I am contemplating buying a 405 in either the ruger #1 or Win (miroku) 1885 short rifle series and was wondering if anyone shooting either of these might be able to answer a couple of questions.

1. Is the short rifle Win 1885 with its crescent sshaped metal butt plate a killer on both ends? To put things in perspective I can shoot my standard grade Win. model 70 in 338 win Mag (with recoil pad but no muzzle brake)without any difficulty.?

2. Is one or the other of these actions stronger? I wish to know this as I intend to reload and would like to explore both low and high power ammo.

3. What kind of accuracy do you expect from the model you shoot?

4. What sort of game have you taken with it and how did it perform?

Thanks for any assistance you can offer.

Gents,

Forgot to mention one other important question.

Can the triggers on both the ruger #1 and the Win (Miroku) 1885 be tuned to something more acceptable than the factory settings?

I have a miroku 1885 Winchester 45/90 Recoid has never bothered me ! 190 lbs 5'8"
My opinion Ruger # 1, mine is .375H&H Buy the Ruger !

Buy the Ruger--

Ruger

I have the Ruger .405, and though it bites and kicks me like a mule in heat, It is the one I chose & would still choose between those you asked about.

You can get impressive results with the Ruger #1 in 405 Win with bullets between 300 to 400 grains. I use mine on big hogs. Knocks them flat. Don't need a 2nd shot. Reloader #7 is the powder to use.
If you mind the kick, get a Kick EEzz slip on recoil pad. It ads about 1 inch to the LOP and comes out just right for me. I also added the
New England Custom Guns Peep sight made for the Ruger (Cost $85) Gives a longer sight radius, great accuracy with the Appterture in
or take it out and you have a Ghost ring.

Sorry I have no experience with the Win Hi-Wall
version.

PS. I also have Ruger #1's in 375 H&H and 450/400 NE 3 in. I bought one Kick EEZZ pad and change it depending on what I am hunting with. BTW don't store the gun with the pad installed, it will muck up the wood over time.
Also I had to bob the top part of the tang safety back because the ejection of the rimmed cases tend to hang up on the top part of the safety during rapid reloading.

Good Shooting

Tetonka

New member here, but I'll jump in on this. Tetonka has it right re Reloader 7. Behind a Barnes 300 gr. it is accurate and deadly, at least on whitetails. 22-25 grs. of 2400 and a 260 gr. cast 41 cal pistol bullet is a mild fun load. Hope this helps.

Buy the one you like the best.

i have both guns in 45-70 and another that was a browning hunter model in 45-120. i love them all.

if traditional looks have anything to do with it then def go with the winchester and get the traditional hunter. i think it is just as strong as the ruger and you can beat the cresent buttplate with a small bit of high memory foam to take up the curve and install a lace-up buttpad [track of the wolf] and keep the semi-traditional look and feel of a hiwall.

if the traditional look n feel arent important then get the ruger as it has all the strength that your shoulder could ever withstand. also the easy scope mounting cant be overlooked with the ruger. with your head up in the position that a scope puts it in the felt recoil is lessened.

either rifles are dynamite and you will enjoy either with just the same relish i figure.

good luck and good shooting. i bet you could buy the winchester a bit cheaper as well.

Some years ago had a Browning 85 and it was a well finished rifle and would assume the current Winchesters to be equal. Also have the Ruger No. 1's and prefer them myself. You can break down the Ruger's action and give a good cleaning if you want without much difficulty other than need to do so on clean flat surface to prevent loss of couple pins. Strong design they just work.

I think it is difficult to say one gun has a more traditional look than the other, because they represent different traditions.

The 1885 is reminiscent of the early west black powder time. Or that's how it started. It is in no way an accurate copy of the Winchester 1885, but is a nice rifle. I have a BPCR, again nice, but cannot even be broken down to clean. Really stupid for black powder gun not be be able to strip down to clean. For a 45/70 I would consider some of the other more authentic builders like C Sharps or Pedersoli. Just a though, I don't have either. For a modern hi-power rifle hard to beat Miruko. I prefer the longer barrel lengths of the 1885.

The Ruger is from the English African tradition and the cordite time period and no more or less authentic to that tradition as the 85 to western BP tradition. I would say the Ruger is more REAL, since it not a semi copy of something else. I think you get more gun for the money with Ruger. Better scope mount system, the 1885 would have no idea where to begin finding a scope base. I dont like the 22" barrel in most calibers as a standard. The 26 should be the standard rifle and 24 to 28 as options. The tropical makes some sense at 24, but 22" in 45/70 or 300WM 'medium" sporter is really foolish. I could see 22 Hornet or 30/30 in 22" barrels, but most if not all the No'1s could default to 26" and be a lot nice gun IMHO.

The Ruger is a "semi copy" of something else. The Farquharson specifically. And the Ruger is way more complicated to boot.
A No.1 in 405 would be a pretty nice gun and about 1/8th the price of a genuine Farquharson in that chambering.

quote:

The Ruger is a "semi copy" of something else. The Farquharson specifically. And the Ruger is way more complicated to boot.

I stand corrected on the first point. I prefer to think Bill was inspired by and not feeding off the fergie name. Cannot say same when Browning calling a Miruko Single an 85. I know, now its officially a Winchester 1885.

It is hard to know about the 2nd point, complication. The owners manual stats the 85 is not to be taken down for any reason. Thats the ultimate in complicated. I dont know whats inside there. I hope the 85 will last a very long time repair free - immune to corrosion, ice or wear.

quote:

Originally posted by fourbore:

quote:

The Ruger is a "semi copy" of something else. The Farquharson specifically. And the Ruger is way more complicated to boot.

I stand corrected on the first point. I prefer to think Bill was inspired by and not feeding off the fergie name. Cannot say same when Browning calling a Miruko Single an 85. I know, now its officially a Winchester 1885.

It is hard to know about the 2nd point, complication. The owners manual stats the 85 is not to be taken down for any reason. Thats the ultimate in complicated. I dont know whats inside there. I hope the 85 will last a very long time repair free - immune to corrosion, ice or wear.

My opinion is that the Ruger No.1 is not a repro of the "Farq" and Bill Ruger never intended it to be. The mechanisms are not the same, though some of the external lines are. The Ruger is about as much like A Farquie as a Savage 110 is like an original Mauser Type A Sporter.

I certainly agree that Bill was inspired by the Farquie both in terms of external lines and quality. But the Ruger No. 1 is really his own personal design.

It is what it says right on it...a product of Bill Ruger's mind, and his factories.

I've owned numerous Farquharson originals, the last in 450/.400 3-1/4", and a lot of others, primarily Frasers. I still own other single shots of a lot of varieties, including at least 20 Ruger No. 1s and No. 3s, and that's how it looks to me.

I have a winchester 1885 with a flat butt and recoil pad. Relatively heavey recoil off the bench, but not noticable when hunting. I am shooting 300 grain hornady spire points at 2400fps with my best groups a little under an inch@100 yds. Where I hunt you can't use the Ruger #1 for primitive weapon season since it apparently doesn't have an exposed hammer. (I have no experience with the #1.)