I've got it in my head that I (my son) has to have a semi auto .22.  I think I ha ve it narrowed down to either the Ruger or the Buckmark.  My prejudices lie against Ruger for a couple of reasons.

Am I cutting my nose off to spite my face?

hum,

which fit's his or your hand best?
browning, ruger, S&W all make good pistols.
the target pistols are 1" at 15 yds with open sights or better.  ruger is not better or worse than any of the others but you can't perform your best if the gun does not fit your hand.  my personal choice is a  ruger 22-45 with a propoint scope and I like it's 1911 style setup.

My dislike of S&W runs deeper than that for Ruger, not much but deeper.

What does anyone think of Mitchel.

It's about $100 more but looks like a nice peice.

I just got a Walther P22 and love it. Only $229 new in box.

I have used both heavily and my preference is with the Buck Mark, for a couple of reasons.

1. the grip angle and controls are very close to those of a 1911
2. with the slide locked back you can acctually clean the breach face and bolt face without dissasembly
3. when you do dissasemble it, you acctually can do so without any, hold it this way and push this just so and flip it over, like on the ruger.
4. and the mag release is a normal button not a heel clip

Avoid the Mitchell, unless you like to gunsmith it to death. While they do look great, faults creep up during use. I had to move the feed ramp forward to get it to feed 100%. The rear sight had no detents and tended to loosen up. Had some misfires. When the non heat treated firing pin broke, I found out mine was not the standard design and had to make one. When the red plastic base pad finally broke, that was the last straw. All the Buckmarks I had were great. I just lean toward Rugers mainly due to being stainless and lots of goodies are available to make 'em even better.

I won't address the ergonomic merits of Ruger vs. Browning, but I will address what I think may be a durability issue.

A little back ground:  I shoot on my lunch hour, approximately 50 rounds per day, 4 days a week, year round as weather permits.  I own both a Ruger Mk II and a Browning Buckmark.  I currently have close to 20,000 rounds through the Ruger and am running around 6,000 with the Browning.

The area I am having trouble with is the slide stop on the Browning.  The slide stop is a piece of stamped metal on both the Ruger and the Browning.  On the Ruger it rides on a pin in the Browning it is fitted with a trunnion that engages a corresponding hole in the aluminum frame and is held in by the grip.  The hole in the frame is enlarging due to the impact of the slide hitting the slide stop.  I find this piece getting sloppier and sloppier as time goes by. On my Ruger, the edge of the stamping that engages the bolt has flared over time (1.5 X original thickness), but has stopped at that point and not progressed any further, or affected function or fit of the slide stop.  

I have a friend with an unknown number of rounds through his Browning that is experiencing the same sloppiness in his slide stop.

Please also note: The pads on the safety and slide stop of the Browning appear to be epoxied in place.  Expect to reglue them if you shoot a lot.  My friend has glued his and I just reglued my slide stop pad this last weekend for the first time (hopefully the last).

I like them both but I expect my Brownings controls are going to be far looser than my Rugers by the time it hits 20,000 rounds.

BTW I agree with all the ergonomic issues previously stated except, I find no problem with the heel release on the magazine of the Ruger unless I am doing combat style reloads.  I bought the Browning to mimic my 1911 controls but prefer the grip on my Ruger (and my 1911 for that matter).

Both are good, but I think the Ruger will last longer.

Kent

I have repeatedly seen Ruger owners outshoot their own guns when they used a Buckmark. The grip of a Buckmark is much better for either a left or right handed person, IMO. The Buckmark is also much easier to field strip & reassemble than the Ruger.

I find my Ruger and Browning shoot about the same.  It usually takes me a day (50 rounds) to get back to shooting my best with either gun when I make the switch from one to the other.

I don't find the Ruger that dufficult to disassemble compared to the Browning. Maybe I've done it enough it is second nature.  The advantage I see with the Ruger is you don't need any tools, with the Browning you need the hex wrench and a screw driver if you are removing the barrel.  On the Ruger I just use the sheet metal magazine button depressor I made to pry on the catch and I'm in business.  If push came to shove I could probably use my knife, a key or maybe even a hardwood stick .

On the Browning you can't clean the barrel from the breach end without removing it.  On the Ruger once you remove the bolt the breach end of the barrel is unobsructed for cleaning.

Kent

I can recommend against the 22/45.  It has problems feeding even when not filthy, and the controls are awkward to use.  I'd rather have the Mk II Target.  

Same thread, on a different board about six months ago...... here's what I had to say about it then. The Ruger guys didn't like my "chevette" comment much at all...... I may have went a bit too far on that one, oh well, here it is-

I've owned both in many different configurations over the past 14 years, and if it is up to me, I will always own at least one of each.
The Ruger is a tool, a tool that I have used to put many meals on my table. I've had the same MKII (KMK10) since 1989. It has had well over 28k rounds shot through it and I have carried it in the field more than any of my other firearms combined. I bought this pistol because it was the only make I could find in this configuration at the time, and I had planned to upgrade to a Browning whenever they were being manufactured again. But, after using and becoming familiar with the Ruger, I became attached to it and it soon became the most useful firearm I’ve ever owned. To date, it has had many modifications/improvements and has required a few parts replaced that I had worn out, so yes, it has had a few jams and misfires over the years. But it has yet to fail at the moment of truth, and I know I can count on it, without a doubt.

The Browning compared to the Ruger is a Cadillac to a Chevette. If properly tuned, they are a true pleasure to shoot. I’ve owned two 5.5 Target models, a Bullseye, a Varmint, two Silhouettes, an Unlimited Silhouette (currently out of production) and I even bought one of the new Buckmark Carbines (rifle) in the target version. The accuracy potential of these pistols is unbelievable. The triggers are much easier to tune and other than that, no further modifications are needed.

Reliability between the two is identical. If kept clean and in proper working order, you should have no problems except for with faulty ammo.

As far as comparing the design and manufacturing, I’ve come to the conclusion that there really is no point in it. The Ruger has heavier parts and is probably a bit over-built in some aspects. The Buckmark has some plastic parts that are hard to stomach, but seem to be quite reliable. Takedown has to be learned with both, but it does with all other firearms too…so what, after the initial cussing and a little practice, it becomes old hat and requires no thought.

So, when it’s time to go grouse or rabbit hunting, I grab my Ruger from behind the seat, and PRESTO! I’m huntin’!

And when it’s time to boost my ego with some precision paper punching, my Unlimited Silhouette, (with the trigger set at just over a pound and the electronic sight dialed in tightly), comes out of its’ case and is ready to compete, even with the rifles.

OdT

After reading my above post, I noticed a couple of updates are in order.

The unlimited now wears a Leupold 4x instead of the Leupold/Gilmore dot. And I have also purchased another Buckmark in the Bullseye configuration again. Gotta love those Buckmarks!

Another point, that Ruger is still riding behing my seat waiting for grouse season...... only three more weeks!!!!

OdT