Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Posted: 1/17/2016 8:36:29 PM EDT
The first .22 pistol I shot was a Ruger MKII my neighbor had when I was a kid.

I went through all of the tacticool .22lrs, all junk, inaccurate and jam-o-matics. Then I ended up with my MK III hunter.

A few months ago I held a Buckmark... Now Ive had dirty thoughts about another pistol...

...I just found they have buckmark pistols and rifles...
Link Posted: 1/18/2016 1:04:28 AM EDT
I went thru the same experience back in the 80's when I discovered Buckmarks. I saw the light.
Link Posted: 1/18/2016 9:11:23 AM EDT
I've owned both. I only own Rugers now. If you've got the scratch, nothing wrong with picking up a Buck Mark. Personally, I think the Ruger is the better pistol. Maybe not quite as elegant as the Buck Mark, but more durable and more of a selection of aftermarket parts in my opinion. I REALLY don't like how you have to remove the rear sight base and sight to fully disassemble for cleaning on the Buck Mark. Screws have a tendency to work loose too.
Link Posted: 1/18/2016 11:12:45 AM EDT
I own all sorts of rimfire pistols.  I really like my Buckmark (5.5 Target), but I really wish a screw wasn't necessary to strip it.  I also like the Ruger being all steel.  I know it doesn't make difference in a rimfire, but that's what I like.  I would say the Buckmark is more refined though.

Then I got a S&W 41...
Link Posted: 1/18/2016 4:10:06 PM EDT
I really like my Buckmark. It improved my overall handgun shooting dramatically. I had the problem with the rear rail screw. I use locktite now. No problems since.

I want to get another 22 pistol of some kind. It will probably be a 1911 style, or the new Ruger. Hard choice.
Link Posted: 1/18/2016 7:59:28 PM EDT
Ruger is a better pistol, durability and reliability.

Buckmark is still a decent 22.


Get both.

Link Posted: 1/19/2016 9:50:17 AM EDT
They both have their strengths and weaknesses but I wouldn't call either one necessarily "better". As for reliability, there are plenty of Buckmarks out there that have been 100% reliably and plenty of Ruger that have been jam-o-matics and vice versa.

Its all comes to what you plan to do with it, which specific models you are looking at and personal taste and a little bit of luck.
Link Posted: 1/19/2016 8:59:04 PM EDT
I might have to rent one and shoot it a bit before I jump in...
Link Posted: 1/22/2016 10:44:23 PM EDT
Had both, only have Rugers now...

The Buckmark is a great gun, but I don't like that the barrel is held in by a screw...a steel screw, into an aluminium frame. I didn't like that you have to remove the rear sight and barrel to properly clean it (well, to ME, properly clean it).

YMMV obviously; if you're one who doesn't scrub their guns detailed clean every time you take it to the range, or is content with a boresnake to clean a barrel, then you won't have an issue. Me...I'm one of those "carbon attracts moisture which attracts rust" people, so I always detail clean everything after a range trip.

Having said that, the Buckmark does have a lot of things going for it. I really liked mine. I just didn't like how it disassembled. Then again I'm one of those guys who has no issues with stripping a Ruger, unlike some folks who find re-assembling it requires some sort of witchcraft...
Link Posted: 1/24/2016 9:57:23 PM EDT
I've also owned both. Some of the Buckmarks were beautiful guns, but I prefer the Rugers.
Link Posted: 1/28/2016 12:16:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/28/2016 12:17:55 AM EDT by Ptlm724]
Love my 22/45, love my Buckmark, love my High Standards, love my model 41, love my.....22lr's...  

When it comes to 22's, variety is the spice of life for me.  I love them all equally.
Link Posted: 1/28/2016 10:17:51 AM EDT
I am with 724 on this- while I can do quite nicely with just a couple carry guns .22's you can't have too many. I am a fan of old school all steel classics and at one time or another have owned high standards model 41's Colt woodsman smith 422 smith revolvers and some others I don't recall plus conversion kits for some of the centerfires. For me while I throughly enjoy shooting other pistols, the .22's still are where my heart lies.
Link Posted: 1/28/2016 6:31:21 PM EDT
We have both in our club.  Tens of thousands for rounds through them.  The Rugers hold up better to long term abuse.  The Buckmarks are "nicer" if that makes any sense.
Link Posted: 1/28/2016 6:51:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By carpesignum:
The first .22 pistol I shot was a Ruger MKII my neighbor had when I was a kid.

I went through all of the tacticool .22lrs, all junk, inaccurate and jam-o-matics. Then I ended up with my MK III hunter.

A few months ago I held a Buckmark... Now Ive had dirty thoughts about another pistol...

...I just found they have buckmark pistols and rifles...
View Quote



Step in to the light.  

They are just amazing guns and better than the Rugers IMO


Just don't shoot a S&W 617 then you will forget about rimfire autos.  Ask me how I know.
Link Posted: 1/30/2016 10:53:02 PM EDT
The Buckmark is held together by two screws that also hold the sight base in place.  The Ruger is held together by a massive steel latch integrated into the mainspring housing.  Also, the Ruger barrel is screwed into a concentric tubular receiver that receives a cylindrical bolt.  It can never wear out, always remains aligned, won't shake itself apart, and can be stripped without tools.  The Browning has a better trigger.
Link Posted: 1/31/2016 11:55:59 PM EDT
I own both, and like both.

I prefer the Buckmark as it has been more dependable than the Rugers I own.

The Rugers have more after-market parts available.

I shoot a lot and will never be able to wear either one of them out.

Hold them both and pick the one you like!
Link Posted: 2/3/2016 10:02:57 PM EDT
I own a Buckmark & love the feel & balance. I don't field strip mine to clean it, so the screw removal is moot for me. I've also had Ruger owners outshoot their own guns the first time they used my Buckmark. They were not pleased but were surprised.  

There's a reason there's a slew of aftermarket options for the Rugers: it needs them!
Link Posted: 2/5/2016 2:13:48 AM EDT
I've got 3 Buckmarks. Don't own any Rugers anymore.
Buckmarks are a little more ammo sensitive, but I thinks that's a bi-product of 22lr inconsistencies. Ever since I started running a can I have had zero failures other than the occasional dud primer ignition.
I found Buckmarks more ergonomic. And you don't need to be a wizard/machinist/guy with big pipe wrench to change a Buckmark barrel (ask me how I know)
Link Posted: 2/8/2016 12:21:58 PM EDT
I "Got Both" and ended up selling the Buckmark after a few years because the aluminum frame was starting to show wear.  My Mk II is at around 80,000 rounds and does show wear but not the type that will eventually effect function.
Link Posted: 2/28/2016 3:48:54 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By pokey074:
I've owned both. I only own Rugers now. If you've got the scratch, nothing wrong with picking up a Buck Mark. Personally, I think the Ruger is the better pistol. Maybe not quite as elegant as the Buck Mark, but more durable and more of a selection of aftermarket parts in my opinion. I REALLY don't like how you have to remove the rear sight base and sight to fully disassemble for cleaning on the Buck Mark. Screws have a tendency to work loose too.
View Quote


This, and I like and own Buckmarks.    On the other hand, they are a very open design.   This makes it very easy to spray them out, lube them, use q-tips on them, and run a boresnake.   There is little need to completely disassemble the pistol.   They now use allen head fasteners.   A small drop of locktite helps, but just a bit.   The idea is to make it not back out, not lock it down.  

Link Posted: 2/28/2016 3:56:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/29/2016 12:49:17 AM EDT by RacyCarr]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Evil_Ed:
Had both, only have Rugers now...

The Buckmark is a great gun, but I don't like that the barrel is held in by a screw...a steel screw, into an aluminium frame. I didn't like that you have to remove the rear sight and barrel to properly clean it (well, to ME, properly clean it).

YMMV obviously; if you're one who doesn't scrub their guns detailed clean every time you take it to the range, or is content with a boresnake to clean a barrel, then you won't have an issue. Me...I'm one of those "carbon attracts moisture which attracts rust" people, so I always detail clean everything after a range trip.

Having said that, the Buckmark does have a lot of things going for it. I really liked mine. I just didn't like how it disassembled. Then again I'm one of those guys who has no issues with stripping a Ruger, unlike some folks who find re-assembling it requires some sort of witchcraft...
View Quote


I would say the same applies to me.   I had to come to terms with not disassembling the gun every time I shot it.    The gun seems to work well without tearing it down.    But, it has taken be a bit to get used to the idea with my BuckMarks.    I would also agree that the Rugers are not bad, though some have fits with them.    I do think it is best to pick one platform between these and stick with it.
Link Posted: 2/28/2016 3:59:23 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
The Buckmark is held together by two screws that also hold the sight base in place.  The Ruger is held together by a massive steel latch integrated into the mainspring housing.  Also, the Ruger barrel is screwed into a concentric tubular receiver that receives a cylindrical bolt.  It can never wear out, always remains aligned, won't shake itself apart, and can be stripped without tools.  The Browning has a better trigger.
View Quote


How does one change the barrel on a Ruger?
Link Posted: 2/28/2016 4:01:33 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Speedwinder:
I own both, and like both.

I prefer the Buckmark as it has been more dependable than the Rugers I own.

The Rugers have more after-market parts available.

I shoot a lot and will never be able to wear either one of them out.

Hold them both and pick the one you like!
View Quote


I really like the Ruger design.   But, during an extended shooting session, I just spray the Buckmark out and it keeps running.
Link Posted: 2/28/2016 4:25:26 PM EDT

Every time I see  Buckmark thread I am amazed that no ever mentions it's habit of peppering the shooter's face with powder.

I have owned both the pistol and carbine versions of the action and they both relentlessly spit powder back at the shooters face.

They are ammo picky, the bolt face get fouled easily and they are no were near as rugged as Ruger MK pistol.

They are gone now for that reason and the screwed together aluminum construction.

One can customize a Ruger  in every way imaginable, they are ruggedly built and reliable and they do not spit powder at you.



Link Posted: 2/29/2016 1:56:13 AM EDT
I've never experienced the powder spitting problem.   None of ones I have shot exhibited that including my own.  

I can say the same for  the "picky ammo" situation.   However, I have heard some people say that about the Buckmarks... and the Rugers.    I have a relative that just recently traded his way out of a 22/45 because of issues he had with it.  He sent it in to Ruger for repairs knowing he would never be comfortable with it.   After he got it back, he traded it away.  

I have seen Rugers get gunked up in long shooting sessions as they have a far more enclosed action.   Then again, I tend to like an enclosed action on a combat pistol.   (The Ruger being like a typical 9 or 45, and  Buckmarks being open like a Beretta 9.)

I know if I had those problems with the Buckmarks, I would certainly not keep them.  

The whole Ruger versus Browning seems to be like Chevy versus Ford.   It is going to come down to personal experiences.      The situation is strange.   There is a strong aftermarket for Rugers.   Yet, it is Browning  who's components  are easier to switch out, such as the barrel.

I like my Buckmarks.   I love the triggers.   On the other hand, to me, it appears Ruger has more suppressor ready hosts from the factory.  

Neither can match a S&W 41.   Yet,  guess which of my 22 pistols get shot more.  

I think I could live with either Rugers or Browings 22s.    I just have ended up falling in love with the Brownings first.

Link Posted: 4/17/2016 6:27:02 PM EDT

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Trumpet:


I own all sorts of rimfire pistols.  I really like my Buckmark (5.5 Target), but I really wish a screw wasn't necessary to strip it.  I also like the Ruger being all steel.  I know it doesn't make difference in a rimfire, but that's what I like.  I would say the Buckmark is more refined though.



Then I got a S&W 41...
View Quote
    Almost my exact experience..... bought an old  Mk1 target with a factory Ruger compensator , then a  Buckmark silhouette , next was a Model 41 Smith. Thought it couldn't get any better till I bought a 1969 production Browning Medalist today at a local store. Nicest rimfire I have ever shot and if I can find its twin the 41 is going down the road.



 
Link Posted: 4/17/2016 9:03:55 PM EDT
My Dad has a Stainless Mark II w\bull barrel and I have newer Buckmark URX practical and we shot a lot of rounds through them this weekend.  Both are accurate and ran flawless with cheap CCI blazers. I like the Buckmark's factory fiber optic FS, trigger, thumb safety, mag release, and ergonomics by far.  The ruger is well built but I don't like the button safety or slide release controls, trigger, mag release at the bottom of the frame, or the grip angle, & ergonomics.  

If you shoot 1911's a lot you would probably prefer the Buckmark since the grip angle is closer and the controls are similar.
Link Posted: 4/18/2016 2:17:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/26/2016 7:37:40 AM EDT by RacyCarr]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By kaneman23:
If you shoot 1911's a lot you would probably prefer the Buckmark since the grip angle is closer and the controls are similar.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By kaneman23:
If you shoot 1911's a lot you would probably prefer the Buckmark since the grip angle is closer and the controls are similar.

Regarding grip angles and mag releases, there is the 22/45.


Originally Posted By RacyCarr:
I have a relative that just recently traded his way out of a 22/45 because of issues he had with it.  He sent it in to Ruger for repairs knowing he would never be comfortable with it.   After he got it back, he traded it away.  

This is EXACTLY what my cousin had to say about it.






Link Posted: 4/18/2016 7:10:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By carpesignum:
The first .22 pistol I shot was a Ruger MKII my neighbor had when I was a kid.

I went through all of the tacticool .22lrs, all junk, inaccurate and jam-o-matics. Then I ended up with my MK III hunter.

A few months ago I held a Buckmark... Now Ive had dirty thoughts about another pistol...

...I just found they have buckmark pistols and rifles...
View Quote


Welcome to shoot mine OP. I really like it. Where are you in VA?

Hate Ruger disassembly.
Link Posted: 4/18/2016 11:41:49 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RacyCarr:

Regarding grip angles and mag releases, there is the 22/45.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RacyCarr:
Originally Posted By kaneman23:
If you shoot 1911's a lot you would probably prefer the Buckmark since the grip angle is closer and the controls are similar.

Regarding grip angles and mag releases, there is the 22/45.


I tried the 22/45 but hated the polymer frame.  It's too top heavy and it still has the push button safety and slide stop.  Ruger might be built stronger but it's a 22 and I don't believe it will matter in the long term.  Barrels still have a life cycle as well as other components so it was a non factor in my decision. There is also more aftermarket available for the Ruger but I don't think the Buckmark needs anything really.  All I know is the Buckmark felt the best out of the 2 in my hands.  Buy the one you like the most OP or get both. Can't go wrong either way.
Link Posted: 4/19/2016 7:37:41 AM EDT
The issue with aluminium frames on the Buckmarks has me wondering.    If I were to get rid of my aluminium framed 22s, then several others should go, such as my Sig 226.   Oh, the ARs have go too.     The Berettas are just paper weights.   The "plastic fantastic" guns like my Glocks will be even worse; they will have to go into the trash.  

I'm glad I've read about this.   It really has me thinking.
Link Posted: 4/19/2016 9:01:03 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RacyCarr:
The issue with aluminium frames on the Buckmarks has me wondering.    If I were to get rid of my aluminium framed 22s, then several others should go, such as my Sig 226.   Oh, the ARs have go too.     The Berettas are just paper weights.   The "plastic fantastic" guns like my Glocks will be even worse; they will have to go into the trash.  

I'm glad I've read about this.   It really has me thinking.
View Quote


Agree. People worry too much.  Just keep it lubed and shoot it.  I doubt those worrying about wearing out aluminum frames even shoot much.  
Top Top