Mark II vs Browning Buckmark

Today was a semi good day at the range. I have 4 .22 semi automatics, two Mark II's a Buckmark and a Smith and Wesson Model 41. After a dead battery in a red dot, and another red-dot which was shooting way to the left, I narrowed it down to the Mark II and the Buckmark as the winners of the day.

I'm posting this I guess, because I've been thinking about a Mark IV.

Shooting 25 yards, open sights, both shot equally well. The triggers on both are just phenomenal. On the Mark II, I have Herrett's grips and on the Buckmark, they are factory grips, but, not the set that was sold with the gun. They are large, ambidextrous without a palm rest.

Both guns have the same barrel length, 7 1/4 inch. And both guns are similar in weight. I would be hard pressed to say which shot better, but I do think the Mark II was slightly more accurate.

The thing I don't like about the Buckmark is the top rail. It vibrates loose when shooting. I know, not a big deal, and one I can fix, but I just don't like it. I do like the trigger feel better. It's smoother than the Ruger. And I think the front sight is easier to see.

But both are a joy to shoot any day of the week, especially on a sunny 65 F. day in Texas.

I've had the Browning for 15 years (new), and this Mark II for maybe 5 years (used, but hadn't been fired at all outside the factory).

The best 22 pistol I've had was the Colt Woodsman, that was my duty carry for almost 3 years. The park decided to go to 9 mm and I could have bought the Woodsman for $120, didn't! Of the Mark II and the Buckmark IME the Buckmark is a bit more reliable and accurate. I also have a 22/45 and it needed trigger work, but with that it's a bit better than the Buckmark and better than the MkII. I've not had a lot of range time with the Mk IV (I don't own one) but I don't see any real big improvements over the Mk II. The ability to use a suppressor is a big deal for me so no threaded barrel is no sale.

The one biggest complaint I have about the Buckmark, and I never would have bought it had I known before hand; it's that little tiny plastic buffer down inside the action. Without that thin piece of plastic, the gun won't work. I just feel that it's a huge design flaw. I guess that is why I only have one Buckmark.

While the Buckmark is a nice gun,, I too feel the plastic piece in the action is a weak point. I know many folks who think it's not a big deal. But to me,, shooting several thousands of rounds,,, I know it would possibly result in eventual function failures.

Oh, a side note. In your description,,,, you said the MKII & Buckmark had the same barrel length. The Ruger is 6-7/8".

Thanks! Oh, for some reason I thought it was 7 1/4 also. Not that 6 7/8 is far off, thanks for the clarification.

Hmmm. I own a couple Buckmark pistols I bought new in the early nineties... and a Buckmark rifle. None of them have a "tiny plastic buffer way down in the action". Never had a problem, and one of them has had extensive use.

Is the part in question recent, essential, and is it replaceable?

mohavesam said:

Hmmm. I own a couple Buckmark pistols I bought new in the early nineties... and a Buckmark rifle. None of them have a "tiny plastic buffer way down in the action". Never had a problem, and one of them has had extensive use.

Is the part in question recent, essential, and is it replaceable?

Click to expand...

Is it possible that there was a buffer present, but you never saw it? I only ask because I believe there was a buffer in the Challenger III, which predatated the Buckmark...

I don't know what happens to functioning when the buffer is broken or missing. According to some posters at RFC, the pistol may function w/o buffer... but obviously Browning thought it necessary.

Part #4 in this schematic:
https://www.gunpartscorp.com/gun-manufacturer/browning/auto-pistols-brown/buckmark

IIRC, there were at least two different versions: Pre-2000 models, and 2000-up. The very first pre-2000 buffers were black, later replaced by a white one. I believe that the 2000-up ones were white, from the start.

I have no personal experience, but according to post on various forums, the 2000-up version will also fit/work in the pre-2000 guns.

Repro of original, black part: https://jack-first-gun-parts.myshopify.com/products/browning-buckmark-challeger-iii-buffer-b5152501

Pre-2000 style, in white: https://www.midwayusa.com/product/478927/browning-buffer-browning-buck-mark-pistol-pre-2000

2000-up style: https://www.midwayusa.com/product/100422892/browning-buffer-browning-buck-mark-rifle-pistol-post-2000

For me, it's always boiled down to personal preference between these two. I tried with a MKI and a MKIIGC and while they were accurate, I couldn't get along with the grip. For years I preferred the Browning due mostly to the grip angle and its similarity to the 1911. Been trying in vain to wear this one out for 30yrs now.



I've shot some groups with my Bullseye model that many would not believe.



When Ruger came out with the MKII 22/45, they were almost there but the polymer grip frame felt like a slick bar of soap to me. It wasn't until the MKIII 22/45RP that I found a Ruger I could live with. So I have two.

"they were almost there but the polymer grip frame felt like a slick bar of soap to me."

Some folks find that grip size better fits their smaller hands.

It wasn't the size I had an issue with it was the texture, or lack thereof. I almost bought one and had Broken Gun Ranch do their 1911 grip conversion but at that point in time was very happy with my Brownings. Now things are more complicated.

Thanks all for the pics, those are all great!

One may be as good as the other but I like the 22/45 better than either. Just fits and feels better.
I've found the Ruger to be superbly accurate in nearly every instance but have only fired a couple of Buckmarks so don't have much to compare.

>>"they were almost there but the polymer grip frame felt like a slick bar of soap to me."<<

And here I just bought my second "slick bar of soap" in as many weeks. It's a sickness, I tell you! :mrgreen: