I'm kicking around the idea of picking up a proper target pistol for plinking and practice. I've tried both the Mark III and the Buckmark and can shoot them more or less equally well. The Buckmark feels a little more natural in my hand so I'm leaning that way, if I do decide to get one. I've heard the Mark III is a pain to field strip, but that doesn't seem daunting to me as I believe a little practice can remedy that. Are there any performance or reliability issues that I should be aware of for either of these pistols? Also, what about the Mark II? Any significant difference between the II/III?
Thanks for any input you can offer.
Re: Mark III vs Buckmark?
2The primary differences between the II and III include, for the III, a loaded chamber indicator, magazine disconnect, magazine release button (as opposed to the mag release latch at the bottom of the II grip) and friendlier shaped bolt ears. The features of the III contribute to its well-earned reputation as being a pain in the ass for reassembly. I haven't tried a Mark IV, but its redesign gets rid of those headaches. Of the previous 4 models (Ruger standard, I, II and III), my favorite is the Mark II. I've never owned a Buckmark, but I love all the Ruger versions, even with the reassembly issues.
I dearly love the state of Texas, but I consider that a harmless perversion on my part, and discuss it only with consenting adults. --Molly Ivins
if they give you lined paper, write sideways.--Juan Ramon Jimenez
if they give you lined paper, write sideways.--Juan Ramon Jimenez
Re: Mark III vs Buckmark?
3Aftermarket parts are way more numerous for the Rugers if that matters. I have a heavy barrel MK II that I replaced pretty much every trigger mechanism part on with Volquartsen stuff. Got a target grip from them too.
It's absolutely phenomenal now and shoots better than I do.
The takedown procedure is quirky but once it's broken in, it's not that hard.
For comparison, I've had Browning International Medalist (the predecessor to the Buck Mark and I like and shoot the Ruger better.
It's absolutely phenomenal now and shoots better than I do.
The takedown procedure is quirky but once it's broken in, it's not that hard.
For comparison, I've had Browning International Medalist (the predecessor to the Buck Mark and I like and shoot the Ruger better.
Re: Mark III vs Buckmark?
4I've owned a MKIII concurrently with a Browning Challenger II, essentially a pre-Buckmark with no real difference escept the magazine. I liked the way the Buckmark felt and balanced, and some days hit things so intuitively I thought the gun was magic. But I ended up keeping the MKIII because it was a "nicer" gun than the Buckmark. How one defines that is subjective so there it is.
I eventually sold the MKIII as well because I stopped shooiting it and needed more fun funds. But now I think I'd like a MKIV because it is just too cool how they redesigend it to be more realistic to take down and put back together for cleaning.
The greatest difference, and the reason I went and bought tthe new MKIII at the time rather than the older MKII was the magazine release. It is a button. Dropping the mag on a MKIII is similar to other pistols I shoot. Faster mag changes than the "European" magazine latch at the heel of the hand-grips. That design is just dated besides being a pain in the ass (to me).
Anyway, hope you get a nice one, whichever you decide to move on.
I eventually sold the MKIII as well because I stopped shooiting it and needed more fun funds. But now I think I'd like a MKIV because it is just too cool how they redesigend it to be more realistic to take down and put back together for cleaning.
The greatest difference, and the reason I went and bought tthe new MKIII at the time rather than the older MKII was the magazine release. It is a button. Dropping the mag on a MKIII is similar to other pistols I shoot. Faster mag changes than the "European" magazine latch at the heel of the hand-grips. That design is just dated besides being a pain in the ass (to me).
Anyway, hope you get a nice one, whichever you decide to move on.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." -Gandhi
Re: Mark III vs Buckmark?
5I have a Mk iii 22/45 and have modified it somewhat, a la the Viking's Mk II. I also have a pre-buckmark Browning Challenger that is a wonderful pistol.
I think you would be happy with either of your options but, If you are planning to shoot for accuracy, I'd get the Ruger due to the aforementioned aftermarket. As was also mentioned, the Mk IV solves the take down problem (which is not as terrible as some would have you believe).
I think you would be happy with either of your options but, If you are planning to shoot for accuracy, I'd get the Ruger due to the aforementioned aftermarket. As was also mentioned, the Mk IV solves the take down problem (which is not as terrible as some would have you believe).
Re: Mark III vs Buckmark?
6The mag release is a minor thing on a pistol I only use for bulleye type shooting. Yes, it's slower than a button but I don't need to reload that gun fast and it means the target grip can be more enclosing.Bisbee wrote: The greatest difference, and the reason I went and bought tthe new MKIII at the time rather than the older MKII was the magazine release. It is a button. Dropping the mag on a MKIII is similar to other pistols I shoot. Faster mag changes than the "European" magazine latch at the heel of the hand-grips. That design is just dated besides being a pain in the ass (to me).
This is mine, BTW - that soft, tacky Volquartsen grip just fits like a glove:
Re: Mark III vs Buckmark?
7I had a MKii few years ago, and sold it because I didn't have time to shoot anymore. Now that I have a bit more time I'm looking at another target pistol.
The MKiv is at the top of the list for me... Cleaning the MKii was a pain, but it shot great. Mine was purchased used, and had occasional feed issues from wear on ramp into the chamber. So if you are buying used look closely at that area.
I've never shot a Browning, but I personally like the look,feel, and aftermarket a availability of the MKiv, and I hope that it is as intuitive to shoot as my MKii was. However if I find a great deal on a Buckmark I wouldn't pass it up.
Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
The MKiv is at the top of the list for me... Cleaning the MKii was a pain, but it shot great. Mine was purchased used, and had occasional feed issues from wear on ramp into the chamber. So if you are buying used look closely at that area.
I've never shot a Browning, but I personally like the look,feel, and aftermarket a availability of the MKiv, and I hope that it is as intuitive to shoot as my MKii was. However if I find a great deal on a Buckmark I wouldn't pass it up.
Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
Re: Mark III vs Buckmark?
8Two tools you need for the pre-MK IV: a loop of string to pull the takedown latch out and a soft face hammer to loosen the upper half from the lower. Then it's not that hard.
Re: Mark III vs Buckmark?
9I have the 5 1/2" Mark II bull barrel and prefer the magazine release that it has. It likes to stovepipe and after many years of shooting it I finally put two and two together - it has to be gripped very firmly and it works just fine. I also had a few sight problems: 1. As with many handguns, the front sight needed loctite to stay on (should have been at the factory but no one ever does). 2. The rear adjustable sights tend to move a little bit every few outings - mildly annoying but whatever. It's 15 years old so I may have got a bit of a turd, ruger may have tweaked things a little, or there are other brands of sights one could put on.
My guess is you can probably get a brand new gun for just a few dollars more than a used.
If I had to do it again, I'd get the 6 7/8 bull barrel. The bull barrel is a necessity imo unless you are going strictly for the Luger look, and the 6 7/8 barrel will help bring out it's full potential. I can shoot 10 shots from a bench and get 3" groups with little trouble. I know it can do better with a little more sight radius.
My guess is you can probably get a brand new gun for just a few dollars more than a used.
If I had to do it again, I'd get the 6 7/8 bull barrel. The bull barrel is a necessity imo unless you are going strictly for the Luger look, and the 6 7/8 barrel will help bring out it's full potential. I can shoot 10 shots from a bench and get 3" groups with little trouble. I know it can do better with a little more sight radius.
Re: Mark III vs Buckmark?
10Thanks for the replies. It sounds like both platforms are good, but there's more aftermarket parts/upgrades for the Ruger series. As to new vs used, curtism1234 is correct that new guns are only a little more than new. A quick look at gunbroker seems to confirm that. I'd prefer to go with new, but won't rule out a lightly used pistol. BTW, the heavy taper barrel was mentioned a few times, what advantages does it have over thinner (more luger looking) barrel? It is muzzle flip? Balance? or something else. They do look better though....
Hopefully I'll get to the range on Friday. They have a Mark III there that I like to shoot. :-)
Hopefully I'll get to the range on Friday. They have a Mark III there that I like to shoot. :-)
Re: Mark III vs Buckmark?
11Hell the MK 4 is available now, I wouldn't look at a MK III if I was buying new now. I've shot both and like them about equally well. Nothing wrong with either series, I have a 22/45 that I like quite a bit.
Re: Mark III vs Buckmark?
12Mainly you can get more shots before the barrel heats up and opens your groups. You'll get a difference balance with it, but that's more subjective in my opinion.MaxWyatt wrote:Thanks for the replies. It sounds like both platforms are good, but there's more aftermarket parts/upgrades for the Ruger series. As to new vs used, curtism1234 is correct that new guns are only a little more than new. A quick look at gunbroker seems to confirm that. I'd prefer to go with new, but won't rule out a lightly used pistol. BTW, the heavy taper barrel was mentioned a few times, what advantages does it have over thinner (more luger looking) barrel? It is muzzle flip? Balance? or something else. They do look better though....
Hopefully I'll get to the range on Friday. They have a Mark III there that I like to shoot. :-)
Re: Mark III vs Buckmark?
13Thanks for the explanation.curtism1234 wrote:
Mainly you can get more shots before the barrel heats up and opens your groups. You'll get a difference balance with it, but that's more subjective in my opinion.
Re: Mark III vs Buckmark?
14Definitely haven't ruled that out, but the II/III's are cheaper. I'm cheap. I can buy ammo/target grips/etc with the money I save, so I have to consider that. It sounds like the II is a little easier than the III to strip so that may weigh in a bit. Regardless, it'll probably come down to a good deal coming my way. :-)shinzen wrote:Hell the MK 4 is available now, I wouldn't look at a MK III if I was buying new now. I've shot both and like them about equally well. Nothing wrong with either series, I have a 22/45 that I like quite a bit.
Re: Mark III vs Buckmark?
15MaxWyatt wrote:Definitely haven't ruled that out, but the II/III's are cheaper. I'm cheap. I can buy ammo/target grips/etc with the money I save, so I have to consider that. It sounds like the II is a little easier than the III to strip so that may weigh in a bit. Regardless, it'll probably come down to a good deal coming my way. :-)shinzen wrote:Hell the MK 4 is available now, I wouldn't look at a MK III if I was buying new now. I've shot both and like them about equally well. Nothing wrong with either series, I have a 22/45 that I like quite a bit.
I may be wrong, but I don't think the Mark III is very different than the Mark II in assembly
As far as the Mark III vs Mark IV, I'd just get whatever is cheaper. There could be some new old stock available on the cheap. Before getting a Mark IV, read up on Rimfire Central and make sure people aren't having any problems. It's like buying a new car that just had a drastic model change --- let someone find out all it's problems first
Re: Mark III vs Buckmark?
16curtism1234 wrote:MaxWyatt wrote:Definitely haven't ruled that out, but the II/III's are cheaper. I'm cheap. I can buy ammo/target grips/etc with the money I save, so I have to consider that. It sounds like the II is a little easier than the III to strip so that may weigh in a bit. Regardless, it'll probably come down to a good deal coming my way. :-)shinzen wrote:Hell the MK 4 is available now, I wouldn't look at a MK III if I was buying new now. I've shot both and like them about equally well. Nothing wrong with either series, I have a 22/45 that I like quite a bit.
I may be wrong, but I don't think the Mark III is very different than the Mark II in assembly
As far as the Mark III vs Mark IV, I'd just get whatever is cheaper. There could be some new old stock available on the cheap. Before getting a Mark IV, read up on Rimfire Central and make sure people aren't having any problems. It's like buying a new car that just had a drastic model change --- let someone find out all it's problems first
I just watched a couple videos and the II/III pistols are nearly identical to field strip. I'll keep an eye out on Rimfire Central, but a quick survey just now didn't raise any red flags. It'll be a little while before I can pull the trigger (pun intended) on a new purchase so I'll check back from time to time to see if that changes.
Now I just need to do my taxes and sell a Ducati and I'll have some money to play with.
Re: Mark III vs Buckmark?
17FIY, the internals of the III and II are not the same. The III has a mag disconnect for the tigger which is a lawyer thing. People say a stock II has a crisper trigger and a modified III requires removing the disconnector to get the same trigger feel.
My III was all original and I didn't feel the trigger was bad. All subjective and you'd probably need a back to back test to feel the difference. I just accepted that I wasn't shooting a single-action revolver and rolled with it.
The IV will also have that lawyer trigger if that matters.
My III was all original and I didn't feel the trigger was bad. All subjective and you'd probably need a back to back test to feel the difference. I just accepted that I wasn't shooting a single-action revolver and rolled with it.
The IV will also have that lawyer trigger if that matters.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." -Gandhi
Re: Mark III vs Buckmark?
18My Mark II trigger is probably around 3 pounds straight from the factory
Re: Mark III vs Buckmark?
19Sounds compelling.curtism1234 wrote:My Mark II trigger is probably around 3 pounds straight from the factory
Re: Mark III vs Buckmark?
20I don't think I would count on that. My 22/45 was pretty heavy until I installed the Volquartsen kit, and removed the mag disconnect. It's a sweet-breaking 2 pounds now.
Re: Mark III vs Buckmark?
21Isn't the 22/45 based on the Mark III rather than the Mark II? I get confused sometimes...Bucolic wrote:I don't think I would count on that. My 22/45 was pretty heavy until I installed the Volquartsen kit, and removed the mag disconnect. It's a sweet-breaking 2 pounds now.
Re: Mark III vs Buckmark?
22Both the 2 and 3 have that latch/pin thing in the back for removing and replacing the bolt. For the Buckmark, one has to remove the top rail and unship the barrel to clean from the breach. BTW, since both sights are on the same receiver/barrel on the Ruger, it requires no readjustment after reassembly. Triggers are about the same on all three with maybe a slight advantage to the Browning. The Buckmark has an aluminum frame so it is lighter.
Yet she persisted.
Re: Mark III vs Buckmark?
23Yes, mine is a Mk iii. If I had to choose between a 22/45 and a standard Mk, I would go with the latter due to its metal frame. My 22/45 is a fine shooter though, with several wins and placements in the LGC postal and bullseye matches.MaxWyatt wrote:Isn't the 22/45 based on the Mark III rather than the Mark II? I get confused sometimes...Bucolic wrote:I don't think I would count on that. My 22/45 was pretty heavy until I installed the Volquartsen kit, and removed the mag disconnect. It's a sweet-breaking 2 pounds now.
Re: Mark III vs Buckmark?
24No. It started with the MK II and then went through revisions on the MK III. One of the biggest differences is that the MK II version does not have replaceable grips- and some of the earlier MK III's didn't either. Also the lower is polymer.MaxWyatt wrote:Isn't the 22/45 based on the Mark III rather than the Mark II? I get confused sometimes...Bucolic wrote:I don't think I would count on that. My 22/45 was pretty heavy until I installed the Volquartsen kit, and removed the mag disconnect. It's a sweet-breaking 2 pounds now.
On the plus side, this thread inspired me to finally order the Volquartzen competition lower for my 22/45 It's already a laser gun, so this should be fun.
Re: Mark III vs Buckmark?
25Ooo la la! I have been jonesing over that lower for several years but could not justify the price. I look forward to hearing your review of it.