Thinking of purchasing a new 22 pistol and narrowed my search to these 2 guns. My dad has a Mark III I've put about 300 rds through and really like it. I have not shot a Buck Mark yet. Any opinions out there on either one or both?

Keep Looking for a MARK II.

__________________
NRA Pistol/Rifle Inst. RSO

Sir, I have a Buckmark and like it very much. Haven't shot the Mark III Ruger, but I have shot older ones. They're good little guns as well. There's a lot more aftermarket stuff for the Ruger if that matters to you. Otherwise, just go with whichever one feels better in your hand.

Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.

Ron H.

__________________
Wishin' don't make it so.

I have both and I had a lot of trouble initially with the Mark 3. It would only function reliably with expensive high velocity ammunition. I found out that the problem was the loaded round indicator which easily got gummed up . I had it disabled which took care of the problem. It then functioned with cheap bulk 22 ammo. I also had the magazine safety disabled which greatly simplified the take down procedure which was complex. The Buckmark has performed flawlessly for many years. Now that both are working I alternate between them.

__________________
I like Ike.

I've got two Buckmarks. Guess that says how I feel!

I had a Mark I for a while and have since kicked my butt for letting it go.

__________________
Dick

I have a Ruger MarkII standard barrel, and a Mark II 22/45.
I like the 22/45 the best, particularly since I just put on some fiber optic sights.

I was just given a Buckmark, but I have not shot it yet. I am going to put a red dot on it, which may turn it into my favorite.
It is going to be awfully hard to beat the 22/45 though. It's fun to shoot, accurate, and feels good in my hand. I always have it tucked into my range bag.

Best Wishes,
Tom

PROS:
Buckmark: Grip angle, trigger, good safety and mag release feel.

Ruger: Solid/sturdy, more after-market accessories.


CONS:
Buckmark: Gold-plated trigger.

Ruger: More difficult takedown, grip angle, magazine release.


I have had both and prefer the Buckmark.

Yep, this is the way to go. The MKIII is a step down.

__________________
Regards, Ron
USASA 1965/69

I love my Buck Mark.

I love my MKII

__________________
Regards, Ron
USASA 1965/69

I've had both and liked both. I now have a MKIII and can find no fault in it. It is not as hard to take down and re-assemble as some would like you to believe. It's just a matter of learning the procedure, and there's really no good reason to take it down very often. The problem I have with the Buckmark is that both sides of the slide opens on recoil and I get powder burns on my thumb. I hold high on the grips, and have known no others with this problem, so it is most likely just me. Handle them both and get the one that suits your fancy, They are both good guns.

I am partial to my Mark III.

I put 300 rounds through my Mark III this afternoon, 200 rounds of Blazer and a hundred of uncertain provenance, stuff that a guy at work had stuffed behind the seat of his pickup in a sandwich bag, with dog hair and lint on them (yes, I wiped them off first). A couple of the unknown rounds failed to fire, and one failed to eject. Those are the only hiccups in about 3500 rounds.

Yes, it is a bit of a pain to take down, but I only have to do that about every 1000 rounds. RTFM, naturally. Sure, I wish now it was a Mark II, but someday I will disable the mag release and loaded chamber indicator... or not. It has worked just fine with them. There is a kit you can buy that makes takedown easier too.

This is a standard model with fixed sights. It shot the bullseyes right out of a couple of targets today, due to the number of rounds, and not because I shoot particularly well, but it is fun to peer down at a target and see a few flecks of red and a lot of air in the middle.

I have not tried a Buckmark. I hear mostly good about them. What do they cost? At under $300.00, my Mark III has given me more bang for the buck than anything else I own. And it hits the target more, too.

I prefer the Buckmark myself.
But I won't knock the Ruger. Both are excellent pistols. Try them both and go with the one that just feels better.

I also have to Buck Marks. That's my story and I am sticking to it

__________________
Carpriver.

I have had a 22-45 MK III for 2 years and put over 35, 550 round bulk pack of Federal 22 though it, over 20,000 rounds. I have had ZERO problems other than maybe 1 or 2 rounds out of each bulk pack not firing, the pistol has work flawlessly!

I completely disassemble and clean the Ruger after 2 bulk packs of ammo. No complaints here, and accuracy is better than expected with the price of the ammo.

I can not comment on the Buckmark because I have not owned one. I have shot one several times and have had no problems with the same ammo. I may be a little biased because I am a Browining man at heart, A-5 is the best semi auto shotgun ever made, but this Ruger is my trusted 22lr plinker pistol.

Just my 2 cents

Ruger is ok but prefer buckmark.

No experience with the Buckmark but my Ruger Red Eagle, Mark I and Mark II have all been good guns. The Red Eagle was never broken down and cleaned from 1949 until about ten years ago when my buddy gave it to me and never gave a problem and that's saying something. It was extremely dirty when I broke it down too.
The Mark II I put a Clerk trigger in as the factory one was stiff. I bought it used and found a spring installed wrong so that may have had something to do with that.
I too think I'll steer clear from the Mark III from what I hear. Lots of nice older models out there for sale at good prices.

My buddy has the Ruger & have a Buckmark. I do like them both, but have no regrets about the Browning. I have many thousands of rounds through my Camper, the least expensive model they make.

I vote for the MK III

Personally I own a 22/45 MK III and I love it.

As long as its legal in your area removing the mag safety is pretty easy. Also the customization options on the MK III's is just limitless.

Either gun will serve you well. I grew up shooting a MKII and I now have a MKIII that I don't like as much as the older model. Don't dismiss the 22/45 either as that's a pretty nice and fun pistol as well. But I still miss the heal mag release and I still think that MKIII LCI is a bit overkill.

I prefer the Browning, although Ruger provides a wonderful platform to tune for Target work. My all time favorite is my Browning Challenger, Belgium made. What a shooter! Exceptional accuracy, great trigger, all steel and nice wood. Old school. They are out there at reasonable prices, Not too hard to locate. The Nomad was their 'field' model, and the Medalist their top end Target model. All the same action and terrific quality. Perhaps the harder decision will be how far you're willing to drive to find .22 ammo. Went to a couple LGS today, Wally World, Gander, etc. The shelves are bare....

i have owned a mk.II it was ok ,a friend owns a buckmark with a red dot on it ,works well. i think the browning is a little better .
i know you didnt ask but have you considered the S&W 22a? it is very accurate,and inexpensive although somewhat aesthetically challenged
of course you already have a mod. 17, right ? haha sorry, i had to ask

Great feedback guys! Thank you for your input.

Can't go wrong with either.

I'm partial to Ruger. I've already got a couple 22/45s, II & III, so when I saw this today I told em to wrap it up. Drove home, slapped on a red dot and can and went to the club this afternoon for some quiet time.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us