I have beem looking at a 1885 in 300wsm. Does anyone have any feedback on accuracy? As a rule is the #1 or the 1885 any more accurate than the other?

Some of the Rugers have an accuracy problem due to the way they mount the foreend but this is fixed easily. Brownings [Winchesters]are designed differently and are usually very accurate.

They are both very good rifles the descion you face would be over the following

Length of Barrel
Hammer (1885) or no Hammer (Ruger)
Weight

The one thing the 1885 can do that the Ruger can not is eject empties left or right or extract only. The Ruger No1 can eject straight out or extract only. I have both and probably like the 1885 better but not by much!

Steve

I checked weight for both, very little difference. I like the 28" barrel. I think that combo with the WSM would be great.

I've had a 78 and #1's and both have been very accurate.
If you are using the rifle with a scope, getting at the hammer on a 78, especially with wet or cold fingers takes concentration to assure that you have it securely. I think that the hammer arrangement is about the same on a 78 and an 1885.

quote:

Originally posted by CLK320:
I have beem looking at a 1885 in 300wsm. Does anyone have any feedback on accuracy? As a rule is the #1 or the 1885 any more accurate than the other?

I have had excellent accuracy results from my No.1's and a No. 3 without having to fool with their forends at all. I personally prefer the hammerless action....

Ruger No. 3 .30/40 Krag, 170-grain Hornady FN .30.30 bullet @ 100 yards, 50 grains of IMR 4350 MV 2500 FPS, WW Cases, F210 primer

Don't mean to be "pickey" but the Ruger #1 DOES have a hammer. It's just not exposed as on the 1885. Lock-time on the Ruger might be a little quicker...especially with a lighter aftermarket titanium hammer.

Jon,
Who makes a titanium hammer for the # 1 ?.
S/S

Well, looks like you got me on this one! I thought they were titanium but the "Moulds Ruger #1, #3 Speed Lock Hammer" is alloy steel. Brownell's lists two of them; "speed lock & competition" for $55 and $75. The stock "alloy" cast steel Ruger hammer could probably be lightened in the same manner with drills and a small endmill to achieve the same thing.
Sorry if I mislead anyone.
Jon

quote:

Originally posted by Jon:
Don't mean to be "pickey" but the Ruger #1 DOES have a hammer. It's just not exposed as on the 1885. Lock-time on the Ruger might be a little quicker...especially with a lighter aftermarket titanium hammer.

You are right, of course. I guess to be truly hammerless, it would have to be a striker-type ignition system. I should have said "I prefer the Ruger because the hammer is not exposed....."

quote:

Originally posted by CLK320:
I have beem looking at a 1885 in 300wsm. Does anyone have any feedback on accuracy? As a rule is the #1 or the 1885 any more accurate than the other?

I have had both and would get the 1885 over the Ruger in a heart beat. My experience is limited to one rifle of each type, but the 1885 is much more accurate, and in general I like the apprearance and feel of it much better.

1885. Do you have any sense of history?

Would it matter to you if someone at the gun range asked what kinda rifle is that? You could tell them it is a replica of the first gun ever devised by the fertile mind of acknowleged genius John Moses Browning at the age of 23 in a small Utah gunshop.

I am admittedly biased. I have owned one for about 20 years. Caliber 22-250. It is as accurate as any bolt gun in this caliber. But to my eye it looks a whole lot more handsome with beautiful figured walnut and that octagon barrel. Come to think of it, I wouldn't walk across the street to get a Ruger if somebody GAVE it to me. I'd crawl through the black hole of Calcutta for a Browning. The best there is.

You will have to get over that it is made in Japan, however.

While I love "traditional" singleshot's I believe the 1885 and Ruger #1 are of equally excellent design. Just comes down to matter of taste.

Jon

quote:

Originally posted by onefunzr2:
1885. Do you have any sense of history?

Would it matter to you if someone at the gun range asked what kinda rifle is that? You could tell them it is a replica of the first gun ever devised by the fertile mind of acknowleged genius John Moses Browning at the age of 23 in a small Utah gunshop.

I am admittedly biased. I have owned one for about 20 years. Caliber 22-250. It is as accurate as any bolt gun in this caliber. But to my eye it looks a whole lot more handsome with beautiful figured walnut and that octagon barrel. Come to think of it, I wouldn't walk across the street to get a Ruger if somebody GAVE it to me. I'd crawl through the black hole of Calcutta for a Browning. The best there is.

You will have to get over that it is made in Japan, however.

MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!! Certainly nothing biased about this post!

The last sentence is not needed, the best thing about the Browning is the fact that it is made in Japan! The first sentence does not only apply to the Browning, the Ruger No1 is a modernized Farquarson, from history as well.
Both are fine rifles, and both are re-do's of historical pieces. Both are as accurate as the man shooting them. As long as one only wants standard hunting cartridges like 223 to 30-06 the Browning is fine. If, however, one wants larger rounds in the DGR range, then the Ruger is the one you want. The ruger is a very strong action, and was given a blow-up test with a 30-06 case full of bull's eye, and though it swelled the chamber, the rifle didn't blow. The chamber pressures had to be in the several hundred thousand pounds!

As Jon says it all boils down to which one floats your canoe!

.

quote:

As long as one only wants standard hunting cartridges like 223 to 30-06 the Browning is fine.

He wants it chambered for the 300 WSM. The hi-wall 1885 has plenty enough strength for that caliber.

Of course I'm biased. I own 6 Brownings, NO Rugers.

They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Well, THIS beholder thinks the 1885 is a classy looking , classic design. And very accurate, to boot. I'm not ashamed to admit it. It's no skin off my nose what CLK320 buys. I don't own stocks in Browning or Ruger.

i had a japanese made 1885 and could not fault it !!! it was so well made !! wish i still had it ,i have a ruger no 1 and the fit finish is no where as good in imo ! buy both !!! or you will always wish you bought the ''other''

Ihave 1 #3 in 30/40K and it shoots well. It so happens that 7 1885s in various forms have come home with me. I like the straigt grip and exposed hammer. They shoot well also. The finish is better on the Brownings. Mostly this is up to you; what do you like or dislike between the 2.

I'm a gunsmith and shot them all and the 1885 shots better than the ruger you really have to seat bullets pretty far out with the ruger to get half way decent accuracy I have a 1885 7mm wsw and it shoots great I use 68 grns of rel 19 with a barnes xxx and I get 3435fps with it and 1/2" 3 shot groups average at 100yrds

I have one 1885 in 30-30 and a #1 in .223 and another #1 in 7mmRM.

I believe that the #1 is a better gun, but the 1885 is not for sale.


This book by Frank de Haas is the best gun book I have ever read. Sorry Parker

In this book, there is part by part breakdown of all the advantages and disadvantages that each action possesses. Just one page of the 15 pages on 1885s or the 8 pages on Ruger #1s would be worth the price of the book.

For an engineer - gun nut, this book is a dream come true. I hate gun writers, but I love de Haas.


From page 318:
".. One of the major design and construction features of the Ruger action is the breech block and firing pin arrangement. To make this one of the strongest and safest single shot actions ever produced, Ruger insisted that the rear of the breech block exposed above the receiver be solid an closed. Previously in circumstances like this, other gunmakers merely made the firing pin tip integral with the hammer nose, as witness some of the German made single shot actions. Ruger, however, intended his action to be the best ever, regardless of cost, and this called for a solid rear breech block wall and a separate and easily replaceable spring retracted firing pin in a straight line, or nearly so, with the bore. How he achieved this is seen clearly in the sectional view drawing."

I have an 1885 in 405 Win. because the powers that be in my state have classified this as a 'primitive weapon' for purposes of hunting during what was previously known as 'muzzleloader' season. I can assure you there is nothing primitive about it. In any event, I love the rifle. It will shoot 300 gr. Hawk's at 2450 fps into a clover leaf at 100 yds all day long which obviously makes for a very effective 'primitive' weapon for whitetails. I have also shot No.1's and like them too, but after having shot the 1885 a good bit, I prefer it.

I have had both and like both, but prefer the Ruger because the lever on the Browning is in an awkward location for my hand. On the other hand, the Browning is more comfortable for my wife's hands, so she prefers it. It sort of comes down to taste and feel, both will serve you well. If it were me, I would buy one of each, and decide from there based on feel of the individual rifles. Then sell the other, if you are so inclined. If you shop carefully, you won't loose much if anything when you resell.

Dave

I have had both the High Wall and #1 for almost 40 years now. Both are nice guns but I would not have a firearm made in japan.

The High Wall's that I have in varminters and Schuetzens do not have ejectors but an ejector is not wanted for those applications and I never liked an exposed hammer anyway for cold weather big game hunting.

I had a burning desire to have a nice falling block rifle back in the late 50's and they were very hard to find. It's a really good thing that Ruger made the #1.

onefunzr2,

We may not agree on high fenced hunting, but I'm with ya' on the Brownings. I have a highwall in 30-06 that I've not missed with yet. I get approx 2950 fps (win mag velocities) with nosler 180 gr partitions. Gotta love that. I have two b-78s one in 6mm rem and the other in 7mag, and a low-wall in 22 hornet. I've had (past tense) two ruger #1's. In fact , my ruger # 1 in 300 win mag was one of the few rifles I could get to shoot barnes "X" bullets with any consitency, (go figure). They were ok but I like the browning better myself.
GWB

I like this forum already. Good information on the Ruger No1 accuracy. My old .338Win Mag w/ 27"barrel shoots VERY WELL with handloads and Swarovsky optics. I also have a No1 in 220 Swift I am still going to school on and the 300 meter range is getting boring.
My 1885 Browning is Japanese, 40-65, and very accurate. 12.5 lbs is a little much. While I waited on the Browning I found a 1919 vintage original Hi-Wall that had been converted in the 50's (?) for the then new .225 WIN. With her custom made bull barrel and 12xA.O. Custom Varmint Unertl scope, she is a joy to shoot.
I also have a tiny rolling block in .22 rim fire that is a kick to play with and the action is rock solid. Great kids gun, but the stock is my size.(Shucks)I passed on a Dakota Model 10 a few years ago and regret it now. My next single shot will probably be a Browning in 50-110, or another Ruger No1 in .338-06AI just to keep my small ring mauser company, or a standard in .218Bee if there is such a thing.
Again, thanks for the great info on the No1's.

Had to go with the 1885 in 300WSM. Can't wait to shoot!

I have the 1885 in 7mm WSM and it shoots great I use barnes tripple x 140s and they shoot around a half inch 3 shot group at 100 yards at 3450fps it outshoots rugers I've shot