View Full Version : first .22

06-24-2008, 9:02 PM
I'm turning 21 soon like others.

So for my first handgun I think I should get a .22Lr since its cheap and I can practice a lot. I can always get another handgun later on since I've been saving for awhile.

I'm currently leading towards:

-Ruger Mark 3 22/45 (because i like 1911s and will own several throughout my life time)

-Ruger Mark 3 (whats the difference between this and the 22/45, besides grip)

-Browning Buckmark not sure which model to get (any suggestions)

I don't really know about a revolver any good DA revolvers out there?

I'm looking for a workhorse to get a lot of practice before i dive into centerfire handguns.

oh yeah i've handled all of these pistols and fired the rugers at the range, will eventually fire a buckmark, but from feel alone its pretty nice.

I've watched some youtube videos on cleaning and assembly and they seem pretty straight forward with practice.
Thanks in advance

06-24-2008, 9:43 PM
i like the predecessor of the markIII any of the predecessors actually but specifically the "standard"(original model before markI or markII).

i seriously dislike the unneeded safety junk they added in, as well as the other unneeded " improvements".

i say try a used markI or II or standard if you can find one. they all use the same magazines( cep a few of the early ones that the button has to be switched to the other side, im not an expert on this issue)

i have had a little experiance with the buckmarks, they seem pretty good. id need to shoot one extensively to know how much i like em.

06-24-2008, 9:44 PM
I turned 21 recently too (like 8 months, ok, not so recent :p) and I got a 9mm but have been looking at getting a .22 as well because ammo is $$$

I grew up shooting a Mark II and really like it (except the mag release, but i think they changed it on the Mk III). HOWEVER, I'm leaning toward a Buckmark now just because 1. it seems to retail a little cheaper, but more importantly 2. It is easier to modify/work on. Ruger put the serial number on the barrel which is part of the frame on the Mark series pistols, so to re-barrel or do work on it is a pain because its basically buying a new pistol. The Buckmark is more modular so you can swap barrel easier and there is this site I found with some cool rail mounts and stuff http://www.tacticalsol.com/store/pc/viewCategories.asp?idCategory=9 not to mention threaded barrels if you ever get a cert for it :p not to mention that the Buckmark is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay easier to break down, I always hate cleaning the Mk II.
anyways, just my 2 cents...

06-25-2008, 6:53 AM
I'd recommend the Buckmark:
-Feels better in my hand (YMMV)
-As accurate (for me) as the Ruger
-Is easier to modify than the Ruger
-A simple spring flip will bring the trigger pull down to the 2-3Lb range.
-Cleaning is easier
-Depending on model - may be cheaper than the Ruger

I've got a SS Camper with the fiber sights (see below), and love it. I also have a Ruger Mk III Hunter, but I shoot the Buckmark much more.

06-25-2008, 7:35 AM
I recently got a Buckmark Micro (short barrel) and it is a great gun. It doesn't like the super cheap Federal brick ammo (darn it), but works perfectly with the CCI Blazer ammo which is still pretty reasonable at about $7.00 a hundred. Got it sighted in and it's a tack driver, extremely accurate and way fun to shoot.

06-25-2008, 7:38 AM
I had the 22/45 thinking I would like the grip style better than the standard MkII, but to be honest, the MkII grew on me, and I sold the 22/45. Also, the mags were not as reliable on my 22/45 for some reason. I have never owned the Buckmark, but I would probably consider the take down cleaning procedure on the Buckmark vs. MkIII. The Rugers are a pain to clean IMHO...

06-25-2008, 7:57 AM
Either one's a great gun. For the Ruger, MkII is a classic, but MkIII has a mag release similar to more centerfire handguns, which can be important for muscle memory training. My MK512 (MkII bull barrel) is very accurate and a great shooter, if a bit heavy. Sure, it's a pain to break down, but I only do it every few thousand rounds.

I don't have a Buckmark, but it sounds like a good alternative to the Ruger.

For revolvers, the best bet is the S&W 617/17/18. They're expensive, though. The smaller ones are less accurate, as are most other brands.

Just avoid the Mosquito, P22, Beretta 21A, any cheap revolvers, etc - they can come later. They just don't have the accuracy, and an accurate .22 is one of the best practice guns you can get.

06-25-2008, 8:06 AM
I just bought the MkIII 22/45 and it was my first Handgun purchase. My reasonings were very similar to yours:

1. It emulates my next purchase - a 1911.

2. Ammo is dirt cheap. I put 400 rounds through it last weekend and it cost me less that $15. 400 rounds with .45 ACP would have cost me $160...

3. I want the fiancee to start shooting.

06-25-2008, 8:23 AM
I love shooting .22 LR - more so these days what with the price of ammo. So far, my .22s are S/A revolvers - Ruger Single-Six and Colt New Frontier. Have been considering a semi-auto. This may sound like a stupid question, but since all autos, as far as I know, use rimless ammo, how can a .22 semi-auto get away with shooting the .22 LR cartridge that has a rim?

06-25-2008, 9:52 AM
The Ruger grip angle is too odd for my once-broken wrist. I have a bunch of Rugers, love 'em all, but the Buckmark is the one to get here. 5.5" Camper is cheap, over 10,000 rounds through mine and no problems, xlnt reliability.
Winchester Wildcats work great, with a Tasco red dot empty shotgun shells
left out at the range at 25 yrds and more run and hide when the Buckmark appears! Also, the favorite of all learners who try shooting for the first time!

06-25-2008, 10:07 AM
I went with a Buckmark Contour model and I love it. I think it is the coolest looking buckmark:


06-25-2008, 10:18 AM
My first handgun was a S&W 617, 10 shot. So much fun (and still is). It was the perfect second step for me after a bolt action .22 rifle.

06-25-2008, 10:23 AM
The Buckmark's seem cool, but I don't own one. I love my MkI. Great little tack driving pistol that I picked up used for under $200 OTD about 6 months ago. Cleaning is a pain it is true, but you get used to the take down procedure. I still can't believe how accurate the gun is. It is like 40 years old and has god only knows how many rounds down the barrel on a standard non bull barrel, but it still shoots tighter groups than I can.

I would probably prefer a MkII though, just for the last-shot bolt hold-open and the 10rd (instead of 9rd) mags.

Hope that helps

06-25-2008, 2:35 PM
I just picked up a buckmark. My first handgun was a Springfield XD9 and this will be my second. I wanted something that is cheaper to shoot so I can take people with me to the range and not have it cost me an arm and a leg. I held several different versions of the buckmark and the Rugers and I liked the buckmark the best. I turned 21 in April.

06-25-2008, 3:07 PM
Had a lot of Rugers but never a Buckmark. Once you get used to how the Ruger goes together, it's nothing to take it apart and put together. The Rugers will go on forever. Have a 6" standard and a 5.5" bull 22/45. Each has it's good points. Fixed sights for knock around; target sights for target work.

06-25-2008, 4:22 PM
I have a buckmark and the ruger mkII 22/45

I like the ruger better, but both are good guns. The grip angle on a buckmark is pretty close to a 1911 as well, like the 22/45.

The difference between a mkII/mkIII and the 22/45 versions of same, is the grip angle similar to a 1911, and the mag release in the same spot as a 1911 (which was changed to be same on mkIII models) The mki/mkII was under grip-

Other than grip angle/controls- the mkII/mkIII is steel frame, 22/45 is plastic frame.

If you choose a ruger, stick with the 5" ish inch models- Mine is a 6 7/8 slabside, and is muzzle heavy- other than that, I have zero complaints.

06-25-2008, 4:43 PM
I think I'll go with a bull barrel MK III for my first .22.

What's a good length for one? What's the pros and cons between getting a 4 inch, 5 inch or a 6 inch model. I kind of want a 4 inch since it would match my Sig P6 more.

06-25-2008, 5:09 PM
My first 22 was a Buckmark Camper and that would be my choice if I had to do it again. I love that gun!

Not a bunch of difference in the models. Get a URX if you have small hands. The Camper comes with a plastic rear sight base that breaks if you look at it wrong. Easy and cheap to replace or you could put a scope base on it and that eliminates the sight base. You could also uprgrade to the metal sight base but you would need a new rear sight as well.

I flipped the spring for a nice trigger pull, like caldude did. Then I put a scope base and a cheapo red dot on it and that is it! Sweet trigger now and fun as hell. By the way, the stock trigger is not bad at all. Mine eats all ammo I've tried, and so far it has been all cheap bulk ammo.

06-25-2008, 6:08 PM
I think I'll go with a bull barrel MK III for my first .22.

What's a good length for one? What's the pros and cons between getting a 4 inch, 5 inch or a 6 inch model. I kind of want a 4 inch since it would match my Sig P6 more.

A longer barrel is generally more accurate, and higher velocity, but too long and it quickly becomes muzzle heavy. I'd recommend 5 inch as it's about as long as practical without the extra weight.

There's little common ground between the 22 and your sig no reason to match barrel length- more important to match overall weight/feel and pointability.
my opinion anyway.

06-25-2008, 7:33 PM
well thanks guys i think i'll look into the buckmark more, but i'll probably end up getting both one day.

too bad the smith is too pricey a nice DA revolver would have been fun.