While I'm still awaiting my CT permit, I'm of course doing a lot research on my first pistol.
No question on many of these forums the Ruger Mk IIs and IIIs are hands down favorites. I am looking at the several Browning rimfires available...The Medalist and Challengers. The Buckmarks. I was wondering if any of you out there may give me some opinions on the Brownings. Needless to say they're more expensive than the Rugers, but I think they deserve a look at.
Browning 22 Rimfires?
Moderators: Bullseye, Moderators
Re: Browning 22 Rimfires?
others will chime-in and correct my years/models...abutt1 wrote:While I'm still awaiting my CT permit, I'm of course doing a lot research on my first pistol.
No question on many of these forums the Ruger Mk IIs and IIIs are hands down favorites. I am looking at the several Browning rimfires available...The Medalist and Challengers. The Buckmarks. I was wondering if any of you out there may give me some opinions on the Brownings. Needless to say they're more expensive than the Rugers, but I think they deserve a look at.
It is my understanding that the older "Belgian Browning .22 pistols"
from the 60s-70s (??) are Excellent/Superior made pistols...
but $$$, when you can get one. The current/recent ones are just so-so.
The Buckmark has a broad variety of 'models' and is a good pistol,
but I scratch my head and wonder where the Forums and Aftermarket
products are for the BuckMark... compared to the Ruger...
The customizability of the Ruger MK may not be your interests,
BUT it does represent a body of knowledge to draw-from when needed.
S&W has their "22A1" as a low-$competitor to the Rugers...
and seems to be a nice pistol, again no tweaking readily available.
however, their 'Model 41'(?) is an excellent target pistol...
and I've seen some older S&W .22 Revolvers that are good Target shooters. again $$$.
Actually, I'd consider suggesting that you should consider getting a
BuckMark model that appeals to you... it may help you appreciate
your Ruger a little more...
Good Luck.
Last edited by toyfj40 on Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
greener
I think it comes down to how well it fits and feels and what you want to do with it. The best bet is to shoot as many brands and types as you can before you buy. Opinions vary according to owner's preference and experience.
My opinion, based on owning and shooting .22 semiautos:
Browning Buck Mark: (I have a Standard). Upsides: Very accurate and consistent out of the box. Grip is better than I thought before buying it. Trigger is good, reasonably light and crisp. Seems to shoot anything I feed it very well and is not particularly sensitive to ammo. About the only tweaks are reversing the sear spring to lighten the trigger, grips and add-on barrels. Downsides: Comes with one magazine, mags are about $30 each. The standard does not come with an optics rail. Adding the rail (~$30) requires removing the rear sights. Field stripping is fairly easy, but I don't like having to unscrew the sight base to field strip the pistol. Overall: the Buck Mark Standard is an excellent .22 semiauto. It feels good and shoots well. I like the feel of the Bullseye and Target models, but didn't want to spend over $400 for them.
Ruger MKIII: (I have a Hunter and 5.5" bull barrel 22/45). Upsides: Very accurate and consistent out of the box. The trigger is good and can be adjusted by the user. The Ruger aftermarket is outstanding. I'm not sure if there is much you can't get to tweak a Ruger, even though it shoots darned well as is. I've done a VQ trigger and sear replacement on both of mine and it has been well worth the money. The pistols come with an optics rail and two magazines. The "standard" rugers are all steel construction. Grips are easily changed to fit the user. The 22/45 has a polymer grip frame and is a touch lighter. The grips feel "skinny" at first, but you adjust to them in not time. Downsides: The 22/45 grips cannot be changed without some serious work in abrading away the existing grips. One of the "downsides" is the difficulty in first time field stripping. I've actually heard someone say that only a master gunsmith can field strip a Ruger. Read Bullseye's instructions and you will discover it's not that hard. I find the tool-less field strip of the Ruger easier than the Buck Mark.
S&W 22A: Upsides: Accurate and consistent. Easiest to field strip. Very reliable pistol. I like the trigger, but it is not as "good" as the Ruger or Buck Mark. You can change barrels in a matter of seconds. comes with optics rail and 2 magazines. S&W has the best warranty in the business. Downsides: After market consists of changing grips and barrels. Does best with standard velocity ammo.
Walther P22: Upsides: definitely a winner in the light, unique and cool market. Not very sensitive to ammo. Loads of fun to shoot if you aren't looking for tight groups. Downsides: Not particularly accurate. Design and materials of construction can lead to very early wear on the zinc alloy slide. Optics rails look awfully clumsy. Plastic sights that don't hold a candle to the other three brands.
Although 70+% of the P22 owners are rabid fans, it is not in the same class as the BM, MKIII or 22A. The Buck Mark, MKIII or MKII, and 22A are, IMO, "can't go wrong" .22 semiautos. I've shot my best groups with my 22A (7" barrel). If I had to take only one pistol out, it would be the Hunter. If I were going to buy one tomorrow, I'd be conflicted. I'd like either a MKIII competition model or a Buck Mark Target model. About the same price, but I think the MKIII is a better overall pistol.
My opinion, based on owning and shooting .22 semiautos:
Browning Buck Mark: (I have a Standard). Upsides: Very accurate and consistent out of the box. Grip is better than I thought before buying it. Trigger is good, reasonably light and crisp. Seems to shoot anything I feed it very well and is not particularly sensitive to ammo. About the only tweaks are reversing the sear spring to lighten the trigger, grips and add-on barrels. Downsides: Comes with one magazine, mags are about $30 each. The standard does not come with an optics rail. Adding the rail (~$30) requires removing the rear sights. Field stripping is fairly easy, but I don't like having to unscrew the sight base to field strip the pistol. Overall: the Buck Mark Standard is an excellent .22 semiauto. It feels good and shoots well. I like the feel of the Bullseye and Target models, but didn't want to spend over $400 for them.
Ruger MKIII: (I have a Hunter and 5.5" bull barrel 22/45). Upsides: Very accurate and consistent out of the box. The trigger is good and can be adjusted by the user. The Ruger aftermarket is outstanding. I'm not sure if there is much you can't get to tweak a Ruger, even though it shoots darned well as is. I've done a VQ trigger and sear replacement on both of mine and it has been well worth the money. The pistols come with an optics rail and two magazines. The "standard" rugers are all steel construction. Grips are easily changed to fit the user. The 22/45 has a polymer grip frame and is a touch lighter. The grips feel "skinny" at first, but you adjust to them in not time. Downsides: The 22/45 grips cannot be changed without some serious work in abrading away the existing grips. One of the "downsides" is the difficulty in first time field stripping. I've actually heard someone say that only a master gunsmith can field strip a Ruger. Read Bullseye's instructions and you will discover it's not that hard. I find the tool-less field strip of the Ruger easier than the Buck Mark.
S&W 22A: Upsides: Accurate and consistent. Easiest to field strip. Very reliable pistol. I like the trigger, but it is not as "good" as the Ruger or Buck Mark. You can change barrels in a matter of seconds. comes with optics rail and 2 magazines. S&W has the best warranty in the business. Downsides: After market consists of changing grips and barrels. Does best with standard velocity ammo.
Walther P22: Upsides: definitely a winner in the light, unique and cool market. Not very sensitive to ammo. Loads of fun to shoot if you aren't looking for tight groups. Downsides: Not particularly accurate. Design and materials of construction can lead to very early wear on the zinc alloy slide. Optics rails look awfully clumsy. Plastic sights that don't hold a candle to the other three brands.
Although 70+% of the P22 owners are rabid fans, it is not in the same class as the BM, MKIII or 22A. The Buck Mark, MKIII or MKII, and 22A are, IMO, "can't go wrong" .22 semiautos. I've shot my best groups with my 22A (7" barrel). If I had to take only one pistol out, it would be the Hunter. If I were going to buy one tomorrow, I'd be conflicted. I'd like either a MKIII competition model or a Buck Mark Target model. About the same price, but I think the MKIII is a better overall pistol.
-
Average Joe
- New member
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 7:37 pm
They are both excellent pistols, but it's only between if you are in that price range, for neither is truly top of the line. The choices really start getting good when you can fork out say $700 to $1200 dollars. One of my all time favorites is a Benelli mp95e, bought barely used for less than $600, but my Ruger is right next to it.Average Joe wrote:When it comes to .22 pistols, the choice is always between the Rugers and the Buckmarks...Both are fine handguns, it all depends on you taste, and how the gun fits and feels in your hand...