doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion Classic & Custom Single Barreled Sporting Rifles @ doublegunshop.com Ruger #1 VS Browning 1885

I am looking for a single rifle to be used on hog and some deer. I am considering the Ruger #1 in 45-70 and Browning 1885 in various calibers... 357, 44, 45, 454, and 30-30.

What are the pros and cons of each rifle. Which caliber is best? What would you do?

Adam

Brownings have a hammer. That's a pro in my book.

There are a lot of configurations of the Browning 85, so I'm sure there is one that will work for your needs. Everything from the 11.6 lb Creedmore to the hyper velocities micro calibers.

Rugers are probably fine, but lacking a hammer, I find them of much less interest.

I can't really see that it is a choice beyond personal preference, but have a track record for working just fine.

Brent

My impression from reading and BSing is that the Brownings shoot better, but then calibre for calibre they are usually heavier.

Well I think Ruger # 1's will shoot better and there are a lot more accessories avaiable for them such as speed hammers, speed mainsprings, and set triggers. BY the way, they do have hammers but you just cant play with them while there in the gun ;-).
ST

Thatá a simple one - the Ruger of course, as it doesn't have an external hammer! Looks way better...
I don't have any experience with the Browning, but I do have a Ruger.

To be honest, you probably cannot go wrong with either.

Both can be extremely accurate, Rugers often need tuning to achieve their best. The new Browning/Winchester adaptations have the reputation of malfunctioning if not kept clean inside, and the actions are extremely difficult for anyone to disassemble & reassemble correctly. Good trigger pulls are relatively easy to achieve with both but extremely light pulls are more difficult with both.

Accessories? Isn't the action OK as-is? Canjar SSTs have been available for both but Canjar's out of business now. The Kepplinger SST IMO is not necessarily A Good Thing; I've owned and campaigned several, both on Rugers and others, and have been both gratified and disappointed since I've found their performance to be somewhat iffy at different times and in certain applications.

Lightweight hammers and special springs? Yeah, they're something cool to occupy the owner's time and keep his interest, but do they really tighten the rifle's groups? Really? Have you actually tested, or is it just the maker's fond hopes and advertisements? Sometimes all these aftermarket accessories remind me of all the stuff (garbage for the most part) that's become available for the Colt Government Model in recent years, IMO simply some place for the gamesmen to spend their money so they think they don't hafta practice any more. Bah.

Looks? I will simply say that I've seen many dozens of fine and beautiful custom rifles built on Rugers and even some original Winchesters, but I've never even heard of a fine custom built on one of the new Brownings. That, to me, is a fairly sure indicator of their relative attractiveness and aesthetic appeal.
Regards, Joe

Pehraps the only real difference that might matter is that SOME of the Brownings have tangs that are tapped or can be tapped for vernier sights. Rugers have that damn safety in the way, because they don't have hammers (I can't count an invisible hammer as a hammer - sorry Gert ).

Why are these the only two rifles you are considering?

Brent

Have hunted with Ruger #1s for years and like them very well. Most don't really need any foolin' with unless you think deer have gotten smaller over the years....Most hunters really need to have the first two shots hit within about 2 1/2" inches of one another every time at 100 yds. Varmint hunters need better, but most don't use #1s, and most #1Vs WILL do better. Vertical stringing, the most common #1 bugaboo is, IMO, born of the "five shots under 1" syndrome." Nothing to do with most hunters REAL need; mostly just for gun writers to have something to write about. I've had a #1A .243, a #1S .45-70, a #1RSI 7x57, an RSI .243, and some custom jobs, not to mention various #3s. The stock #1s were all "deer accurate" right out of the box, including the one with the much-maligned Wilson barrel. Still have the RSIs; they still shoot. (It is possible that I've been lucky; Ruger does sometimes make real "lemons"....).

I have no experience with the Browning. Does its action function the same as the original 1885 (hammer stays cocked when you close the block?). Or is it like the coiled mainspring "later" 1885 that has a fly that drops the hammer to half-cock when the lever is closed?

If it is like the later 1885, I would choose the Ruger for hunting purposes because it is faster to reload and fire the second shot. You don't really need that second shot very often, but when you need it you REALLY need it RIGHT NOW!

For that reason, I hope Ruger never gets the "lawyerly" notion to replace the non-automatic safety on the #1 with an automatic one.

IMO Johnnie Browning's original creation as re-designed by Winchester, the "flat-spring" 1885, is a better hunting rifle than either the #1 or the Browning, if in fact the Browning needs to be re-cocked before the second shot. Too bad they are so scarce and expensive!

Invisible? Don't forge that you can actually SEE the hammer when it is cocked (OK, you just a bout need to turn the rifle upside down, but still - you can even feel it!) Of course, a striker woud have been MUCH better!

:-))

Although I don't have those rifles in the calibers you listed, I own a Ruger #1B in .223 that gets used for varmints, and a Browning 1885 Traditional Hunter in .38-55 with which I have shot deer, hogs and coyotes.

Both of my rifles are capable of excellent accuracy (Ruger forearm has been tweaked). The .38-55 will shoot into one hole at 100 yards with jacketed bullet hand loads.

The Ruger was easier on my pocketbook than the Browning, by about half.

The Browning is more of a pain to carry around in the woods, with its long, heavy barrel.

The wood on the Browning puts the Ruger to shame.

I have shot several deer and elk in the past with jacketed bullets in the .45-70 and have experienced what I consider to be excessive meat destruction through blood-shot. I did not get the same result with the .38-55. Your mileage may vary.

Overall, my tastes run more toward original Winchester single shot rifles, so I guess my preference between the rifles and chamberings under consideration would be the Browning, in .30-30 caliber.