Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

browning buckmark or ruger mark I,II,or III

smokeless
Which came first? Which one is most reliable? Which is easiest to take down and clean?
0

Comments

11 comments

Date Votes
  • beantownshootah
    The Ruger Mk I was invented in the 1950s: I think that makes it the first.

    All of them are pretty reliable.

    None of these are particularly easy to disassemble and clean.

    If you have to pick one, I think the Buckmark is probably easiest, but IIRC you have to use a screwdriver to remove the top strap, and doing this may slightly affect the zero on re-assembly.

    In general, you shouldn't be cleaning your .22 all that often. All you need is to clean out the chamber every few hundred rounds, and maybe swab out the bore gently.
    0
  • smokeless
    thanks beantown. thats very helpful.

    one question though when you say "IIRC" what does that mean?

    It looks like blue for blue model close in price.

    The BM can get spendy but offers a lot of configs from the factory.

    Thanks
    0
  • Nwcid
    One of the things IIRC means is If I Recall Correctly.

    Yes you have to take a screw out of the top of the BM but the way it is set up should not effect the zero. I know it never has for me and it if was a big issue then I am sure you would hear a lot more about it.

    I dont like the feel of the Ruger so Buckmark is my choice, I have 2. I have the pistol that I hardly shoot anymore because I have a .22 1911 that I like a lot more. I also have one of the rifles that I picked up last year and have just not shot too much yet.

    If you ever plan on suppressing on the Ruger is quieter the the BM unless you change barrels. The steel bolt on the steel barrel is very loud. If you switch to a Tac-Sol aluminum barrel I have heard they can be very quite. The bad part about suppressing the Ruger is the very enclosed action gets very dirty very fast. I hear they can quit running after about 400 rounds with out a good cleaning.
    0
  • cwi555
    quote:Originally posted by smokeless
    Which came first? Which one is most reliable? Which is easiest to take down and clean?


    The ruger came first, of the rugers, the Mark II is the better option, and more reliable. The grip frame is about the only part you can't find on the market for the Mark II. Everything else has one variety of bells and whistles package or parts you can purchase.
    I own several Mark II's and find them to be very reliable, and not all that difficult to take down.
    0
  • smokeless
    thx,NWCID. I'm not always in tune with the acronyms.



    I don't plan on suppression.

    For small caliber arms, I like to find a good one out of the box and rarely modify other than a little smithing to smooth out actions, lessen trigger pulls etc...

    These forums put a lot of info in your hands before you throw the legal tender at somebody though.
    0
  • perry shooter
    The Ruger came first and a very good design . With That said I would most surely pick the Browning. The grip angle is extreme to me and it is a PITA to Clean . I must disagree with people that are of the school of not cleaning semi auto 22 rimfire pistols straight blowbach pistols especially those that shoot lead bullets get a bunch of fouling blown back in the fire control parts that is often very gritty it helps to clean this every 1000 rounds or so. The Browning has a grip angle closer to the 1911 and many other center fire semi auto pistols thus the browning is easier to transfer skills learned from practice to the large bore pistols. "PRAISE THE HARD-BALL GUN"
    0
  • smokeless
    thx cwi555, does the mark II have less composite parts than the markIII?

    New-er models of older lines, are sometimes using more composites.

    Just wondering in this particular case since you seem to know Mark family pretty well.
    0
  • catpealer111
    I have a MkII Target that was built in 1982 and the only non metal components on it are the wooden grip panels and the plastic magazine base.
    0
  • cwi555
    The only thing composite on the Mark II is the grips. Even then, some came with wood, and wood/metal grips can be purchased.
    The Mark II is in my opinion, the best semi auto .22 ever made.
    It was unfortunate that ruger had to screw it up with the mark III.

    Given a choice between the cheaper composite 22's (and some not so cheap), I'd be going with the Beretta Neo. I bought two of them when they first came out for a song. (400 bucks for both dealer used samples) I destroyed one in testing, but the nature of the test was far and above normal service. Therefore I kept the other one.

    With a choice of any 22 Semi, it's going to be the mark ii for me.
    But the beretta was impressive for the money.

    quote:Originally posted by smokeless
    thx cwi555, does the mark II have less composite parts than the markIII?

    New-er models of older lines, are sometimes using more composites.

    Just wondering in this particular case since you seem to know Mark family pretty well.
    0
  • beantownshootah
    quote:Originally posted by cwi555
    The Mark II is in my opinion, the best semi auto .22 ever made.

    With a choice of any 22 Semi, it's going to be the mark ii for me.
    But the beretta was impressive for the money.

    I have to disagree with the first bit.

    For what they are (medium-end .22s) the Rugers are quite good, but the best ever? I don't think so.

    Try a High Standard.

    The sights and trigger out of the box are better than ANY Ruger, and its not even close. Plus (unlike the Ruger) High Standards are trivial to strip and clean.

    There are still high-level competitors who routinely shoot out-of-the box High Standards (and they're shooting them against European match guns costing 3x as much). While its certainly possible to accurize a Ruger and put in a match grade trigger if you want to, nobody is shooting stock Rugers in high level competition, and objectively they just don't stack up as stock guns.
    0
  • cwi555
    That will be a matter of opinion. To each their own.
    However, not to many folks are shooting 'stock' guns in competition.
    The high standard is good, but over all my 'opinion' is the ruger is better.

    quote:Originally posted by beantownshootah
    quote:Originally posted by cwi555
    The Mark II is in my opinion, the best semi auto .22 ever made.

    With a choice of any 22 Semi, it's going to be the mark ii for me.
    But the beretta was impressive for the money.

    I have to disagree with the first bit.

    For what they are (medium-end .22s) the Rugers are quite good, but the best ever? I don't think so.

    Try a High Standard.

    The sights and trigger out of the box are better than ANY Ruger, and its not even close. Plus (unlike the Ruger) High Standards are trivial to strip and clean.

    There are still high-level competitors who routinely shoot out-of-the box High Standards (and they're shooting them against European match guns costing 3x as much). While its certainly possible to accurize a Ruger and put in a match grade trigger if you want to, nobody is shooting stock Rugers in high level competition, and objectively they just don't stack up as stock guns.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity