckmark is almost as much a PITA to take apart for cleaning as the Ruger, needing two different sized hex head wrenches, it goes back together a whole lot easier.

Also the Buckmark is so open on the sides you end up needing to take it apart much less often since you can pretty much wipe everything off with a wet patch and some Q-tips, followed by a few passes of a Bore Snake.

I'm a believer that more guns are damaged from over cleaning than under cleaning. YMMV.

If you get the Buckmark, don't remove the right side grip if you are in a location where small parts and springs might be easily lost. Make sure it stays tight while shooting or the trigger can stop working.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

I love my Ruger MK II. But I would get the Buckmark. MK III 's just stink.

 

[John828]

Not a lot of love for Mk III around. I have several with a new one on the way this week. I am not a big far of the lawyer mods, but it's one of the best plinking and hunting guns out there in my opinion. I wouldn't hesitate recommending one.

 

[ColtPythonElite]

The Browning has the better trigger outta the box. The MKIII can have a great trigger with a few minutes work swapping in a VQ sear and adding set screws to the trigger for pre and post travel. The mag disconnect comes out when those parts go in.

 

[gb6491]

...I have a high standard military super Madac with a 20 ounce trigger and I love the weight and the feel and the sites but I cannot get the thing to consistently feed....

If you haven't seen them before, you might want to try the magazine adjustments on this page: http://home.roadrunner.com/~jbarta/otherstuff.html

As to the Ruger 22/45/Buck Mark 5.5 question:
I'd go with the 5.5 simply because they are harder to find.
That said, I think you would be well served by either.

Regards,
Greg


Though neither is a 5.5 or truly a MKIII 22/45, these are my favorites:

 

[rs7]

I've got a Buckmark Silhouette .22 (9 7/8" barrel). Pretty decent (200m easy)
Had a MKII stainless target (6.5 tapered) that I sold (stupid, stupid) because I also had a Buckmark target rifle (sold) at the time.
I think they're equals. I have never had any issues with either.
P.S. Neither is difficult to break down for cleaning. Try a Browning A5.That's fun.

 

[Steve C]

Both are accurate handguns. You can modify the Ruger with available aftermarket parts and grips or you can buy the Browning model with the accessories in place. I shoot in a .22 cal Bullseye league and shoot the Browning Buckmark Target with a red dot sight added. There are many who shoot the Rugers, others that shoot the Browning along with the S&W 41's, a sprinkling of Hi-Standards and some that shoot high end Pardinis, Walthers and the like.

The Rugers seem more prone to jamming and "must be a Ruger" is kind of a standard joke when someone is calling for an alibi.

 

[skt239]

My experience is with the Ruger 22/45, which is bone stock other than a replacement front sight. It's hands down my favorite gun to shoot. It's utterly reliable and extremely accurate. Believe it or not, I actually LIKE the trigger and don't plan on changing it. However, as far as I can tell, the Buckmark is the better gun and does not cost much more than the Ruger. Either way you are getting a great .22 pistol.

 

[GLOOB]

I have a Ruger 5.5" Target. If I could go back in time, I would go with a Ruger 4" skinny barrel or maybe even one of the new Lites.

I liked the idea of a heavy, target 22 handgun more than the reality. I got a nice leather holster for this gun, but I find it so heavy on the belt I don't use it.

Anyhow, it's accurate and reliable.

 

[sigarms228]

IMO they are both great .22 pistols. If I was going to buy brand new I would probably get a Buckmark.

However I have a long way to go to wear out my Ruger Mark 1 that I bought new in the early 70s. I did recently replace the grips on it with some Hogue I got from Miday.

 

[Fishbed77]

Based on much experience with both, my choice is the Ruger Mark III. The LCI and mag disconnect is easily removed, and, thanks to the vast amount of aftermarket support (start with a Volquartsen trigger and sear), the Mark III can be made into a superb target pistol. It's also more durable and reliable than the Buck Mark in my experience, and easier to take down and clean (assuming you remove the mag disconnect) since there is no need to remove screws.

That said, the Buck Mark is certainly a fine choice too.