Browning 1885 vs. Ruger No. 1

[mississippi_rifleman]

Which has the stronger action? Which is more accurate? I want a single shot in .30-06 (Dakota no. 10 is not considered because it is too much $$$ right now). I'm leaning towards the Browning because it just looks so much better. All of Ruger's guns are pretty ugly to me even though they are so strong. I don't know who is the one that picked the calibers for the new stainless steel No. 1, but they should be fired. No .30-06 or .270? Come on.....

 

[PJR]

The Ruger action would take the nod for a stronger action being chambered for the belted magnums. Having owned both rifles over the years, the more accurate piece is the Browning due, I believe, to the fore-end attachment.

I think too much is made about the "lack" of accuracy of the Ruger #1. These are hunting rifles and what difference does the size of a five shot group make at 100 yards. Mine puts its first round to the point of aim from a cold barrel every time and the second round goes in to within half an inch. The third round stretches the group out to about 1.5 inches but always to the same place. That's more than sufficient accuracy for hunting.

The Ruger is easier to use with a scope because of the sliding safety/hammerless design while the Browning requires rings high enough to allow you to cock the hammer. The design of the Ruger however does require a scope with sufficient eye relief because the scope will be mounted further forward than a bolt action rifle.

In .30-06, I would choose a #1A which is lighter than the Browning Hi-Wall. My favorite deer gun is my #1A in .270 but would be perfectly happy with one in .30-06. If you do buy a Ruger make sure that when you disassemble the rifle for cleaning that you follow the instructions to the letter. The first time I tore mine down I discovered that these rifles are more complicated than a bolt action and reassembly requires more patience.

In the lighter calibers, my choice would be different. The Browning Lo-Wall is a beautiful rifle, very graceful and accurate. I owned one for several years in .223 but traded it off for something else. From time to time, I've considered buying another one in .243 and if Browning put one out in .260 Remington or .257 Roberts, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

 

[Paul B.]

Well I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say. My vote goes to the Rugers.
One very important point to consider is after the sale problems. I have 8 #1 rifles in various persuasions.(!A,B,H)
Of the 8 rifles, one, a 7X57 MM was highly inaccurate. I contacted Ruger, they said, "Send it in, we'll look at it." When the gun came back, it had literally been totally rebuilt.
I mention this, because Browning and Winchester are now owned by a french conglomerate. When my Model 70 Featherweight proved to be inaccurate (4 and 5 inch groups) I contacted Winchester. They said, "Take it to a gunsmith." I interpret this to mean, go to hell we've got your money. A friend and I were talking yesterday. He had problems with his Browning A-Bolt rifle. He'd contacted Browning and got the same type response.
It seems to me, that since that French outfit took Browning and Winchester over, that customer satisfaction is not important to them. Only the money you pay to buy there products. Needless to say, I won't be buying anything they make. Anyway, the Browning single shots are way overpriced.
Are they more accurate? My #1 in .300 Win. Mag. does 3/8 inch at 100 yards. My least accurate #1 does 1.5 inches at 100 yards, and that one is a 45-70.
No thanks Browning. I'll buy Rugers.
Paul B.