Author Topic: Buckmark durability versus Ruger Mk. series? (Read 5668 times)

His lordship. · « **on:** August 14, 2010, 09:13:26 AM »

I own both the Ruger Mk. 3 and the Browning Buck mark, have only had both of them around 4 years now. Been doing some research and everyone feels that you cannot wear out a Ruger, except for a firing pin, springs, etc. But I have heard from several sources that the Browning is not as durable, one guy says he had 4,000 rounds through his and says "the bolt face and the rear of the barrel are starting to peen or impact mark severely".

I finally took my Buck mark apart for a major cleaning this week and it seems fine. I think I have around 1,300 rounds through it. I did notice that the firing pin housing is all plastic, a pain in the neck to get out of the gun too, had to pull the barrel off. In comparison to the Ruger, it does seem more tinker toy like, but maybe it is all that aluminum in it?

Has anyone put major mileage on their Buck mark and noticed wear issues?

Thanks.

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #1 on:** August 14, 2010, 10:42:25 AM »

Christmas of 1985 Dad and Step mom bought me a Browning Buckmark.
I think it was one of the first years it was out. We looked at many and Dad was not willing to part with the $ to get a Hi Standard like the one I was shooting at school. Of the options the Browning had the best trigger. Short and crisp with little over travel compared to the Ruger Mk II of the time.
That first Christmas I think I put three bricks of ammo through it. I think I just barly cleaned it between each brick.
It went back to school with me. I was on the Valley Forge Millitary Academy Pistol team. While not the best on the team I was the third best in averges.
At Shcool it got a steady diet of 50 rounds a day from January to almost the end of the school year. It did not get a good cleaning till I got home.
Since them it gets shot on a regular bases. I think last time I counted, it had some 50,000+ rounds through it and that was before I bought all the other 22LR handguns I have.
When I go to Southern Ca I was shooting a lot more an have added two more Buck marks and like them very much.
My first one still gets a lot of use. The second one was a long barreled model with the forend. The third was a almost new one at a really good price and thought it could live at Dad's house in NC for small game but Step mom said NO hand guns here.
My forst uck gets used most. I only bring the third one in places where I may loose it like hunting on horse back.
The second is strictly a target model.
Having had my BuckMark apart on many occasions the frame has held up well. You need to use proper tools and make sure you snug up all screws but not over tighten them. Like any machine if you take care of it, treat it right it will be around for a long time.

1sourdough · « **Reply #2 on:** August 15, 2010, 02:29:48 PM »

2 Mark IIs & a Buckmark here, I like em all. Both take a little to give a good breakdown & cleaning.

His lordship. · « **Reply #3 on:** September 04, 2010, 07:34:17 AM »

Traded my Buckmark off, the rear screw kept coming loose. It had the lock washer, and I even applied blue locktite to hold it, the impact of the slide hits the area and shakes the screw loose, poor design. It was more accurate than my Ruger Mk. 3, got a new 22/45, accurate gun.

Keith L · « **Reply #4 on:** September 04, 2010, 12:28:12 PM »

What screw are you talking about? My son and I each have a Buckmark, have never had a screw come loose, and they don't feel at all like tinkertoys. We shoot the daylights out of them and they still keep on working.

Dee · « **Reply #5 on:** September 04, 2010, 12:41:49 PM »

Here's one where I can't even begin to match "the duck" with his experience in the Buckmark, BUT! If he says it's so, then it is. I have had two, and foolishly sold the first one. I have another, and it will leave when I leave this old world. It is everything "the duck" says it is.
I also have not a clue what screw your talking about.

Keith L · « **Reply #6 on:** September 04, 2010, 01:47:57 PM »

I sure like mine. It keeps going, is accurate, and gets nowhere near the care it should. I promise to take it down and clean it the next rainy day...

mechanic · « **Reply #7 on:** September 04, 2010, 04:08:25 PM »

I foolishly left my truck unlocked, and mine is gone for good. I will buy another. Never a problem, and I could shoot it more accurately than any handgun I've ever held.

Ben

WIL TERRY · « **Reply #8 on:** September 05, 2010, 03:00:00 PM »

LET me note here that in SOUTH AFRICA there are some RUGER 22 pistols bought from the U.S. in the '50's before we put an arms imbargo upon that country. A couple of those guns were at a range there and the records showed the pistols had 5,000,000 rounds apiece through them with nary a problem with either pistol. I read this some years ago in AMERICAN HANDGUNNER Magazine and had heard about it earlier. THINK about that for a while when someone asks you the perennial question, "HOW LONG IS MY GUN GONNA LAST?"

Dee · « **Reply #9 on:** September 05, 2010, 03:30:51 PM »

I'm not sure why, but Chris has started SEVERAL threads about inferior guns that are not inferior. He seems to be looking for fault in certain weapons, and someone to agree with him. It doesn't matter to me, and doesn't annoy me in the least, I just find it odd.

CajunBass · « **Reply #10 on:** September 09, 2010, 01:44:52 AM »

If you ever manage to wear out a gun, virtually any gun, brag about it. You've done something that not many people have ever done in one lifetime.

AtlLaw · « **Reply #11 on:** September 09, 2010, 06:07:34 AM »

Well, based on a number of reasons, including discussions here like this thread and the recommendations of a friend, I ordered a Buckmark for my wife.

I finally got her to a gun show last weekend and she was able to handle some handguns including the Ruger 22/45, the only other option I seriously considered.

When we got home she made the decision that (a) she wanted a handgun and (b) she would defer to my expertise in selecting which one. Wise move...

As far as criteria go, It needed to be a .22 so recoil would not be an issue and she could shoot it in the basement range. Understand that she's an itti bitti little white woman who has artheritis so her hands aren't very strong. But I figured if she could reach the safety and jack the action on the Ruger she could work the Browning. $:-\$ An important factor confirmed by Dee based on his wife's experience.

Guess (hope) I need to pick up a few more bricks of 22 ammo!

His lordship. · « **Reply #12 on:** September 09, 2010, 06:24:15 AM »

On the Buckmark there are two threaded fasteners that hold the top strap on, they use an allen wrench to tighten them down, remove, etc. On the older Buckmark it used a screwdriver, I suspect Browning changed that to prevent torque problems. The older Buckmarks had a solid slide assembly to hold the firing pin, the newer ones use plastic. The fastener nearest to the grip on my pistol kept coming loose, lock washer, lock tight blue formula, nothing kept it in place.

The Buckmark uses potmetal for the top strap, I have read of the camper model getting cracks in this area, on my Buckmark you could see the paint coming off from the impacts of the spent shell casing, fortunately this was all inside the gun. Steel would be a better metal for this application.

This area takes an impact from the recoil of the slide, hence the loosening. Browning did put in a recoil buffer, otherwise the impact would crack the frame. This is also where the rear sight is, so that will affect the setting for the point of aim as well.

Ruger is rock solid. The only trouble free semi-autos in .22 available are the Ruger Mk. series, the earlier Colt Woodsman and the older High standards. If you like a gun that shakes apart, get a Smith model 22A, the Beretta Neos, and the Buckmark. Nice thing about the "shake aparts" is they are at least cheap!

I have been a shooter since the 1960's and tinker toy junky guns don't do it for me.

Keith L · « **Reply #13 on:** September 09, 2010, 04:26:25 PM »

My Buckmark is a few years old, and my kids is two years old. No plastic or pot metal on either of them. I don't know what you are looking at but it doesn't sound like any Buckmark I have seen.

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #14 on:** September 10, 2010, 09:39:15 AM »

There are a few plastic parts in the Browning.
The bolt recoil shield for one is a soft plastic part.
Not sure what else to call it.
but my first one has been apart dozens of times and while it does not look brand new it is still in shape and works.
As long as you do not drop the plastic in to a jar of ore cleaner (turns the soft plastic and rubber into goo - DON"T ask How I know. but the neopreen washers in a S&W 1000 just leave a black film) they should give you years and years of service.
I sometimes wonder if the guys that have problems with different guns either do not clean them, use the propper tools to take them apart, or impropperly reassemle them, or like many of my contractors think they know better how something should work and make thier own parts, and that is what is giving them the problems.
While I picked the Buck Mark as my 22 Auto, I have owned a Ruger semi, sold it as it did exactly what the Browning did.
Had I figured out how to deal with the over travel of the mid 80's Ruger by installing a screw in the trigger I would have favored the Ruger. The Hi Standard, the Beretta 76, the S&W 41, and Colt Woodsman are all neat too.
I have not really played with the S&W 22A, some guys I know own then and they work others bad mouth them.
I have not shot a Beretta Neos, seen a few and the funky ray gun lines are not to my taste, but I am sure they are a perfectly fine.
Pick what you like and can afford to buy and feed on a regular basis and go out and shoot it.

His lordship. · « **Reply #15 on:** September 10, 2010, 11:12:49 AM »

mcwoodduck...I don't like the ray gun look of the Beretta either, there used to be lots of complaints about the trigger on those, appearently the maker fixed that as I have not heard of any complaints with the triggers recently. The rear sights seem to be the problem, some owners just put on an optical sight to fix the issue. Was considering getting one, but oh, that Buck Rogers look

I would also be open to the Smith and Wesson model 41, but from what I have read, they are expensive guns and ammo picky, some shooters say their Rugers are as accurate, and at much cheaper cost...still, I have thought about getting one.

My dream .22 would be a good High standard or a reissue of the Colt Woodsman, hear that Colt? Possible customer here.

Just don't price it too high for an honest working man, please.

DC · « **Reply #16 on:** September 18, 2010, 10:03:10 AM »

I have owned both. I sold the Ruger and kept the Buckmark because it felt better in my hand. I am a pretty fair shooter and the Buckmark is a very accurate .22. It feeds anything I put through it and appears that it will out live me by a ton of years.
I don't think the average shooter could wear out a Ruger or a Browning Buckmark anyway.

Old Griz · « **Reply #17 on:** January 10, 2011, 08:07:09 PM »

I've gotten rid of all my .22 semi-automatics except my S&W 2206. It out shot them all. Wish I could still find some 12-round mags. I may get another Ruger someday, just because I like the way they look. Then, maybe not. I don't get to shoot what I have enough.

His lordship. · « **Reply #18 on:** January 13, 2011, 08:58:48 AM »

I ended up getting a second Ruger, the 22/45, 4" barrel, with the fluted stainless barrel and the glow sights. Seems to out shoot my Mk. 3 5.5" blued bull barrel. I guess barrel length is no guarantee of accuracy. If I was to get another .22 handgun, I would get the even fancier Ruger stainless hunter/competition, or might try a Smith and Wesson top of the line model.

St George · « **Reply #19 on:** May 06, 2011, 11:23:41 AM »

I've had my Browning's for years over 18 years and no sign of year and i don't even remember a malfunction except for a misfire ( bullets fault) and not the guns.

Spencer, Carey · « **Reply #20 on:** May 14, 2011, 08:26:19 AM »

I own 2 MKII's and 1 Buckmark. While the Buckmark is a fine pistol as are all Browning firearms that have come thru my hands over the course of the years, the Rugers are definately les succeptible to wear and tear. This can be said about their revolvers compared to Smith and Wesson for example also. While the Smiths have a higher level of fit and finish, they will require a trip to a smith for retiming etc. while the Rugers are still shooting fine. Ruger above all brand names that i currently own and those who have found new homes, while they do have shortcomings(like their lawyer inspired triggers) will consistently shoot and shoot and shoot while their competitors go to the shop for refitting.

Savage · « **Reply #21 on:** May 14, 2011, 05:00:04 PM »

It's pretty easy to look at the design and materials of both the Buckmark and the Ruger, and conclude that the Ruger should easily be more durable. Based on the testimonials of numerous Buckmark owners, the Buckmark must be durable enough!
Savage

Brett · « **Reply #22 on:** May 15, 2011, 03:07:40 AM »

Quote from: Savage on May 14, 2011, 05:00:04 PM

It's pretty easy to look at the design and materials of both the Buckmark and the Ruger, and conclude that the Ruger should easily be more durable. Based on the testimonials of numerous Buckmark owners, the Buckmark must be durable enough!
Savage

I think this sums it up pretty well... +1.

Spencer, Carey · « **Reply #23 on:** May 15, 2011, 06:32:42 AM »

Good point Brett. Mine is still shooting also. Like I said, all the Brownings I have ever owned have been fine guns. They dont make any "cheese" after all, right? Some manufacturers over the years have begun to replace some parts that were metal in earlier models for more modern materials like the polymers and such. Does anyone out there know if the buckmark is one of those? If so, maybe somewhere like Numrich, or Brownells, etc. may have a metal replacement part(s) and render this a moot point.

rbuck · « **Reply #24 on:** May 23, 2011, 09:16:58 PM »

I have two of the Ruger MKI Ts. One I bought used about 40 years ago and have put maybe 20,000 rounds through it. It has broken two firing pins the last one I put in I polished the sharp edges and angles and it has worked for the last thirty years. I think it failed to feed once but it's been so long ago that I can't be sure. No noticable wear. I also have a Buckmark I bought used a couple years ago and have only put a few hundred rounds through it with out problems. Mine has a couple of non steel parts in it but they don't seem to giving any problem. I have scopes on one Ruger and the Buckmark. The Ruger is a little more accurate. I doubt if my grandkids will wear out either of them. I don't like the mag release on the Ruger and I don't like the lack of a good grip on the Buckmark slide.

GRUMPN · « **Reply #25 on:** May 27, 2011, 08:42:33 PM »

I have only had one 22 auto pistol better than my Buckmark and that was a S&W 41. There never has been a better production 22 auto than the 41 so being rated #2 to it says volumes. Ric

txpitdog · « **Reply #26 on:** June 22, 2011, 03:21:05 PM »

Looking at the two, the Ruger to me seems much better built. That said, my circa 2000 Buckmark Camper has 3000+ rounds through it, has become my primary "muddy hog in the trap" killing tool. It's been covered in mud and blood, it's been banged around, and has been cleaned maybe 3 or 4 times. It continues to hold up and to be accurate enough for squirrel headshots at 25yds.

So, how much more durable is "more durable"?

hillbill · « **Reply #27 on:** June 22, 2011, 04:11:50 PM »

i like them both but have never put the rounds thru either of them yu guys have.i have traded off all my ruger auto pistols but still have the buckmark. ill never get rid of it for sure.it just seems to be the most accurate pistol i own.nuttin agin the rugers, id like to have 3 or 4 more of them too.ill prob buy the next one i find werth the money. they are both good guns. jus a preference thing.either one with proper care shud outlast yur great grand kids

goofyoldfart · « **Reply #28 on:** June 27, 2011, 11:45:22 PM »

Just was reading the thread and have a question to ask about the Ruger's. does anyone know what the designation of Rugers' Stainless Steel competition with the 8" or so barrel is called? Many years ago I had a Mk1 in 4in barrel and put 30 or 40 bricks of ammo through it. Loved it but then got into Big-bore competition and like a damm fool let the Mk1 go. now that I'm retired I would like to get back to shooting the 22 and do so much want a Ruger. thanks for any help. God Bless to all.

Goofy <aka goofyoldfart, Godfrey and GOF>

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #29 on:** June 28, 2011, 06:21:04 AM »

Quote from: mcwoodduck on September 10, 2010, 09:39:15 AM

There are a few plastic parts in the Browning.
The bolt recoil shield for one is a soft plastic part.
Not sure what else to call it.

Well I do know what to call it.
It is called the Spring guide and on Sunday went to the range and put a box and a half through my first Buckmark from 1985.
When I went to clean it. The part was crumpled and fell apart when I disassembled the the gun for cleaning. I normally do not clean after so few rounds but I had a pile of other guns to clean and figured why not.
So far with thousands and thousands of rounds through the little gun. This is the fourth part it has needed. at $22 for four of the spring guides with shipping it is not a big cost. I hate paying more for shipping than the part and since I own three Buckmarks and a few friends have them a few spares can not hurt.
Well the first part was a new rear sight ( one of the other cadets droped it and broke the rear sight) the original sight was strange and hard to dial in, So I did not really mind.
the second part was the grips. The left stock bowed and would not allow the slide release to operate. Browning sent a new pair after a letter to them and they have been on the gun since. The third part was a firing pin. Dry firing is bad! I learned that range time and a brick of ammo is easier and cheaper as practice with results that you can see.
So far this is the fourth part and at $5 each. The little gun has so far been great. still shoots well, and functions with three parts that cost me some money, over the 26 years, but if I divide the number of rounds through the gun by the cost of the parts. It is very minimal.
Oh with the part crumpled the gun shot flawlessly. When the firing pin broke, it still worked if I remember.