Browning M78 Vs Ruger 1

I don't know that one is any better than the other.

I've heard (online) many people say the #1 action is a little stronger than a B78/1885 action, but couldn't say if it's fact or opinion.

I would go with whichever one looks better to your eye. Personally, I am more partial to looks of the B78/1885, but that could be because I own one.

I guess the one advantage I would see going to the Ruger would be, it is/was available from the factory in some calibers you won't find in a factory Browning/Winchester.
 
This is like those questions like "which one is better, Ford or Chevy?". The Browning B78 and Ruger #1 are different animals entirely. They are both plenty strong, and either will shoot well (although typically Brownings shoot better right out of the box). Ruger #1s are hammerless and the Browning B78 has a hammer, which can cause flinching issues for some shooters as they catch the movement out of the corner of their eye (you will get used to it). I would say go and handle both, and pick the one that fits you best.
 
Being a single-shot fan, I've spent some time shooting both rifles. I've used 6 different Rugers & 3 Brownings. I know that this is a very limited sample & it is hard to come to any conclusions either way. I'll say they both seemed very similar in accuracy, trigger & finish. A little forend tinkering (if needed) made all rifles shoot MOA or less. Both models are gorgeous, but it seems that, at least on standard models, the Browning has better wood. Both guns command a high price, but if investment is part of your purchase criteria I'd say #78 since Ruger sold a lot of #1's & is still making them. For just hunting, I personally prefer the hammerless Ruger with it's tang safety. A pristine octagon barreled #78 could easily become someone's "Safe-Queen"!

FWIW...

..bug
 
Scorch's post pretty much nailed it. I might suggest that most single shot fans are traditionalists (otherwise they wouldn't be single shot fans) and I would bet that the browning gets a more affectionate nod among that group.

Bumblebug is right about the safe queen aspect. I have an octagon barreled, low wall, chambered for .22 hornet. It was sighted in and then immediately relegated to a safe queen. The hornet is one of my favorite cartridges and so I had to go out an buy another hornet (a Ruger 77/22) just so I had a hornet to shoot. Go figure.

I may be mistaken, but I thought the original 1885 Winchester had four receiver configurations. A low wall thin side, a low wall thick side, a high wall thin side, and a high wall thick side.
 
I have both styles of rifles, 20 Ruger #1's but only one Browning B78. :( Yes I would like to have more.
To be fair and try to keep this apples to apples and not apples and oranges, I have to admit my B78 in 30-06 will shoot rings around By the same token I have several #1's in .300 Win. Mag., a B and two S models that will shoot rings around the B78.
It is a mistake to say the #1 is hammerless. Quite the contrary. It does have an internal hammer. FWIW, my #1's range from the .22 Hornet to the .416 Rigby in power. I collect them, hunt them and just plain old have fun with them. What's not to like. :D
Paul B.
 
The only thing I don't like about the B78 (Winchester Hi wall) is the stock. It looks lovely, its perfectly traditional, but skinny crescent butts are not comfortable to shoot, when you increase recoil.

Ruger's stocks are better shaped for any cartridge, generally, but they are heavier.

I have several No.3's and the small butt of those can be an issue when you get to .45-70 levels, and above.

The Browning is the old Winchester single shot, essentially, made modern.
The Ruger No.1 is visually almost the old English Farquarson (with significant internal differences).

If you want a fine gun in the traditional style (and that beats you up in the traditional way) get the Browning. If you want a traditional looking gun, with the more modern refinements, get the Ruger.
 
Dunno where you get that BS about the cresent buttpltes being on all Browning B78 rifles. Only certain models had those. My 30-06 came with a coventional butt with recoil pad and round barrel. IIRC, the ones with octagon barrels came with the cresent style buttplates. The Ruger came with a skimpy rather hard piece of res rubber even on magnum and tropical versions that were defonitely not the most pleasant rifles to shoot. Try a .375 H&H or .404 Jeffery or .416 Rigby with those very skimpy pieces of rubber and you will think otherwise. If you think I'm far off on that, yoy're more than welcome to shoot my .416 any time you're feeling masochistic. I will not be responsible for broker collar bones.
Paul B.
 
Thanks for reminding me the Browning did come with other styles of butts. I had forgotten. All of the Brownings I have seen in the last few years have all been the crescent butt style (and all .45-70s), in my local area.

I've got a N0.1 in .375H&H, and don't find it horrible, probably because it seem to weigh so much.

For an eye opener somewhat comparable to your .404 & .416, run a Ruger No.3 .45-70 up to top end max (350gr @ 2200fps) and shoot it with the factory steel buttplate. :eek::eek:

Mine has a nice thick ventilated pad, and with max handloads in the 6lb Ruger its still not fun, and definitely not something I would ever shoot prone!

Shooting the 405gr factory (black powder equivalent) load is fun, and recoil isn't bad at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top