Browning 1885 or Ruger #1

[HammerMan/LongbowMan]

:grin:  This is something I'm curious about.
Which gun is stronger, the 1885 or the #1?
Can the 1885 handle high pressure cartridges like the weatherbys, rem. ultra mags, and the WSM's?

[EDG]

The Browning has been made in 7mm Rem. Mag.  I suspect the Browning design is a little stronger than the Ruger. However both are stronger than
cartridge cases.
 Ed

[grendel]

The Ruger #1 has been made or chambered in almost every thing short of the 50 Browning.  JD Jones will chamber them for the 577 Nitro Express, and thee factory chambers them for the 416 Rigby, 375H&H and a host of others.

I suspect that the #1 is stronger.  I also suspect that in most cases your shoulder will give out before the gun will.  Buy the one that turns your crank more.

Grendel

[Hcliff]

I agree with Grendel.  I think the #1 is stronger because the Ruger is listed in different sections for older calibers to be pushed to higher pressures.  It come down to which caliber and which one you want.  (I have been thinking about a #1 in 270 Weatherby Mag.  That is a different rifle which people who go "What is that?"  :shock: )

Both are great.  Get the one you like.

Hcliff

[HammerMan/LongbowMan]

The reason I was wondering is that I've seen the ruger in about every caliber, but the 1885 hasn't been offered in any of the newer, high pressure cartridges.  I was wondering if the age old design of the 1885 built by the greatest gun builder of all time, John Browning, could handle these cartridges.  The strength of the two guns are probably the same, but it's interesting to see what knowledge other people have on the subject.

[marlinman93]

I'd guess that in modern rifles like the Ruger #1 and the Browning, there's little difference in strength. The original Winchester Hi Walls have been chambered for cartridges up to 300 Win Mag, and they're no where near the metallurgy of today's Brownings. The Rugers are chambered for just about every cartridge known.
 I'd call it a toss up!

[southpaw]

Hi there  Hammerman,
                             The Kiss answer to your question is to purchase at least one of each. Enjoy

[FAsmus]

The Ruger, being a new design is flawed by NOT having a reasonable way to install tang sights: The safety is in the way!

Also, the Ruger method for installing or retaining the fore end is marginal. Nobody likes it much once they note that the awkward "hanger" for the mainspring is combined with foreend attachment. The method just doesn't lend itself to accuracy.

You will virtually never see Rugers on the firing line of Long Range Buffalo Rifle shoots. Not because they are weak at all or because they are prevented from entering by the rules but because of these design features make them uncompetitive.

The Browning on the other hand has none of these problems.

Good afternoon,
Forrest

[marlinman93]

Actually, no matter how accurate a Ruger could be, it is not allowed at BPCR matches, due to it's enclosed hammer design. That is more the reason for it's lack of presence.
 However it is legal for ASSRA and ISSRA Schuetzen matches, and many are present there, so accuracy can be adequate. The key to Ruger accuracy is to drill and tap the hanger for a set screw. Usually a 1/4-20 or 10-32 is used. The screw provides tension against the barrel, and can be tightened until the accuracy is equal to anything out there. Ruger barrels are more than adequate, but as you mentioned the design needs help. I've done this mod to a number of Rugers, and it has never failed to work.
 Now to clarify my position. I'm not a big Ruger fan, but I do own one Ruger #1, and it is a fine shooting rifle. I personally would go for the 1885, just because it is more versatile, and I like the looks of the High Wall style action.

[FAsmus]

Marlinman,

Marlinman says:

Actually, no matter how accurate a Ruger could be, it is not allowed at BPCR matches, due to it's enclosed hammer design. That is more the reason for it's lack of presence.

Forrest:

Note! I did not say "BPCR". I said "Long Range Buffalo Rifle" matches. There are BIG differences in the rules for the two, namely, at Long Rang Buffalo Rifle matches we are not handicapped by rules that specify action type beyond "designed as a singleshot". Millers, Rugers, Handirifles and others; all may compete.

I view this a very good thing.

Good afternoon,
Forrest

[marlinman93]

I stand corrected. Still I don't think the Ruger is an inherently inaccurate gun, and as mentioned, it is an easy fix for anyone, even those with very basic skills.
 The big thing is the short barrels offered on stock Rugers. If they had a 30" octagon barrel, we would see plenty of them at blackpowder or long range matches. The short barrel doesn't give a long enough sighting radius for most long range work. Besides, they just don't look "right" on the line, with those stubby barrels!
 Many people have rebarreled them for matches, with long octagon or round barrels, just for that reason. They still use the same forearm retention system, and they still shoot great.

[John Traveler]

Hear, Hear!

I agree with Marlinman.  The Ruger Number 1/3 action is great design, and would be wonderful for long-range matches if only the factory would put it out in a long barrel design.

A few years ago, a Canadian shooter won the national BP long range events at Connaught Ranges (Ottawa) shooting a Ruger Number 3 with stock 22" barrel and peep sights!  GASP!  Granted, he was a great long range shot, but that should speak volumes for the quality of the factory barrel.

Once every few years, Ruger teases the BP shooting public with limited commemorative and centennial issues of the Number One.  Wish there were more of those around!

John

[FAsmus]

Marlinman and John,

You fellows say:

If Rugers had a 30" octagon barrel, we would see plenty of them at blackpowder or long range matches..

Forrest says:

Sure. Except for the problem with the Safety being right in the way for installing a proper tang sight!

Even with a modified Safety being designed and installed a fellow has to deal with the short receiver: The darn thing is way too short to allow mounting the tang sight except if you screw the rear screw into wood instead of steel. If you want to make the tang sight stable by mounting into steel all the way you will have to weld an extension to the rear of the receiver. Things get complex you see and these are the reasons Ruger #1s are not found on the firing line very much.

Good morning,
Forrest

[marlinman93]

Forrest,
 Since you haven't seen any Rugers at your long range matches, I guess I'll tell you how it's done.
 Most the fellas shooting them in matches simply remove the safety, and mount the long range vernier sight over the spot where the safety was. A safety is an unecessary item on a single shot match rifle, so eliminating it to allow the mounting of a sight isn't a problem.
 So Forrest may say screw it into the wood, but nobody is doing that.

[Buffalogun]

HammerMan/LongbowMan,

I don't know anything about the Ruger #1, as I don't now nor have I ever had one. I do have the Browning 1885 chambered in 7mm Rem. Mag. and it is a very nice rifle. Mine was made by Miroku, in Japan and I am told the Japanese make top notch steel.


Buffalogun