Will someone, not Alexia, tell me about the Buckmark

[Ole Joe Clark]

A friend is attempting to trade one of the newer, cheaper grade Browning Buckmarks to me on a nice revolver I have.

Are they any good? He didn't give me the model #, just a photo that I can't read the information from.

I kinda got a bad feeling just from his comment that it hasn't been fired and he wants to get rid of it.

Thanks in advance and have a blessed day,

Leon

 

[mod34]

Buck mark.....for a nice revolver??? I don't think so.

 

[rjm6120]

I guess part of the answer lies in which of your guns is he Jones-ing for? With that being said, one of my very good gun buddies had a new Buckmark with a scope on it that he took to the range several months ago on an outdoor range trip.

I was very underwhelmed with it, as I had a chance to shoot a mag full through it. I don't remember it malfunctioning or anything like that, just didn't do a thing for me. I kept my thoughts to myself of course. FWIW, these are just my thoughts on the gun.

It sounds to me you really don't want to do this deal.

 

[PPS1980]

I own a Buckmark of modern make. It does not hold a candle to my Ruger MkII. Got it because of the molded grip and my daughters smaller hands. After she learned the fundamentals on it (cheaply with 22LR) she moved on to other weapons. I still have it because I never sell weapons, but perhaps I should. Just FYI, before the entire meltdown of the gun industry and the panic buying it cost me $254 out the door from a big box and its one of their models with extras like a bull barrel, etc.. Hope that helps.

 

[OldRN]

I also had one and flipped it quickly. It was ok, but nothing to love and I have never missed it, unlike so many of the guns I have had.

 

[BloodyThumb]

A club I belong to ran a program for new shooters, primarily kids. They started out with a mix of Rugers and Buckmarks. It did not take long before I saw all Rugers and no Buckmarks. I have owned Ruger MKs most of my life. I have shot several Buckmarks over the years. As someone has already stated, I cannot say they were unreliable, but at the same time very unremarkable and not as accurate for me as the Rugers. I have never once contemplated buying one, and honestly, I can't say that about too many guns.

 

[JackM]

I have found that the older, pre-2000, models are better. I still have one made in the 1990s that is very nice. I bought, and later traded, a newer one--perfectly functional, but not as well built. Just be advised that if the one you're thinking of trading for is an older one, and if the firing pin ever breaks, you might be looking at buying an entire slide assembly to get it working again. Browning changed the design in 2000. The newer firing pin assemblies don't fit the older guns and older firing pins can he hard to find.

 

[Eric300]

There's nothing wrong with Buckmark pistols. Reliable, and accurate. Depending on the model, some are more accurate than others, but all are more than acceptably accurate and aren't too picky on the ammo they're fed. I wouldn't rate them any lower than any Ruger MK model. But, the make/model/condition of the firearms involved in the trade would have to play into the decision on whether or not it would be a fair trade or not. Depending on the model, Buckmarks run somewhere around $375-$450 new.

 

[reccpd101]

I have an older Buckmark that is very accurate and reliable. I shot my qualifying score to be a NR Training Counselor with it about 4 yrs ago.

 

[Gene L]

I have one and it's very good. An older model, I guess; I've had it for 20 years or so. Got a suppressor on it. Very accurate and fun to shoot.

I've had Rugers but could never fall in love with them. Triggers sucked and took a MIT Engineer to take them apart. You can probably find videos on disassembly/reassembly on the internet, but I had mine pre-internet. Used, no factory brochures or manuals.

 

[first-model]

I have never owned a Buckmark, but I've shot a few. Seem like very accurate and reliable pistols. Not my S&W Model 41 by any means, but they're also a quarter of the price.

I think having a basic training pistol like that is always a good thing—and for the beginners that are shooting it, they'll never know the difference between that and a better pistol like the 41. And, as one other person mentioned, the older Rugers took an engineering degree to get back together, so if the Buckmark is easier, then it may have a slight edge there.

mike

 

[Truckman]

They're OK guns, but not really keeper material...I bought a bull barrel version a couple of weeks ago just because it was cheap and I knew it would make good tradebait at a gun show...I paid $250 for it and got $300 in trade against another Smith last weekend...It paid expenses for the day......Ben

 

[misswired]

These Buck Marks are comparable to the Ruger MK series. Other than liking slab sides, knew these were desirable and bought them on sight. I say comparable owning several mk2s and threes

Having never considered or handled a newer one; have no idea how they function. May be like the new' S W revolvers, greatly improved

 

[shovelhead]

2002 model. Has had probably 7k rounds through it, been used for a Women On Target event more than once with 600 or more rounds run through it a day. Usually about midway through the event it gets a good spraydown of Gunscrubber and a quick oiling.

At home after the event a full teardown to the point of removing the barrel from the frame.

Only failures have been fail to extract when it gets extremely dirty and the original Rear Sight Mounting Base which was plastic broke one day during one of the WOT days. The replacement that Browning sold me was metal, an improvement except that I needed to contact Williams Gunsight as my Firesight would not mount to it. Another part (forgot what it was, been a few years ago) and all was well.

Only real complaint is with the slide, nothing to do with the effort required just a little hard to grip.

 

[Ole Joe Clark]

Thanks a bunch, seems that the general opinion is that it's ok, but nothing to write home about. I have some MK II Rugers, and I think they are great. I can take them apart, put them back together, and don't even have a degree.

Have a blessed day,

Leon

 

[BloodyThumb]

Thanks a bunch, seems that the general opinion is that it's ok, but nothing to write home about. I have some MK II Rugers, and I think they are great. I can take them apart, put them back together, and don't even have a degree.

Have a blessed day,

Leon

Agree. I've been taking them apart and putting them back together since I was pretty much a kid. I have a 9yr old grandson now that gets them back together in pretty short order. I really never understood all the complaining about them. They are certainly not the easiest I have owned, and resemble nothing else I know of so it is a unique process.... but it really isn't hard.

 

[Mike SC Hunter]

I've owned and used a BM for over 20 years. 4" bbl. It's a squirrel killer. Never had a problem with it..........Would I take one on a trade for "quality" revolver? Colt/Ruger/Smith? No. Charter/Taurus? Yes...In a heart beat.

 

[buckyjames1]

Own a newer Buckmark Contour. I did swap out the barrel for a threaded Tactical Solutions version.

That thing has eatin every crappy round I could throw into it and not missed a beat yet.

Been very reliable so far and fires dirty.

 

[DeplorabusUnum]

I have one and I really love it. I also have a Ruger Mk IV and the Buckmark is a good bit more accurate. Once I put the red dot on it, it became EXTREMELY accurate. You can shoot the center out of a target all day at 50 feet, at least with mine. Never had it jam.

The Ruger is much more easy to take apart and clean. The Buckmark is a bit more complicated.

I only paid $450 for mine, so I would say that if your revolver is a nice one, he'd have to throw in some cash depending on how nice and what model.

 

[misswired]

The factory sights on yours is different from mine....what else is different? They appear to be the same model..Butt??