Ruger’s New 22/45
Now with threaded barrel. I’ve been pondering a new 22 pistol. It’s this or the Buckmark. Folks seem to like their 22/45s but I hate that they come with magazine disconnect safeties and annoying loaded chamber indicators. Thoughts?
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
January 25th, 2011 at 10:33 am
Buy an older model without the fake safety crap and have it threaded?
Buy an integrally suppressed model from John;s guns, AWC, or Gemtech (pay $200 plus the conversion).
It’s so easy to spend other people’s money…..
January 25th, 2011 at 10:35 am
I had my heart set in a 22/45. I really WANTED to like it, but when I picked it up, it just didn’t fit my (small) hand. Too big a reach. Then I held a Buckmark and it fit me like a glove. Both are excellent guns. Go with the one that fits you.
January 25th, 2011 at 10:37 am
I’m with Skullz, what’s wrong with buying a MkII 22/45?
Last MkII (I have several) I purchased was $250 NIB from a private party. You can still get them under $300.
January 25th, 2011 at 10:39 am
In theory, MK II parts will fit current 22/45’s, eliminating the mag interlock. (I refuse to call that a safety–it means I have to insert a magazine to disassemble for cleaning, a decrease in overall safety) Haven’t done it myself.
January 25th, 2011 at 11:00 am
The buckmark is a great pistol. Love mine.
January 25th, 2011 at 11:02 am
Having owned both the Buckmark and the MkIII 22/45, I prefer the 22/45. Both are fun and accurate. Both require tools for proper disassembly (although the Buckmark is easier than the MKIII). The MkIII just feels better to me over the Buckmark, and I could shoot it better. Your experience may vary.
January 25th, 2011 at 11:12 am
we have a 22/45. I installed the volquartsen accurizing kit, and the mk II hammer and bushing, eliminating the mag-disconnect. Now its an amazingly accurate and reliable and fun to shoot gun.
I need to eliminate the LCI too, but the guy that sells the piece that fills the hole stopped making them.
but i would definitely recommend the 22/45, its a ton of fun.
January 25th, 2011 at 11:13 am
MK II Forever MK III Never.
Find a MK II and if you want you can add a Pac-Lite upper.
Or Frank W. James called the Browning 1911-22 7/8 scale gun Best of SHOT show.
(Frank also has pics of the Sig 308.)
January 25th, 2011 at 11:20 am
you forgot that the trigger also sucks and the cost to make it acceptable is half what I paid for an almost new MKIII 22/45. I’ll have to dig mine out and take it apart, finally have a spare C note floating around for the drop in replacement part..
January 25th, 2011 at 11:21 am
I do not think there is a better gun in the world for introducing a new shooter than the Browning Buckmark. One was used for me, and I have used one to introduce every new shooter I have taught.
Consider this one vote for the Buckmark.
January 25th, 2011 at 11:43 am
Might I suggest, instead of “fixing” a new gun, you buy the threaded version of the Buckmark?
January 25th, 2011 at 12:25 pm
Have a pair of Buckmarks I use as student guns in monthly FIRST Steps classes, as well two Ruger MK IIs, for those who arrive gunless. I’m pleasantly surprised at how well all 4 hold up with minimal maintenance attention. I would avoid the MK III, and do not allow students to use one in class if they brought their own (I swap out their MK III for one of my MK IIs). I refuse to allow them because: 1) the trigger is lousy, and resists just about all attempts at improvement; 2) I don’t want students to learn to think the mag interlock is a real safety device – very few guns have them, save the S&W autos and the P35 (all of which can be removed or crippled, and should be. The only real safety a gun has – or needs – is located between the ears of the user). Between the two choices, I’d pick Buckmark myself, by a small margin. They just seem to shoot better and are easier to use. Plus, they allow training to the grip mounted mag release button.
January 25th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
I’ll second the thumbs down on the “mag safety” MK III – the fact that you have to insert a mag to disassemble the gun is just crazy (WAY worse than pulling the Glock trigger to do the same) and the “loaded chamber indicator” is just a dirt magnet.
You wouldn’t go wrong with a MK II or a Buckmark – both are great.
January 25th, 2011 at 2:01 pm
I’ve owned a MKII 22/45 and a Buckmark. Both are fine pistols, and I found both to be accurate and reliable.
The grip on the Buckmark felt a little better in my hands. It might just be me, but the grip on the MKII 22/45 feels better to me than the MKIII. The newer model just seems too thin. Of course the new threaded model has the addition of grip panels now, and I haven’t had a chance to handle it yet.
I generally don’t grip much about magazine safeties. For a defensive weapon I think it could be a real hazard, rendering your weapon inoperable at the wrong time. However, on a pistol that may be used by kids or to train new shooters, an added degree of safety isn’t necessarily a bad thing…
January 25th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
Team Ruger. Accurate, relatively inexpensive, fun to shoot. I got mine when there was a six month waiting list for .22 conversion kits for the Glock 19.
January 25th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
I concur with Mark II used being preferable to Mark III. I also own a Buckmark. It is harder to manipulate the slide but I shoot better with it.
22/45: I have a MkIII and don’t like the grip; I have designated it in my mind as a pistol I will give to my daughter one day. If she doesn’t snag the Buckmark first.
January 25th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Just to mention, Tactical Solutions has upgraded barrels for both pistol. Threaded, compensated, railed, short, long . . . you could pick up the cheapest lower of whichever you like better, and upgrade the barrel to your heart’s content.
Personally, I have and love a box-stock Buckmark 5.5 Target (bull bbl, rosewood grips, Picatinny rail and hooded irons) from the mid 90’s. I have zero experience with the Ruger, so I’ll just say that my copy has a gorgeous trigger, hits half clay pigeons out to 50yds (from a rest) on the first shot, and eats CCI MiniMag like candy.
–John
January 25th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
22/45 Mark III with the replacable grip panels (cant get THAT with a MKII). Like others have said, all it takes is a $5 Mark II hammer bushing to get rid of the stupid mag disconnect (which also gets rid of the stupid mag tricks needed to break down. The orange paint on the LCI came off with the first good cleaning, now I barely notice it.
January 25th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
I was geeked about my MkIII 22/45 until I field stripped it. What a PITA that thing was to put back together!
January 25th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
Until Ruger makes one with ambidextrous controls, at least an ambi safety, I don’t care what bells and whistles they hang on it.
January 25th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
I like my Buckmark, but it has both magazine disconnect safety and a loaded chamber indicator, so you wouldn’t be getting a win there.
January 25th, 2011 at 11:36 pm
I’ve had a Buck Mark for about 6 years now. Aside from the stunning good looks of it, the thing points like pointing your index finger. It has ‘the right feel’, y’know?
Mine came with Tru-Glo sights; I bought a Weaver rail that goes on in place of the rear sight and alternate between a variable pistol scope and a red dot. It’s easily the most accurate, affordable .22 pistol with the fewest problems I’ve ever owned or spent any appreciable time shooting.
January 26th, 2011 at 4:21 am
What’s wrong with a loaded chamber indicator? I’ve found them useful for verifying weapon status in the dark, as opposed to a press check.
I don’t buy the ‘any added complexity invites mechanical failure’ argument for a modern firearm.