single shots: Browning? Ruger?

[FITASC]

I used to own a No.1 RSI in 243 and it was scary accurate with the load it likes (a Sierra 85 BTSP).

NEF's aren't even close to the Browning or Ruger for quality or reliability or accuracy (and I own one)

To me, it will come down to which one you can get the parts and service for.

 

[kcub]

I recall reading in John Taylor's book African rifles and cartridges that when elephant hunting with a single shot he'd have spare rounds between his fingers of his off hand and he could reload quickly for follow up shots if needed. I believe he was using a Farquarson similar to the Ruger.

 

[stubbicatt]

Winchester 1885's

I have 3 of these old girls, one of which is a Winder musket. I have no complaints about accuracy. Not any at all. But then I shoot them offhand, with hand cast bullets, from my hind legs, not prone, and rarely from a bench.

Though my Zika High Wall Schuetzen in 32-40 is a masterpiece, and stands above the rest, both in terms of fit and in terms of just raw accuracy potential. Once one understands the hooked buttplate, and practices awhile with a palm rest, figures out the right shooting position, etc., the steadiness with which he can hold the rifle on target must be experienced to be appreciated.

I am impressed with the quality of manufacture of the originals. Made when quality really meant something. In my view, nothing made today compares.

I have not found that the crescent rifle buttplate on my 45-70 has been offensive in any way. Just have to learn to shoot it right. I shoot 510 grain bullets through it, with cases full of compressed black powder, and while it is no maiden's caress, it is not anything to get excited about, recoil wise, and it doesn't hurt to shoot.

While there is no substitute for an excellent barrel, I have learned through my experience with these rifles that there is more to accuracy than lock time and barrel quality. How the rifle fits me is probably more important, and I find the drop in the angle of the buttstock, and the crescent buttplate are really helpful in bringing the rifle to your face in a consistent manner, while shooting offhand.

Still have much to learn. I do not like the tendency of the modern single shots to have a straight comb, as while that is probably helpful if one is shooting prone or maybe off a bench, in actual use it requires one to position the toe of the stock in the pocket of the shoulder, and limits the fine tuning one can get by placing the stock on the ball of the shoulder, or outboard of the ball and inboard of the biceps.

So in summary, I find I shoot these rifles offhand better than what might be exhibited in raw group size fired off a bench with a bolt rifle.

 

[fourbore]

H&R (now owned by Remington) no longer sells barrels for interchanging calibers, not to mention they had a terrible time on QC with some calibers like 35 Whelen, there are reports all over the web about how the H&R rifles were hit or miss...

I agree with the Remington part. That is why I suggested a USED handy rifle and ONLY as an alternative to CVA, not an alternative to an 1885. Spare, swap barrels are not for me. I get the caliber I want in the gun I want, get it set up and leave it alone.

Freedom Group (aka Remington) ruined the H&R single shot line and as far as I know, they may have stopped building them. Rossi already jumped in with a copy now.

There are a whole lot of used handy rifles out there, especially in popular calibers like 243 and 45/70, etc.

I may have to keep an open mind on cva, those single shot pistols seem worth a look. Stainless, too.

 

[B.L.E.]

Question about the Winchester 1885 low wall, tell me they haven't let the lawyers ruin it with a superfluous safety like their lever guns.

The Miroku Winchester low walls have a hammer block, you can't push the hammer to touch the firing pin even if you are pulling back the trigger and there is no half cock. It's been a total non-issue on my gun, it shoots every time.
At least they made it so that closing the breech leaves the hammer at full cock ready to shoot, like the originals.

1885 low wall .22 rimfire 5 shots @ 50 yards

Ruger #1 .22 Hornet 5 shots@100 yards

 

[stubbicatt]

Nice group there BLE

 

[B.L.E.]

Thanks stubbicatt.
However, I would be lying if I said that I could shoot groups like that every time I tried.

With the small case volume of a .22Hornet, primers can really make a difference. Also the crimp. I gave up trying for tight crimps and instead seat the bullet out to the point where it nearly contacts the rifling. Pushing the bullet into the rifling to me is the ultimate "tight crimp" and I believe it's a "crimp" that's more repeatable than any crimp you can put in a paper thin .22 Hornet case.

Also, the Ruger #1 is really sensitive to how it is supported. Compared to the light weight short travel strikers found in good bolt action rifles, the Ruger has a musket hammer. In that respect, I believe the 1885 low wall is better. A relatively short throw hammer for a fast lock time.
A heavy long throw hammer can cause a considerable amount of gun movement before ignition from the reaction of it falling. Don't believe me? Then carefully put the crosshairs of the scope on a distant bullseye and dry fire it and watch the picture jump as the hammer falls.
This means that to be consistent, you have to let the rifle move the same way every time, which means your offhand zero is not necessarily going to be your bench rest zero.

 

[Olympus]

My Ruger No 1 in 243 will shoot almost 1/2" groups at 100 yards with hand loads. Shot a 5 shot group at 0.61" about a month ago.