# Browning Buckmark vs Ruger Mark 3 vs Taurus 94



## dinkbuster1 (Oct 28, 2005)

Went to Bill Goodmans Gun show today with a freind, he was lookig for a holster and i was in the market for a .22 handgun for target shooting/plinking. been eye-balling a Taurus 94 .22 9-shot revolver for some time now (have a thing for revolvers), and recently thought about a Ruger Mark 3 instead. they had those two guns there for very reasonable prices, and then i held a Browning Buckmark and just fell in love! loved the way it fit in my hand! almost bought it, but it didnt come with the extra mag like the ruger did. i am going back tomorrow and i was hoping to get some feedback on these guns before i bought one. accuracy? cost of an extra mag for a browning? quality? etc.. Browning was $279, Taurus was $319, and the ruger was $250. below are the models i looked at


----------



## bluegill314 (Nov 21, 2006)

I'd take a buckmark over a Mark III. The Mark II and the buckmark would be a toss-up, but I'm not a fan of the Mark III. I've never heard a buckmark owner complain. 

Eric

Mark II owner


----------



## alan farver (Apr 9, 2005)

i agree with bluegill314.i love my stainless 10" bull barrel markII.


----------



## BIGGUNS (May 17, 2008)

I myself like wheel guns they are just my choice , when I shot IHMSA (INTERNATIONAL HANDGUN METALLIC SILHOUETTE ASSOCIATION) they never used a auto the wheel guns are more accurate , and faster. I would take the Taurus 94 myself.


----------



## ezbite (May 25, 2006)

i have a mark II 6" bull barrel and it is very accurate. the main draw back is its a bit tuff to strip down for a good cleaning. once you get the hang of it, it gets much easier. dont have any experience with the other 2.


----------



## meisterdog (May 10, 2004)

why not try the smith and wesson @ buckeye outdoors for 199.00 just curious. i bought one and it is a very good gun for what you want it for.


----------



## H2O Mellon (Apr 5, 2004)

Hard to beat a Ruger Mark II, I agree w/ the other guys. Those Buckmarks are nice though. Dont knock the model 94's either. I have one and love it.

Dink, have you ever held a Walter PT22? They are a very nice 22 auto. 

If your still in the market for one, feel free to come over and borrow mine to play around with. I have the Model 94, Mark II and as I was saying the Walther. Can't help ya w/ the Buckmark though.


----------



## Smallmouth Crazy (Apr 4, 2006)

ezbite said:


> i have a mark II 6" bull barrel and it is very accurate. the main draw back is its a bit tuff to strip down for a good cleaning. once you get the hang of it, it gets much easier. dont have any experience with the other 2.


I agree I have had a MarkII for years and love it, almost everybody I know who shoots own one, not sure about the price of a extra mag, if I were to buy a Ruger 22 today I might go with the slabside with the scope mounts.


----------



## dinkbuster1 (Oct 28, 2005)

H2O Mellon said:


> Hard to beat a Ruger Mark II, I agree w/ the other guys. Those Buckmarks are nice though. Dont knock the model 94's either. I have one and love it.
> 
> Dink, have you ever held a Walter PT22? They are a very nice 22 auto.
> 
> If your still in the market for one, feel free to come over and borrow mine to play around with. I have the Model 94, Mark II and as I was saying the Walther. Can't help ya w/ the Buckmark though.


i really liked that .94 i seen at the show, had an unbeatable price to boot! will take you up on those "loaners", give me a ring if you see this post tonight. yes i have hel a walther .22, very nice as well but it seemed a little short.


----------

