Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 1/28/2009 7:05:05 AM EDT
I've got a friend who doesn't own a gun. He was wanting to get a pistol and I was trying to give him some ideas about which one. I know the ruger mkII is great but it is a pain to assemble and take appart. The trailside is a dream but they don't make it any more and they cost a lot. I haven't ever used any of the others so anybody have other recommendations? Don't just throw out a name please say why exactly. Thanks.
Link Posted: 1/28/2009 9:11:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/28/2009 9:12:18 AM EDT by LazarusLong]
Why would you want to take it apart anyway? A shot of solvent followed by an air gun, followed by a shot of oil and another air blast will do any cleaning of the guts you ever need to do. Rugers are the overall best in my opinion, at least the all metal ones. Accurate, reliable, last forever, aftermarket goodies.. Buckmarks always felt kind of cheap to me, YMMV
Link Posted: 1/28/2009 3:44:52 PM EDT
You're putting the cart ahead of the horse, IMO. First of all, what does your friend want to do with the gun? Home defense? Learn to shoot with it? Just play shooting?

If he's wanting something as an all-round gun, I would suggest a used S&W .38spl police trade-in. There's loads of Model 10's & 64's out there that can be had for $250-300. Shooting these with .38spl wadcutters is pretty darn close to shooting a .22LR gun, IMO.

If he's bound & determined for a .22 semi, then I vote for the Buckmark.

My .o2
Link Posted: 1/28/2009 3:54:39 PM EDT
The Buckmarks are sweet and would get my first vote, but a just gave my dad back his as I got a new 22/45 Ruger that I am having a lot of fun with.
Link Posted: 1/28/2009 6:28:19 PM EDT
I just bought my first Buckmark and love it. I also considered the Ruger. They both seemed comparable enough to make the complicated tear down of the Ruger the deciding factor.
Link Posted: 1/29/2009 3:50:39 PM EDT
Ruger and Browning Buckmarks

Link Posted: 1/29/2009 4:29:44 PM EDT
i have a beretta neos thats been flawless. it is also very easy to break down and reassemble.
Link Posted: 1/29/2009 8:09:08 PM EDT
All the talk that Ruger Mark II/III pistols are difficult to take apart and reassemble is far from the truth. If you can read instructions, you would be able to field strip and reassemble the Ruger Mark series of pistols without much problems. I've used the Gun Talk forum instructions and a couple YouTube videos to aid me in taking apart and reassembling my Mark III Hunter. I've even installed the VQ Accurizing Trigger kit and Exact Edge extractor a couple weeks ago using the Gun Talk forum instructions and the VQ instruction video posted on YouTube.

BTW, another .22 pistol I would also suggest if you have deep pockets is the S&W Model 41. Wow, what a great pistol and so easy to field strip and clean. It is a very accurate and quality target pistol.
Link Posted: 1/30/2009 7:33:27 AM EDT
I was at a point where I was trying to choose between a Ruger and a Browning Buckmark, and the ease of disassembly and location of controls were the deciding factor. I chose the Buckmark.

Also, if you want an aftermarket barrel for a Ruger it requires another transfer through an FFL, Buckmark they'll just send it to your home.
Link Posted: 1/30/2009 5:58:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By waafist:
I was at a point where I was trying to choose between a Ruger and a Browning Buckmark, and the ease of disassembly and location of controls were the deciding factor. I chose the Buckmark.

Also, if you want an aftermarket barrel for a Ruger it requires another transfer through an FFL, Buckmark they'll just send it to your home.


You don't need to disassemble the Ruger, not even for cleaning if that is what you are saying. See Lazarus' post above...that's all you need to do to clean them. And what would you need an aftermarket barrel for? The Rugers are tack drivers....why change a good thing? But if you are wanting to disassemble the firearm and/or change the barrel, then YES, the buckmark will be better for those things.
Link Posted: 1/31/2009 6:03:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By mauiblue:
All the talk that Ruger Mark II/III pistols are difficult to take apart and reassemble is far from the truth. If you can read instructions, you would be able to field strip and reassemble the Ruger Mark series of pistols without much problems.


Very much true. I've had Ruger MkII's for years and they're really simple to field strip once you do it a few times. I'd honestly rather take them down than my Buckmark.

The Rugers and Brownings are both good, but if you prefer the Ruger don't let their reputation of being hard to disassemble bother you.
Link Posted: 1/31/2009 7:43:01 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/31/2009 7:49:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2009 7:51:46 AM EDT by scuba_ed]
Originally Posted By rvbrewer625:
I've got a friend who doesn't own a gun. He was wanting to get a pistol and I was trying to give him some ideas about which one. I know the ruger mkII is great but it is a pain to assemble and take appart. The trailside is a dream but they don't make it any more and they cost a lot. I haven't ever used any of the others so anybody have other recommendations? Don't just throw out a name please say why exactly. Thanks.


I would say a good .22LR. The Ruger Mk-II is fine, and simply following the instructions and with practice, assembly an ease. It's a fine choice. I would suspect the lowly Ruger .22LR was the starter, and yet a keeper, of many shooter here––it's fun to shoot.

Besides, typically, few gun owners stop adding to their collection.

Best,

Ed


Link Posted: 1/31/2009 12:57:27 PM EDT
Thanks guys i'll pass all this info along. I appreciate it.
Link Posted: 1/31/2009 7:18:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2009 7:25:07 PM EDT by bullitt5172]
High thumbs grip + Buckmark = bloody thumb. I prefer the Ruger. The Buckmark is a great gun if it fits your shooting style.
Link Posted: 2/1/2009 7:41:53 AM EDT
I agree that a 22LR would be a good first gun. Easy to shoot, and more importantly . . . CHEAP to shoot. And shoot, and shoot, and shoot as you learn proper technique.

As to which pistol, I think it depends on what it will be used for. I have a Walther P22, which is a hell of a lot of fun to shoot, and which I would recommend –– for me, it's about the fun of a combat-type pistol, and the fact that it's a training tool to help me shoot my XDs. I suspect that I would like the Sig Mosquito as well, though I've never shot one.

I have rented several 22 revolvers, and several Ruger semi-autos, and honestly I found all of them to be kind of boring. I know that if you're going to be serious about target shooting, though, then you'll choose one of these long before you'll ever look at the P22 or Mosquito.
Link Posted: 2/1/2009 10:44:24 AM EDT
+1 buckmark. Ive had mine for years very accurate will shoot just about anything I feed it(quality ammo). Its easy to clean & maintain and thumb grip isn't high it right in line with the trigger.
Link Posted: 2/1/2009 12:47:14 PM EDT
The least expensive 22 on the market now is the Smith & Wesson 22A. (around $230)
If it's just a cheap plinking you want. You can't go wrong.
It will save you $100 plus (which is about 2500 rounds of 22LR) from Ruger or Browning.
Link Posted: 2/1/2009 12:57:45 PM EDT
IMHO I would stay away from the S&W 22A. My friend had one that had lots of problems. It was well taken care of & cleaned feed decent ammo lots of FTF. Same your money and buy a ruger or browning.
Link Posted: 2/1/2009 1:06:42 PM EDT
You can send the 22A to Smith & Wesson for servicing with there life time warranty for no cost.
That was another buying point for me.
Link Posted: 2/1/2009 1:44:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/1/2009 5:16:09 PM EDT by BobCole]
Originally Posted By toddjb:
The least expensive 22 on the market now is the Smith & Wesson 22A. (around $230)
If it's just a cheap plinking you want. You can't go wrong.
It will save you $100 plus (which is about 2500 rounds of 22LR) from Ruger or Browning.




Are you certain there's that big of a price gap between the S&W & the Buckmark? I was thinking they're right in the same price range, +/- $20.................

Link Posted: 2/1/2009 4:47:21 PM EDT
The cheapest model at Budsgunshop.com is $291.
Most aren't above $316.

They have the 22A for $228.
Link Posted: 2/3/2009 7:55:10 PM EDT
I like the ruger Mk II
Link Posted: 2/5/2009 12:07:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ffej201998:
IMHO I would stay away from the S&W 22A. My friend had one that had lots of problems. It was well taken care of & cleaned feed decent ammo lots of FTF. Same your money and buy a ruger or browning.



I have a 22A and have had ZERO problems with it. Just one doesn't make it a must to stay away from it. Mine is a an absolute tack driver. My 9yo daughter has a blast shooting it with an el cheapo red dot on it. Mine is the bull barrel. Wish I could get the wood target grip for it.
Link Posted: 2/5/2009 12:23:07 PM EDT
You can get the grip form S&W's website $75.
Link Posted: 2/5/2009 2:05:09 PM EDT
Walther P22, it CAN have its fair share of hick-ups. Its alot easier on the eyes then the others listed, and when I had one, it never faulted once.
Link Posted: 2/6/2009 10:03:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MrShanks2U:
Originally Posted By waafist:
I was at a point where I was trying to choose between a Ruger and a Browning Buckmark, and the ease of disassembly and location of controls were the deciding factor. I chose the Buckmark.

Also, if you want an aftermarket barrel for a Ruger it requires another transfer through an FFL, Buckmark they'll just send it to your home.


You don't need to disassemble the Ruger, not even for cleaning if that is what you are saying. See Lazarus' post above...that's all you need to do to clean them. And what would you need an aftermarket barrel for? The Rugers are tack drivers....why change a good thing? But if you are wanting to disassemble the firearm and/or change the barrel, then YES, the buckmark will be better for those things.


I'm planning on putting a suppressor on mine, so I'll eventually get a TacSol threaded barrel, otherwise I agree with you. I also swapped out the trigger for one with an overtravel adjustment screw and did the Heggis trigger job on my Buckmark, both of which required disassembling the pistol. The Ruger is a fine pistol, and the OP wouldn't go wrong there, but if you like to tinker with your guns like I do then the Buckmark is easier to do it on IMO.
Link Posted: 2/6/2009 12:14:44 PM EDT
S&W 617- revolver reliability, no need for mags, can shoot anything from shorts, longs, long rifles, shot shells or whatever else will fit in the cylinder, makes a good training gun for other J frames or L frames.
Link Posted: 2/6/2009 10:56:58 PM EDT
yeah but you can't put a suppressor on a 617
Link Posted: 2/8/2009 3:00:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/8/2009 3:01:56 AM EDT by PA452]
Here's my experience:

Browning Buckmark: This was my first pistol. It pretty much went with me every time I was in the woods or fields. Accuracy was good. Reliability was superb. This was the least ammo-finicky .22 pistol I've ever shot. It ate just about anything with equal reliability. Take down is easy. I was always concerned about having allen screws as part of the take down process, worried someday I might strip the threads on the aluminum frame. But using some common sense and careful attention, that hasn't been an issue after having disassembled and reassembled well over 100 times. It does help to use some loctite on the screws though as they will loosen with a lot of firing. Mine has gone through well over 10,000 rounds. I used to shoot it just about every day when I lived back home. I've had one issue with it so far. The flat tab they have welded onto the slide stop broke off. This was after I'd had it many years and fired the bulk of the ammo it has seen. It still works fine, but I've moved on to some other toys so I haven't gotten around to getting a new one.

Sig Trailside: I've had two of these so far. Very accurate. Very low profile and light weight. A little more finicky in the reliability department than the Buckmark. My biggest problem with it is I like to shoot with my thumbs high and along the frame, and the design of the Trailside's slide doesn't lend well to that. I have to keep my support hand thumb low, and I have to be careful to keep my firing hand thumb away from the slide stop, or it interferes with last round hold open. This is mostly a personal issue, as I'm a CZ fan and that kind of dictates how I prefer to hold the pistol. My girlfriend loves the one I still have though.

Walther P22: Never owned one, but I've shot others. I didn't really get a chance to test accuracy much, so I won't speak about that. Reliability was nothing special. The grip was far, far too small for my hands, and my hands aren't that big. Personally to me, it felt cheap and toy-like.

Kimber Rimfire Target: For a few years, this was my favorite. It was also my woods/fields/outdoors gun, going with me everywhere on foot or on the quads. Accuracy is superb. Reliability was good once I found ammo it liked. Ammo had to be high velocity. Standard velocity produced an almost 100% failure to cycle rate. The cheapest ammo I found that would reliably cycle it was Remington Thunderbolts, horribly dirty, but surprisingly reliable in the Kimber, and plenty accurate enough for plinking or hunting. One disappointment I had was when I discovered the Kimber was not designed to hold the slide back after the last round fired. Not a big deal I guess. Tear down is easy and requires no tools for a basic field stripping.

S&W 41: Never owned one, but shot one a couple times. High price tag. Worth it for some, not for me. Accuracy is superb. Reliability was very good. Trigger was phenomenal. No doubt a great pistol, just doesn't suit my needs in any way, and certainly doesn't justify the price tag.

CZ Kadet (.22 conversion): I started off with a Kadet kit and fit it to my CZ 75 SAO. Accuracy was remarkable for a .22 conversion. It seemed just a bit finicky with ammo, didn't like some brands. But with most decent ammo, it was very reliable. I didn't want to carry it around in the woods at the time, but if doing a lot of shooting at a range, I actually preferred this over the Kimber.

CZ Kadet (dedicated pistol): I picked this up last fall as a suppressor host. I haven't gotten the suppressor yet, but the pistol is my new favorite .22. Accuracy is great, though most of the shooting I do with it is plinking. Reliability has been excellent. It seems to be less finicky than the Kadet conversion on the 75 SAO, eats pretty much anything. Being all steel, it is heavy, even heavier than a standard CZ 75B. But this makes recoil practically non-existant. Follow up shots are a breeze. This is my new personal favorite.

I think I'm forgetting something, but if I can't remember it I guess I probably don't have much comment on it anyway. I have no experience with the Rugers beyond picking them up lots of times at gun shows and a few times at gun shops. I never get beyond that point with them, they just don't interest me, and I don't know anyone personally who owns one.

Just my experience and opinions.
Link Posted: 2/9/2009 5:33:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By OdT:
Originally Posted By hhmorant:
I'd honestly rather take them down than my Buckmark.
+1


Yup. Buckmarks require tools and lose their zero if field stripped. A Ruger requires no tools and maintains its zero. People who can't follow simple instructions or understand a diagram of what is basically an over-center latch, probably shouldn't own a gun.

Link Posted: 2/10/2009 12:06:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
Originally Posted By OdT:
Originally Posted By hhmorant:
I'd honestly rather take them down than my Buckmark.
+1


Yup. Buckmarks require tools and lose their zero if field stripped. A Ruger requires no tools and maintains its zero. People who can't follow simple instructions or understand a diagram of what is basically an over-center latch, probably shouldn't own a gun.



Requires an allen wrench, yes (I don't like that either). But loses zero if field stripped? I've had my Buckmark field stripped well over a hundred times, probably hundreds, and I've never really had an issue with it losing zero.
Link Posted: 2/10/2009 8:04:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By PA452:
Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
Originally Posted By OdT:
Originally Posted By hhmorant:
I'd honestly rather take them down than my Buckmark.
+1


Yup. Buckmarks require tools and lose their zero if field stripped. A Ruger requires no tools and maintains its zero. People who can't follow simple instructions or understand a diagram of what is basically an over-center latch, probably shouldn't own a gun.



Requires an allen wrench, yes (I don't like that either). But loses zero if field stripped? I've had my Buckmark field stripped well over a hundred times, probably hundreds, and I've never really had an issue with it losing zero.


The rear sight/scope mount is separated from the barrel. I.e., it loses its zero.

Link Posted: 2/10/2009 12:38:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
Originally Posted By PA452:
Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
Originally Posted By OdT:
Originally Posted By hhmorant:
I'd honestly rather take them down than my Buckmark.
+1


Yup. Buckmarks require tools and lose their zero if field stripped. A Ruger requires no tools and maintains its zero. People who can't follow simple instructions or understand a diagram of what is basically an over-center latch, probably shouldn't own a gun.



Requires an allen wrench, yes (I don't like that either). But loses zero if field stripped? I've had my Buckmark field stripped well over a hundred times, probably hundreds, and I've never really had an issue with it losing zero.


The rear sight/scope mount is separated from the barrel. I.e., it loses its zero.



I leave my rear sight mounting base attached to the barrel when I field strip it, I remove the rear sight base screw and the barrel mounting screw, so my rear sight always stays attached to my barrel. I haven't had the problems you describe, mine is a URX.
Link Posted: 2/10/2009 2:48:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
Originally Posted By PA452:
Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
Originally Posted By OdT:
Originally Posted By hhmorant:
I'd honestly rather take them down than my Buckmark.
+1


Yup. Buckmarks require tools and lose their zero if field stripped. A Ruger requires no tools and maintains its zero. People who can't follow simple instructions or understand a diagram of what is basically an over-center latch, probably shouldn't own a gun.



Requires an allen wrench, yes (I don't like that either). But loses zero if field stripped? I've had my Buckmark field stripped well over a hundred times, probably hundreds, and I've never really had an issue with it losing zero.


The rear sight/scope mount is separated from the barrel. I.e., it loses its zero.



Granted I'm not going for benchrest accuracy, but for practical purposes it doesn't lose zero. The change is negligible.
Link Posted: 2/10/2009 7:38:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By tump:
i have a beretta neos thats been flawless. it is also very easy to break down and reassemble.


+1 on the Neos
Link Posted: 2/11/2009 8:32:49 PM EDT
I've got the S&W 22A. Cheap, fun to shoot, easy to take down. The only things I don't like about it is that it gets dirty as hell pretty easily, but it's so easy to take down and clean that I don't mind, and the trigger pull is both too long and too heavy. Mine is more temparemental than most. Most people claim it eats any ammo they put through it. Mine really likes Federal Spitfires and CCI Mini mags, but it raised nine kinds of hell when I tried to run Wolf MT through it.

The Smith is cheaper and a little bit easier to work on. The Ruger is more expensive, but has a much better trigger and far stronger aftermarket support.
Link Posted: 3/27/2009 6:13:14 PM EDT
I would go with the Ruger MKII. My dad has had his since 1973 and it has only been completely broken down twice. He cleans the chamber and bore, but that is it and it has had 10's of 1000's of rounds through it with no problems.
Top Top