mk3 or the buckmark,
- Thread starter boltons75
- Start date
Help Support Ruger Forum:
I think the new 22/45s have replaceable grips.... so there should be all kinds of choices... but I prefer the standard MKIII target over the 22.45's thin grip anyway.
contender
Ruger Guru
I would definately look into the MKIII with the replacable grip panels. Then, there are Hogue slip over grips. All kinds of way to change the feel of the grip. However, you may not find a "one size fits all" so that everyone is happy. Why? Well, none of us have exactly the same hand size, shape, length, etc. Add iin that we all have a little bit of difference in how we hold (grip) a firearm, what fits one person quite well, can feel horrible to another person.
Buy more than one gun?
Buy more than one gun?
I posted these pics a while back, may help perhaps. The Pearce finger grips slip under the removal panels and add width as well as finger grooves. I didn't like the original narrow grip and this makes the 22/45 very comfortable. You can actually just add cardboard shims to widen the grip, the removable panels are great for this flexibility alone I think.
After I did that, looking for something more target grip oriented w/ thumbrest, I found the grips in the bottom pics. Makes a very wide, full palm grip, especially keeping the finger grooves. http://www.midwayusa.com/Product/714624/majestic-arms-target-grips-ruger-mark-iii-22-45-rp-with-right-hand-thumbrest-cocobolo
After I did that, looking for something more target grip oriented w/ thumbrest, I found the grips in the bottom pics. Makes a very wide, full palm grip, especially keeping the finger grooves. http://www.midwayusa.com/Product/714624/majestic-arms-target-grips-ruger-mark-iii-22-45-rp-with-right-hand-thumbrest-cocobolo
clayflingythingy
Single-Sixer
boltons75 said:
The decision has already been made, you're getting the Buckmark!
Actually, I prefer the Buckmark to my Ruger MK II, myself.
lark63 said:Nothing wrong at all with the Buckmark- If she likes how it feels better buy it.
+1
Both Ruger and Browning make great .22 pistols. After owning several Rugers, I added a Buckmark to my collection and it's become one of my favorites.
I'm still mainly a Ruger fan though!
One of my Rugers and a Buckmark.
I've got a Mark II and a buckmark. Both are accurate to the same degree give or take. I don't like to take theMark II appart, but love the way it is designed. The Buckmark is easy to take apart, but i really do not like the plastic spacer 'buffer' inside. Aftermarket grips aren't as available for the Buckmark. The Mark II is better overall in my humble opinion...
Kevin said:
Even $2000 competition auto-loaders have a buffer. It's designed to keep the slide from beating up the frame. Old Bill designed his 22 auto with what is essentially a sloppy rifle action, and then he put a large pin in there to absorb the hammering. Crude and heavy, but it works.
For offhand bullseye shooting, I've found the Buckmarks to be a lot easier to hold and shoot with precision.
Donaldjr1969
Blackhawk
Before I got my 22/45 Mk3, I was torn between the Ruger and the Browning. What did make the decision for me was how one field-strips the Buckmark. While the Ruger can be a real pain in the rear to field-strip, the Buckmark has those tiny little screws that need to be removed. As much as I would try to show care with those screws, I am quite sure I would drop them into the carpeting eventually. So I chose the Ruger. Yes the Buckmark does feel good in my hand. But I do not have any problems with the grip on the 22/45. That said, I probably will get a slip-on grip from Hogue eventually.
Donaldjr1969 said:
Yes, there are two screws that hold a Buckmark's sight rail down. There are also two more that hold the grip panels on. After moderate practice handling a Buckmark's tiny little bullets, and keeping in mind "righty-tighty, lefty-loosey", a Buckmark owner will usually recover from that dreadful sight-rail-screw psychosis. :wink:
I take care with those screws, my 7 1/4 inch Buckmark has three. The rear most screw does come loose slightly after a range session. If I remember I tighten them up while shooting. I'm not sure if my accuracy suffers because it's loose or not.
I still don't like those plastic buffers. My Smith and Wesson model 41 does not have a buffer. I'm not a gunsmith, but it's a different style than the Mark II or III, right? The Ruger has a bolt, where the Buckmark and the Model 41, have slides?
I still don't like those plastic buffers. My Smith and Wesson model 41 does not have a buffer. I'm not a gunsmith, but it's a different style than the Mark II or III, right? The Ruger has a bolt, where the Buckmark and the Model 41, have slides?
Kevin said:
Yes, your group size will change if the rear screw loosens.
A Buckmark's front sightrail screw threads into the steel barrel. The rear screw tightens into the alloy frame, and therefore cannot be snugged down as tight as the front. Both are retained with cupped star washers which do the job. One of the bullseye shooters at my range was over-maintaining his Buckmark and disassembling it weekly which created wear on the rear threads and a frequently loose sight rail. The fix was a spot of blue LocTite and a 1500~2000 round interval between major cleanings.
Kevin said:
Standard velocity ammo has less recoil energy and requires a soft recoil spring for reliable cycling. That soft spring will compress too easily with some high velocity cartridges, though, and allow the slide to slam back against the frame. So, lighter weight pistols with alloy frames use a buffer/cushion allowing any ammo to be used. The upside of all-steel pistols is that they can tolerate the hammering [*], but the steel makes a heavier handgun. Buckmarks with 5" barrels weigh 28~34 ounces +/- depending upon the model. The 5" Smith 41 weighs 41 ounces, the Mk-III Target and Competition weigh 42 and 45 ounces, and they get real heavy PDQ when shooting offhand. For two-handed plinking or shooting from a rest, weight doesn't matter.
*
http://www.rugerforum.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=131342
slofry:
Wow, thanks for the information. I've heard what you are talking about but it hasn't been described to me in a way that I can understand. This wasn't even my thread, but thank you. Yes, the Buckmark is lighter, and the Model 41 is actually quite heavy. All three are fun to shoot and very different in character, but I still prefer the Ruger for an everyday sort of gun...
Wow, thanks for the information. I've heard what you are talking about but it hasn't been described to me in a way that I can understand. This wasn't even my thread, but thank you. Yes, the Buckmark is lighter, and the Model 41 is actually quite heavy. All three are fun to shoot and very different in character, but I still prefer the Ruger for an everyday sort of gun...
Thanks for everyone's input, its much appreciated, and it seems that the brownings a good gun also, so to make the wife happy that's going to be my route. We did just find her a new Kahr p380 on clearance at Cabelas for 425.00, couldn't pass up on that deal, even though it is pink, but its her carry gun, so no big deal. And it does shoot smooth.
CraigC
Hawkeye
Ruger makes a great .22 auto but the grip angle of the standard models never agreed with me and the regular 22/45 was too narrow and slick. I very much preferred Buckmarks before the 22/45RP models came out. Now, it's a wash. It really boils down to personal preference, neither has a clear advantage over the other. Although I will say, if you want the Browning and plan on a scope, definitely buy a model with a factory rail.
If you haven't bought the Browning yet I would avoid the Buckmark. The older style guns were my favorite 22 auto pistols. Several years ago Browning made the slide cheaper by milling out the steel and putting a plastic insert in to hold the firing pin. I have two that have let the firing pin smack into the face of the chamber.
I've spent extra money replacing the slides with older style slides. They also have a magazine disconnect now but that is easily defeated.
Brownings service used to be great but was horrible the last two times I dealt with them.
I've spent extra money replacing the slides with older style slides. They also have a magazine disconnect now but that is easily defeated.
Brownings service used to be great but was horrible the last two times I dealt with them.
red ryder
Single-Sixer
I owned the Mark III and it was very well made and fun to shoot. Unfortunately a PITA to re-assemble. One day while I was getting very frustrated trying to put the Mark III together, a buddy called me. I told him of my growing impatience with the gun. He had shot it in the past and said he'd buy it from me. He installed a red dot scope and it was a great pistol that was inexpensive to shoot. I read a report comparing the Browning Buckmark and the Mark III. The writer said they were both great .22 pistols, but the Browning was easier to re-assemble after cleaning. I ordered the Browning and it's been a fun and inexpensive pistol to shoot. I think the Ruger is a nicer gun, but not by much. My opinion; if you can re-assemble the Ruger, buy it, however if the grip (or anything else) on the Browning appeals to you, than that's the one to buy. You won't go wrong with either one so it would be best to try them both at the range. If that's not an option, at least hold both of them in the gun shop.
Similar threads
