Mark III or Buck Mark?

RichardF

Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2011
Messages
97
Reaction score
4
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?
 
Register to hide this ad
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?

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.
 
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 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.
 
buckenstein.jpg

I love my Buck Mark.
 
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 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.
 
Last edited:
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 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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

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.

BrowningBuckmartLft533x400.jpg
 
Back
Top