any ruger 40107 reports? or buckmark?

Having given up on my 22 1911 top end I'd like a bullseye capable 22. 

What is the scoop on the Ruger 40107?  Or is there a better way to get started?

What in the world could drive you away from a conversion to a Ruger?
What did you have and what was it on!

22 1911 top end? Are you talking about a conversion? The Nelson and marvel are plenty capable for bullseye. I shoot a Nelson. Ruger is entry level at best out of box. The only bullseye worthy Ruger is an older MKII Government Model.

james r chapman wrote:What in the world could drive you away from a conversion to a Ruger?
What did you have and what was it on!

I had an advantage arms target conversion and I had a terrible time getting it to work, after fiddling with colt mags, sig mags, and poly mags, spring rates, extractor profiles, lubricants, and ammo, it all went away.

Going further in the way-back machine I had a mkii once upon a time, and while it ran like a champ the only things worse than the trigger were the reassembly and the bluing.

Surprising! Advantage Arms, Nelsons and Marvels are all Bob Marvel creations.

What lower was it on?

all mine work on Springfield Armory, Colt, and Remington 1911 frames.

Merick wrote:

james r chapman wrote:What in the world could drive you away from a conversion to a Ruger?
What did you have and what was it on!

I had an advantage arms target conversion and I had a terrible time getting it to work, after fiddling with colt mags, sig mags, and poly mags, spring rates, extractor profiles, lubricants, and ammo, it all went away.

Going further in the way-back machine I had a mkii once upon a time, and while it ran like a champ the only things worse than the trigger were the reassembly and the bluing.

Advantage arms I know very little of and since I don’t see or hear of it much around this site I’ll chance it and say it’s not as good or possibly even comparable to the quality of a Nelson or a proven marvel unit. I think if you like the idea or if you like the feel of a conversion then you should give a Nelson unit a try. I recently had the barrel of one of mine recrowned and even before with good Ammo it was a solid X ring gun. I was just seeing if it could do even better with a proper recrown. I think it shoots a little better but still, solid X ring or less. A new Ruger will not do that. Or at least I don’t think it will and I am open to the idea of the opposite but unless proven otherwise I’ll stand with my opinion of the Ruger. Entry level at best. You might have had a bad experience with a lesser quality conversion unit.

Most of the time it was on a rock island but that didn't matter, it was the same set of problems if I moved it to my RO receiver.  The groups were pretty good, but it had major issues feeding and cycling.

Merick wrote:Most of the time it was on a rock island but that didn't matter, it was the same set of problems if I moved it to my RO receiver.  The groups were pretty good, but it had major issues feeding and cycling.

You mentioned trying different springs. Maybe recoil springs? Did you by any chance ever try hammer springs too? Most conversions don’t run 100% unless using a hammer spring somewhere in the ball park of 19#. At least that’s what I hear. Not with match Ammo at least.

If there was a spring I changed it, incrementally, across the range of what was available.

I don't have the thing any more so I'm not interested in fixing it.

---

If I were going to buy one gun with minimum investment, minimum problems, minimum fiddling and modifications, and shoot it all the way to distinguished, what is it?

Back to the OP question. I love the ease of take down on my Mk 4. The trigger was pretty much junk but the Volquartsen dropped right in and worked great. I have the Target model and it is a tad heavy in the barrel. I think you will like the 22/45 better. And guys. You can never have too many pistols.

One of these years Ruger will make a 22/45 with a steel frame. I wish anyway.

Well I looked and the 22/45 is only 1.2 ounces lighter than the Mk IV target.

Tim, the Advantage Arms and Nelson are virtually the same.

james r chapman wrote:Tim, the Advantage Arms and Nelson are virtually the same.

Cool! I haven’t seen one in person. Hearing that makes me a little more open to the idea of one. Thanks! 

Don’t worry Larry, I’ll still shoot your conversion in matches!

zanemoseley wrote:Well I looked and the 22/45 is only 1.2 ounces lighter than the Mk IV target.

Might be the 9000 that makes it feel heavy. But this is heavier then any of my other 22's or for that matter any of my 1911's.

Advantage Arms units had a significant change very early on.  I believe it was the bore height above the frame.  I had an early AA and Steve switched it for the new design change from Bob Marvel.  Today I shoot two different conversions.  An AA with a Bob Marvel provided barrel.  The slide has the later design stop insert that is squarish behind the stop.  The earlier longer insert with a screw fore and aft of the notch broke two times on me.  This AA and my Nelson both work great.  Another Nelson I have is the Bob Marvel Custom Pro II.

If I was looking for a new 22 pistol, I’m not sure I’d be looking at a Ruger of any mark.  The least I would buy is a S&W 41.  But I’d be more interested in a well running Euro pistol.  Don’t get me wrong, Rutgers are OK, but they’ll never be much more than that.

Wobbley wrote:If I was looking for a new 22 pistol, I’m not sure I’d be looking at a Ruger of any mark.  The least I would buy is a S&W 41.  But I’d be more interested in a well running Euro pistol.  Don’t get me wrong, Rutgers are OK, but they’ll never be much more than that.

A good trigger job and a barrel liner will make any gun, even a Ruger a flat shooter. In the beginning I shot a Ruger well. I’ve considered going back and having one lined, rechambered, and recrowned because I like how it felt in the hand.

I don't know if these guys are still in business. Upper wont fit on a Mk4 but wow do they shoot.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/joe-grine/shot-show-oregon-precision-arms-22lr-pistols-work-progress/

LenV wrote:I don't know if these guys are still in business. Upper wont fit on a Mk4 but wow do they shoot.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/joe-grine/shot-show-oregon-precision-arms-22lr-pistols-work-progress/

Yes these do shoot.  I ransomed my own.  That Federson barrel shoots under 1".   Another Ruger, a regular MkII long heavy taper target was on it's way to an offhand clean 50yd target with irons until I blew one way out

Well, how about buckmarks, there is a bull barrel w/ rail model that looks ok.  Can they hack it or no?

Well I did say you can never have too many pistols. The Buckmark target is a neat pistol. The trigger takes a lot less work then a Ruger. Just turn one spring over and you have a just over 2lb trigger that feels good. Accuracy is there of course and they come with a scope rail. Don't let all the new grip names scare you. The standard grip is the same one they put on the first Buckmark and there are a lot of different grips out there for them. The old Brownings are pretty nice also.

Merick wrote:Well, how about buckmarks, there is a bull barrel w/ rail model that looks ok.  Can they hack it or no?

I made master with my wife's borrowed buckmark after i disposed of my piece of garbage model 41 from the early 90s. The BM shoots 870s+ if you can. It was called the 5.5 pro target at the time. People say it's too light for a serious bullseye gun but I never felt that way, and nether did my scores.

zanemoseley wrote:One of these years Ruger will make a 22/45 with a steel frame. I wish anyway.

Volquartsen has that covered:
https://volquartsen.com/products/1109-vc-target-frame

Slartybartfast wrote:

zanemoseley wrote:One of these years Ruger will make a 22/45 with a steel frame. I wish anyway.

Volquartsen has that covered:
https://volquartsen.com/products/1109-vc-target-frame

I don't think they do a steel frame version?
- Dave