Opinions wanted on Browning Buck Mark Camper vs. Ruger Mark IV

jkerm3

NES Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2015
Messages
267
Likes
131
Location
North Shore
Feedback: 7 / 0 / 0
I decided to pick up a cheap 22 target-style pistol and I have it narrowed to these two. I can pick up a new Buck Mark SS for $350 plus Browning has a $75 rebate until the end of the year. I found the lowest price for a new Ruger 22 Target (blued) at $400.

Based on internet searches and YouTube, I think the Ruger is probably the better gun, but is it worth the extra $125 (45% more)? For me this is just going to be a fun range/plinking gun so I don't want to spend a lot of coin on it, but I don't want problems either (failures to feed/eject, work with cheap ammo, etc.).

Thanks for any opinions and feedback.
 
I'd take a Browning all day, every day, and if "SS" means Stainless Steel, even more so.

I know someone who had a Nomad (precursor to the Buckmark), and it was a great gun.
 
if you found an older buckmark, yes. they were noted for being exceptionally accurate. i'm not sure how the newer ones stack up comparing the two. otherwise i'd spend the money on a ruger mk Iv and call it a day.
 
The two guns are about the same.
I'm partial to BuckMarks myself, (I have four of them).
Like most .22 semi's they're a bit finicky in ammo choice, but once you find the right food to feed it, all's good.
One thing for sure, all but the newer models of the Ruger are a pain in the a$$ to properly strip, the BuckMark's simple.
 
Let me start out with I am a Browning fan and I don't have a great appreciation for Ruger Firearms. Now the truth of the matter is the Ruger is a better built and nicer gun. The browning has a lot of plastic internal parts and there is less of an after market for customizing the Browning. I have had both and the Ruger out performs the Browning Buckmark in every way. The Ruger seems to have better balance and comfort. Both are good guns, however in my opinion the Ruger is a better pick.
 
I have had Buckmark and Ruger MKiII and III and prefer the Ruger. The Buckmark was pretty nice, but it tended to need cleaning
more than the Ruger to operate reliably. Also tended to blow a little burnt powder back more than the
Ruger.

Supposedly the new Ruger is easier to strip down. The old ones really sucked to do this.
 
Thanks all. Buck Mark is a bit more comfortable to hold as the Ruger grips are a bit wide. Price difference may be the deciding factor...$275 is cheap for some fun.
 
The Ruger Mark IV is the killer app of .22 handguns. The only real shortcoming of the older Rugers was difficulty taking them apart and re-assembling them. They are now incredibly easy to service. No faults in mine that I can find. Not real picky about ammo either.
 
I’m a Die hard Ruger fan.


I love my Buckmark. Haven’t shit the MkIV, but can’t see it being much better. And the price is very good for the Browning.
 
The Mark IV is a good gun. It does have some plastic parts now. I have never shot a Buckmark, so I have idea about it. If you do get a MK IV replace the firing pin as soon as you can. the new ones tend to break about 1k rounds. Good Luck, and have fun with what gun you buy.
 
well, bingo, there you go. very wise to handle both. if that were the case, i'd choose the one that felt better, also.

Yes, I agree. I can always change out the thick wood grips but now the price difference gets even greater. I think I am going to try the Buck Mark unless someone really hates it and posts some good reasons to go Ruger. I like Ruger so for me Ruger is actually the safer choice but the value may be with the Browning for this one.
 
Back
Top Bottom