Wondering Which of the single shots are the most accurate with the least screwing around? Like these uns alot but especially can't get past the hit and mostly miss accuracy reports of the Ruger no. 1 action. Would like one of these in a .22-250 or .204 but why bother if they aern't consistent?
Which is generally most accurate Ruger No. 1 or Browning Highwall?
- Thread starter cath8r
- Start date
well, they are mighty purdy for sure! you could play with them for a while! you may get a good one right of the hop! if you are lucky! they will usually eat your wallet right up to get one in the first place, you can become an addict to quality single shot rifles real quick, are you sure you are ready for all this? I am a victim of this this this, I just can't find the words for it! Beware! There is no looking back, if you can't resist the addiction! Fight hard to go back or go the irresistible path of many other's before you! Go single shot and be the most that you can be in the hunting and shooting sport! Welcome to the single shot club! 
The BPCR Browning Hiwall that comes with a Badger barrel is a very accurate rifle and quite popular in competition. For the regular barrels and cartridges, I'd say the Ruger just because I find them so accurate...IMHO there are more accurate single shots out there but the OP just asked about those 2.
I have owned both and presently my Browning 1885 in .270 Winchester is by far the most accurate hunting rifle I have ever owned.
With that said I had a Ruger 1B in 30-06 that was an honest sub-MOA rifle after I put a nylon spacer under the forearm at the hanger screw to "float" the barrel.
Apart from accuracy the Browning is also a lot more "solid" than the #1 and the action is smoother and tighter. Aesthetically however the lines of the #1 are nicer.
With that said I had a Ruger 1B in 30-06 that was an honest sub-MOA rifle after I put a nylon spacer under the forearm at the hanger screw to "float" the barrel.
Apart from accuracy the Browning is also a lot more "solid" than the #1 and the action is smoother and tighter. Aesthetically however the lines of the #1 are nicer.
It's interesting to hear about your Ruger 1B 30-06. I have a 1B in .270 that is a 3/4" rifle. However, mine shoots poorly when free floated and has to have a pressure tip in the forend to shoot well.
I have had a few of each. "Typically" the Brownings, including the old B78, will outshoot the Rugers. But the Rugers fit better so once I get away from the bench they hit better for me.
In fairness to the accuracy of the Rugers, a lot of them like to string shots vertically. But once their bedding is fixed they can be very accurate as well.
In fairness to the accuracy of the Rugers, a lot of them like to string shots vertically. But once their bedding is fixed they can be very accurate as well.
The most accurate Single shot that I have ever fired is my CPA .218 Mashburn Bee, followed by my C. Sharps Highwall, both rifles have Badger barrels, my Ruger #1 Int'l. is close behind with the factory barrel. I have other single shots that have been re-barrelled but don't have the same accuracy and have barrels by Douglas and Green Mtn.
I was able to compare accuracy between a Tikka T-3 Varmint gun in .222 Rem. and a CPA and there was no comparison, the CPA had it all over the Tikka.
Sometimes it comes down to caliber selection as my Badger barrelled Sharps '74 is quite accurate as well but in 50/90, after the first few shots, your concentration starts to slip.
I was able to compare accuracy between a Tikka T-3 Varmint gun in .222 Rem. and a CPA and there was no comparison, the CPA had it all over the Tikka.
Sometimes it comes down to caliber selection as my Badger barrelled Sharps '74 is quite accurate as well but in 50/90, after the first few shots, your concentration starts to slip.
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I would agree the 1885 is generally the more inherently accurate, but more solid? That I have to disagree with, I don't think I've handled a more 'solid' feeling action and gun than the No.1. I like both rifles, but greatly prefer the No.1's lines and hammerless action. The 1885 of the two I find generally stiffer, and less substantial. That said, I've yet to own one of my own and it's a great rifle from my limited experience with it. But we're talking green apples and greener apples, splitting hairs.
I have had lots of Ruger #1s and only a couple of the Brownings. Right out of the box, the Brownings easily outshoot the Rugers. If you know how to tune the Rugers properly they can be made to shoot VERY well. You need a hicks accurizer, float and glass the forearm, glass the butstock to the action, take the stress out of the rib and work over the trigger. You also need to make sure you put the rest in the right place when bench shooting them. With that done most #1s will shoot very well. The Brownings usually shoot very well with none of that work.
I was under the impression that the Rugers had terrible lock time. As far as I've heard, the schuetzen crowd tends to use almost any other action for off hand shooting including exposed hammer guns in part due to the lock time.
Chris.
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Chris, I do believe the No.1 to have a faster lock time than the exposed hammer guns, though slower than many bolt actions. I was under the impression the Ruger No.1 wasn't used as it is not legal for much of the single shot competition, being a modern action. Many references to the No.1 vs 1885's and other exposed hammer guns on US forums reference the Ruger's faster lock time. So I plead "read it much, done it little", you may be right though I'm under the impression the Ruger's faster.
For myself I prefer the Browning out of the box, Ruger needs a bit of fiddling with the forearm more often than not. Lock time on either one can be sped up a bit by lightening the hammer. Trigger on the Ruger is usually a bit better, Browning can be tuned up to be every bit as good. I find I can disassemble & reassemble an 1885 easier than the Ruger. And the octagon barrel and exposed hammer on the Browning turns my crank a lot more. The 1885 has some history to it also. As to strength, don't think there is any difference, both have been chambered in various magnum calibers, 7mm, 375, and then 22-250 & the like.
I've had Ruger #1B's but sold or traded them all my favorite was one that my grandfather had given to me it was a 338 Win when he bought it but he had it rechambered to 340 Weatherby.
Awesome/accurate rifle but there was something about it that just didn't do it for me so I traded it at Lever Arms in Vancouver for my G3 Glock 20 10mm.
I much prefer the look feel of the Brownings only reason I have never bought one and it would be in 375H&H is that they have never as far as I know anyway been available in stainless with black/gray laminate stocks I have almost completely moved away from blued guns now.
Oh yeah if Browning introduced one in that configuation I would snap it up in a freaking heart beat...
Awesome/accurate rifle but there was something about it that just didn't do it for me so I traded it at Lever Arms in Vancouver for my G3 Glock 20 10mm.
I much prefer the look feel of the Brownings only reason I have never bought one and it would be in 375H&H is that they have never as far as I know anyway been available in stainless with black/gray laminate stocks I have almost completely moved away from blued guns now.
Oh yeah if Browning introduced one in that configuation I would snap it up in a freaking heart beat...
