I'm interested in buying a 22lr pistol for target shooting. I am interested in the Browning Buckmark and the Ruger Mark iv. I am a bit confused, however. Both guns come in target and field (hunting) models. I'm wondering what the differences are, and what exactly are the benefits of a bull barrel.
Also, for shooting in cold weather, is a synthetic grip better than a wooden one? The Browning Target has only a wood grip.
Thanks,
Randy
The most likely difference is the way the guns are marketed. The bull barrel provides additional weight, which would provide a little more inertia for the barrel and thus minimize movement during shooting. I suspect any advantage is small.
I doubt you could go wrong with either gun. I have a basic model Buckmark. The synthetic grips are more comfortable than the wood on the more expensive models, so that is what I chose. It is very accurate and easy to shoot well.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Any legal information I may post is general information, and is not legal advice. Such information may or may not apply to your specific situation. I am not your attorney unless an attorney-client relationship is separately and privately established.
For Ruger, the Hunter model has a fluted barrel and adjustable fiber optic sights, and the Target model has the same barrel without the flutes and adjustable plain black sights. The "blued" version of the Target model has an aluminium frame while all of the Target models are stainless. i suspect the Hunter will cost significantly more than the Target model (MSRP $769) due to the fluting and fiber optic sights, with the blued Target model being the least expensive (MSRP $529). The stainless Target model has an MSRP of $689.
The heavy barrels are easier to hold steady on target due to inertia and torque, and the Hunter model provides a bit less weight and improved stiffness. The reality of the Hunter barrel is that it is better at separating cash from your bank account. The fiber optic sight is useful in the field, but the Ruger Mark aftermarket is rich in improved parts.
With those prices, I would strongly consider a Ruger Mark II Target as people abandon them for the new Mark IV "hotness". My last ones cost me $300 apiece. That is a lot of rimfire ammo.
Typically a Field model has fixed sights and plain grips while the Target model will have adjustable sights and fancier grips, usually made of wood and may have a heavier barrel and polished finish.
If the majority of the use will be to shoot targets and not be carried, I would suggest a target model as the adjustable sights can be a nice feature when trying out different types of 22 ammo.
-Seconds Count. Misses Don't-
Thanks folks for the info. The reason I'm interested in the Mark iv as opposed to the ii or iii is because, from what I've read, disassembly/assembly is much easier with the iv.
Randy
Well....Originally Posted by randyflycaster
That's true, but if you have reasonable hand eye coordination, reassembling a Ruger Mk 2 really isn't that big a deal. You'll spend a little while learning the trick to it, and after that you just do it. I think people who complain about it are being a little big precious.
My requirements for accuracy for small game hunting are every bit as rigorous as any "target" requirements I would lay on myself, so I do my small game hunting with a a bull barrel target Mk 2. It settles in the hand quite well and is very accurate.
I would second the suggestion of buying a good used Mk 2. They are an absolute bargain.
I was into 10mm Auto before it sold out and went mainstream, but these days I'm here for the revolver and epidemiology information.
After a few more minutes of reflection, I did come up with one caveat on the used Mk 2. As I move into the bifocal years, I'm contemplating putting an optic on my Mk2, to make those bunny head shots more of a sure thing. My Mk2 predates Ruger's practice of drilling and tapping the receiver, so many of my scope mounting options are a little clunky.
After a certain point, they did start drilling and tapping Mk2 receivers, so that's something to look for. The later models had more concessions for mounting an optic as well.
I was into 10mm Auto before it sold out and went mainstream, but these days I'm here for the revolver and epidemiology information.
Here is the fix for the non-D&T Mark II models. http://rugerforum.net/optics/48534-r...ii-target.html
The Mark II diassembly/assembly process has to be learned as it is unique. That being said, it is not too hard to learn, and the Mark II not only saves money. It also does not have the magazine safety.
I never could understand why people make the disassembly -or rather the reassembly - into such a big deal, when it really isn't. (Sample size of three, two Mk III 22/45's and the ex's Mk II.) Sure it has its quirks, but just how often are people taking these things apart for it to matter that much?!
Sent from my Infernal Contraption using Tapatalk
IDPA SSP classification: Sharpshooter
F.A.S.T. classification: Intermediate
Reply With Quote