This is a fairly recent production model with 28" round barrel and semi-pistol grip stock. I'm guessing about nine pounds, but I'm wondering if someone who owns one could tell me exactly what their's weighs. I may be going on a Bison hunt this winter and would like to hunt with a traditional 45 caliber single shot. I've narrowed it down to the before mentioned 1885 or a Ruger #1-S-C 45-70, only I can't seem to find a #1-S-C. Lipsey's told me they are all out of stock and do not plan to order anymore. Thanks
Matt

I went to the Winchester website and looked at specs for past offerings under "Historic Rifles". Looks like they do weigh 9lbs. I think the Ruger #1-S-C weighs at least a pound less, so I will try for one of those first.

The Ruger is not a traditional rifle.

There are thousands of Brownings around and they are a much better iron sight rifle. You cannot even put a traditional tang sight on a #1.

The #1 receiver is much heavier than the High Wall plus it has the half rib. I would not put much stock in what is listed on the web.

I own both rifles. Without a scope you can you can put a tang sight on the Browning and the Browning is much easier to shoot.

I have three "older" High Walls and one, chambered for the .45-70, is my favourite single shot "sporting" rifle. The .45-90 would be a nice big game round, here in Germany a non-CIP round, a little critical to reload, but in the USA I see no problems, to load it over the .45-70-level.
The newer High Wall´s with the "ugly" round barrel I never saw in Germany. I know only one dealer, lists the new traditional sporter on the website. The retail price here is 1850 Euro. And it´s listed, that the weight is about 4,6kg.

Martin

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
The Ruger is not a traditional rifle.

I disagree. The #1 is loosely based on the Classic British Farquharson design. The modern Japanese 1885 is not exactly the same as an original. I like both rifles though. NECG peep sights for Rugers, while not exactly elegant, work quite well. I hate tang sights on hunting rifles, as they are awkward and often fragile. Having said all that, I just put the 1885 on Layaway. I'm still going to keep my eyes out for a 26" barreled Ruger though.

Congrats
You will have the opportunity to handle and shoot them side by side.

If you do not like the tang site you can always mount a Williams Fool Proof. The Fool Proof mounts on top using the two scope mounting holes in the receiver. Other than that it looks about like other side mounting Fool Proofs. I used one on a for a long time on a standard model Browning 1885 High Wall and really enjoyed shooting it. The front sight is the mid height Lyman 17A.
If you get a Ruger find one of the long barreled 45-70s. I have the 22" barreled 45-70 and I don't really like it with the open sight.

You can tell Bill Ruger was an east coast yankee. He had some sort of hangup with short barrels.

I realize the Farq was traditional British but I do not connect Farqs with American Bison.

I managed to get disconnected from shooting with scopes and I really enjoy shooting with tang sights. When I swapped for my first scope about 1960 I was told they were too fragile too. I guess I have gone full circle on sights since the first rifle that I shot much was a Mossberg 44US with aperture sights.

quote:

Originally posted by ColoradoMatt:

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
The Ruger is not a traditional rifle.

I disagree. The #1 is loosely based on the Classic British Farquharson design. The modern Japanese 1885 is not exactly the same as an original. I like both rifles though. NECG peep sights for Rugers, while not exactly elegant, work quite well. I hate tang sights on hunting rifles, as they are awkward and often fragile. Having said all that, I just put the 1885 on Layaway. I'm still going to keep my eyes out for a 26" barreled Ruger though.

quote:

Originally posted by Big Bore Fan:
I have three "older" High Walls and one, chambered for the .45-70, is my favourite single shot "sporting" rifle. The .45-90 would be a nice big game round, here in Germany a non-CIP round, a little critical to reload, but in the USA I see no problems, to load it over the .45-70-level.

The 45-70 can be loaded to roughly 80% of the 458Win and the 45-90 can just about equal the 458Win in one of these rifles. Such loads are just insane to me and have no place in such a rifle. I will likely load 400-500 grain cast bullets with smokeless powder at 1400 to 1500fps. A little faster than black powder, but not pushing things at all. I actually wish this rifle was in 45-70. It is more efficient and I have lots of brass on hand. I just happened to fall in love with the lines of the rifle, the semi-pistol grip stock and the pretty figure in the wood, which seems to be layed out perfectly through the grip. One can easily outrun the 45-70 with a 45-90, but it takes more powder in a 45-90 to just equal the velocity of a 45-70. I'll have to admit this was a bit of an impulsive buy, but I think I am going to be happy. Wish I had found a 26" barreled #1 though
By the way, while looking for reviews of this rifle on the net, a couple of sources indicate this rifle weighs 10.5 lbs rather than 9 lbs. Anybody know for sure?

10.5 lb ? Mine originally was a 28" octagon which I cut to 22". That with a scope and strap comes to 8 lb IIRC. Anyway it's fine for hunting.