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

J.D. Steele,
Yes I have tested the Speed Hammers, and yes I think they helped a lot.

With the Ruger standard hammer off a bench looking through a 20 X scope I could see the crosshairs jump about an inch when dry firing with an empty shell in the chamber. After installing the light speed hammer, it's about half the weight of the Ruger hammer, and dry firing off the bench again, could not detect any muzzle jump. That was good enough to make a believer out of me. Any one can do that simple test but you may not see the muzzle jump with a low power scope, but one thing for sure, it's still there.

The # 1's have always shot very good for me and I'm not talking about "deer accurate" size groups, talking about sub one inch 5 shot groups at 100 yds. I use the # 1's for shooting the different Single Shot Matches. And in the last three events I've shot in 2008, won two and came in third in the last one. I'm not saying that it was the speed hammer that gave me those wins but I'm sure it didn't hurt.
ST

Just to add one more vote - the Ruger no. 1. No real reason, everyone else's comments have got me nodding like a bobble head.

If there is any desire to go for cowboy nostalgia, then for sure the 1885 would be the style to follow.

And to answer the urge for bigger is better, the 45-70 is a nice caliber to consider as it is already big and easy to rechamber into 45-90 and 45-110 and... 45-120... well what? surely we'll bump into some mutant hog one day...

I have a Ruger #1 rfle in 45-70 caliber. I mounted a scope on it. It shoots all shots almost in the same hole with cast bullets at 50 yards. You can't. beat that.

I understand and appreciate the possible significance of the 'muzzle/bag jump' test, but my question still remains: are the paper groups tighter, by actual physical measurement & comparison side-by-side? I'm certainly not saying the new hammer won't help, I just want actual confirmation by results that are finite; something that can be measured, compared and referenced in the future.

For a better perspective on my concern, I've personally tested many set-trigger rifles for accuracy, on paper, because I refuse to accept any 'theory' that can so easily be confirmed or refuted by actual test. The theoretical loss of accuracy when using the set feature from the bench has long been assumed by most knowledgeable shooters, but I wanted confirmation and, if possible, quantification. A few actual side-by-side apples-to-apples tests soon helped to prove the real effect of the trigger change, by actual comparison of the group sizes.

Yes, we 'know' that less muzzle jump means better accuracy; but we also 'know' (from actual scientific calculation) that bumblebees can't fly!
Regards, Joe

I'd still like to know if the Browning "1885" has the same action (i.e. hammer stays cocked when breech is closed instead of falling to half cock) as the original flatspring Winchester 1885. Would rather someone here instruct me--need to stay out of gunshops for a while....spend some quality time on the steps with Gunaholics Anon.

This topic originated with a question about which of the two was better as a hunting rifle. I have not hunted for many years, but IIRC, the operation of the hammer & safety are the principal concerns, with ejection perhaps a secondary concern. The Ruger with its concealed hammer works as any modern hunting rifle. The safety is mechanical and separate. You can either carry the rifle loaded and trust the safety or if you are less trusting, you can walk about with a cartridge in the chamber and the action open.

With the original Winchester 1885, the action came up to full cock, but the hammer could be lowered to half-cock. That functioned as the safety. (BTW, I have 2 coil-spring Winders. One leaves the hammer at full cock and the other drops the hammer to half-cock. Both appear to have flies in the slot in the hammer. I have been told that reversing the fly will change the way the hammer operates on closing.)

But how does the Browning "1885" work? Is there a half cock notch? Or is one compelled to trust a safety while walking about with the rifle at full cock? And if you choose the open action approach, will the hammer be cocked when the action is closed?

Here is how my Browning 1885 Traditional Hunter works.

When the action is closed, the hammer stays at full cock. When you lower the hammer under your thumb, there doesn't seem to be a half-cock notch, but the hammer stops before it gets to the firing pin. You can't pull the trigger and make the hammer hit the firing pin without firing it from full cock. The firing pin is spring-loaded. There is no external safety.

When I hunt with it, I carry it with a cartridge in the chamber and the hammer lowered.

Joe,
My test were only on three # 1's, probably not enough testing for any kind of scientific calculation. I can say that in every case the groups were smaller with the Speed Hammer and larger with the Heavy Ruger Hammer. I did not keep exact records and no longer have the targets as it was not that important at the time, the important thing was that all three # 1's shot smaller groups with the Speed Hammer and all shot larger groups with the Heavy Hammer.

I'll guess at it and say that for sure all three were shooting about 1.5 inch groups, after installing the hammers the groups were down in the half inch area, some a bit larger but all were under 1 inch for sure.

The only group that can be verified at this time is the group I shot in the shoulder to shoulder group match, it recorded in as .732 at 100 yds., still under 3/4 inch, the other two events that I shot in and can be verified were score matches, first one was 245 X 250, and the second event came in at 247 X 250, the center ring on the 100 yd. target is 3/4 inch so a good percentage of the 10 shots fired in each of those events were in the 3/4 inch ring.

Like I said, I don't want to say that it was all because of the speed hammer that gave me those wins, maybe I just got lucky, but I'm sure they didn't hurt.

I know, not very scientific, but I'm a shooter, not a scientist or experimenter, my shooting time is limited so once I get a gun shooting good enough to stay in the center ring of what ever target I'm required to shoot at I start practicing, not experimenting.

If some day I have more time I'll start keeping better records, or if they start using targets with a smaller center ring I guess I'll be forced to do more tuning.
ST

thanks, dennismc! Seems to me that the two guns should be equally fast (or slow, if you see it that way) to reload in the field. I do prefer a hammer to the Ruger's non-automatic safety, although I've never had a problem with the Ruger (I used the Ruger open sights while my vision allowed and moved to straight tube fixed power scopes when I couldn't see them any more. Never tried the tang sight conversion; it's for someone more skilled than I).

ST, your memory is good enough for me! I was just curious as to whether you had actually compared the paper group sizes or had only done the muzzle jump test. Did your speed hammer conversion include the heavier spring?

I restocked my first No 1 back in '67, I like them very well and I also like the original Winchester design quite well. The new Browning/Winchester adaptation generally leaves me cold except for its splendid accuracy. So far as I know, the Browning is the only rifle to ever have won both ends of the Pedersoli MOA Challenge, in caliber 40-65 WCF. Dangerous Dan the Torpedo Man was the loose nut on the Browning's trigger then, and he obviously did a fantastic job with it.
Regards, Joe