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

Joe,
The Hammers came with the new springs so yes I used them. I did try one with the original Ruger spring and could not see any difference, but later on I put the new spring in, figuered that they must have had a reason for sending them with the hammer, probably an ignition thing because of the light hammer.
ST

The discussion here is interesting.

Have owned a number of Ruger #1's and Browning 78's and 85's. (Also own some original Winchesters.) Still have two Rugers and two Browning 78's as I prefer the pistol grip stock of the 78 to the straight gripped stocks of the Model 85's I have used.

Have hunted with both models. For hunting, both are more than adequate in the accuracy department. When the Ruger #1 and the Browning are compared, the Browning is a little harder to load if a low mounted scope is used and longer cartridges are easier to load than those which are shorter. The Ruger comes in a variety of barrel lengths and some versions are easier to handle in more densly forested areas whereas Brownings have longer barrels and are generally somewhat heavier.

Which is better is a matter of preferance. It is what style you like the best. Appearance wise, I like the Ruger #1 better than the Browning. However, I have only taken one big game animal with a Ruger #1 - one of my Brownings has accounted for 100+ big game animals (both work and sport) and is the first rifle I tend to pick up and use when I go into the field.

The Brownings that I have owned on average tend to be more accurate than the Rugers and have needed no, or less tuning than the Rugers. Wood on the Brownings has been nicer than the Rugers but the finish on the Brownings is usually more rippled and the edges are more rounded than the Rugers.

For field use, the worst feature of the Browning with the Pachmayr flush mounted sling swivels are the swivels - if one is not careful they twist and drop the rifle onto the ground.

If one is comparing the Browning 78/85 series with to original 1885 Winchester, I would take the original every time. If the question is between the Browning and the Ruger, take the one which handles best for you.

Bill

I also would take an original 1885 Winchester over the Browning every time - unless I wanted to shoot some of the crazy modern cartridges. Then I would only shoot the Browning versions. I think their block/receiver geometry is subtly different.

For example, I would never ever shoot a 7mm Mag in an original 85 action. But then I would never ever own a 7 Mag...

Brent

Winchester is selling Miroku Low Walls this year. I have the Browning ver from 1993 in .243 with a 6x scope that's a very sweet gun, in one of those crazy modern calibers.

Brent, one of my current projects is an original high wall rebarreled to 300 WSM Rimmed, based on the 348 case in a tight-neck match chamber. My first high wall was a 6mm Remington Rimmed that I made using Norma 8x57JR brass. In between have come others in 243 Win (rimless), 223 Rem (also rimless), several Improved Zippers and my current 33 WCF Improved sporter. And of course still others in various big-bore chamberings at lower pressures but they don't really count for this discussion.

My point is that IMO the original high walls are plenty strong enough for almost any high-pressure cartridge as long as A) a modern high-tensile-strength barrel is used, B) the firing pin nose is bushed and C) normal loads are used. For an interesting perspective on just exactly how strong these actions really are, please see accounts of famed barrelmaker J.R. Buhmiller's attempts to blow them up. Articles detailing his (unsuccessful, BTW) attempts can be found in Custom-Built Rifles, The American Rifleman and others.

I have personally never seen or even heard of a blown-up high wall frame, or even a cracked one for that matter, that had not been first extensively altered or abused. Low walls yes, high walls no. Their strength, or lack of it in the case of the low walls, lies in their design and not in their material composition or heat treatment.

But anyway I respect your right to refrain from building any rifle chambered for a smokeless powder cartridge, you can just slide all those pesky old Zippers & Hornets over toward my corner!
Regards, Joe

Well, I will defer to you on the high pressure stuff. I think Campbell wrote that some of the .30-06s were a bit rattly after a while. Yeah, I know they were test mules but test mules can be really rattly and no one will much care. If you are comfortable, thats fine, but I'll just move on down the line a few more tables - just for piece of mind if you will

I'll take the barrels off of any pesky zippers and hornets and use them to shore up my tomatos. The actions, I'll fit with real barrels for real cartridges.

Brent

Because of this thread, I just dragged my #1V in 25-06 to the range to shoot some little groups... For me, this is a bench rifle, equipped with a big B&L variable scope.
It does shoot very well, producing those nice clusters. I did however install a Moyers trigger and had some trigger work done for a crisp letoff.
The barrel, while accurate, seems pretty rough as it does require a lot of cleaning (I call it my copper mine...). I can clean my BPCR's in much less time than is needed to clean this #1.
I keep telling I will convert it into a BPCR someday when the barrel is shot out, but at the rate I am shooting it, that might take a while.
It shot patterns with the only (Remington) factory ammo I tried in it, and is pretty picky with handloads, requiring full-throttle loads with the bullets seated way out into the rifling - but at least it shoots well: when I do my thing, 5-shot groups of 0.5 - 0.75" can be achieved with the best loads. It doesn't have a speed hammer, but I drilled a few holes in the factory one and added the Wolff spring set.
And yes, I did freefloat the barrel.

Like several others, I have both Browning and Ruger single shots. Comments above are all valid on some level.
My own experience is that MY Rugers are more accurate than My Brownings. Others, obviously, have different experiences.
My most accurate rifle is a Ruger #1 in 30=-06 that will print 1/2" grouops all day with Remington 180gr. Bronze Tips.
As far as hunting goes, the Rugers win out.
Generally lighter weight and the need to cock the hammer on a Browning, that's half hidden under a scope, with gloves, on a cold morning is a clear negative.

Some years back I got into correspondence with Tom Burgess about a 6.5'06 HiWall with his metalwork and Kennedy wood. TB wrote that he had made three rimless cartridge hiwalls at the time, apparently for a single customer, mine, a .243 and a 7mm Remington Magnum. For the last he bored out and rethreaded the receiver to take a larger barrel shank. I may even have pics of it somewhere, TB sent them and I would never throw out that kind of stuff. I should note that the 6.5 has an auto ejector, I think TB said all three did. TB certainly was a remarkable gun maker. This all leads up to my saying I prefer an original Winchester 1885 to either the Browning or the Ruger.