winchester/browning model 1885
- Thread starter keith mokry
- Start date
- Location
- Lloydminster, Alberta
we have bullets, brass, dies and ammo in stock.
- Location
- Lloydminster, Alberta
375 HH is sold but have at least one more coming in a few weeks
Just received my new .375H&H 1885 today...gee, I wonder where that came from?
Won't be able to shoot it till tomorrow, but first impressions are good. The wood is not spectacular, but quite presentable...not an eyesore like many wood stocks today are. Well-fitted recoil pad, nice bluing and polish. The trigger is crisp and quite shootable; the hammer cocking action has a very different "feel" than I am accustomed to with the B78, with which I have a long history. I've briefly played with a couple of the newer 1885's but don't recall if they had this sensation to the operation of the hammer. I understand there were some internal modifications between the two guns, which may explain this?
I need to find some scope mounts pronto, but I'll be playing with the irons until then; I have high hopes that this gun will be a keeper. New Winchester leverguns leave me cold, with their idiotic and unnecessary tang safety. Thank goodness they haven't butchered the 1885 design with that idea...yet. This gun is actually drilled and tapped for a tang sight!
Incidentally, I have managed to resist the temptation of buying this gun for several years now...so to all who posted and contributed to this thread: I hate you!
Won't be able to shoot it till tomorrow, but first impressions are good. The wood is not spectacular, but quite presentable...not an eyesore like many wood stocks today are. Well-fitted recoil pad, nice bluing and polish. The trigger is crisp and quite shootable; the hammer cocking action has a very different "feel" than I am accustomed to with the B78, with which I have a long history. I've briefly played with a couple of the newer 1885's but don't recall if they had this sensation to the operation of the hammer. I understand there were some internal modifications between the two guns, which may explain this?I need to find some scope mounts pronto, but I'll be playing with the irons until then; I have high hopes that this gun will be a keeper. New Winchester leverguns leave me cold, with their idiotic and unnecessary tang safety. Thank goodness they haven't butchered the 1885 design with that idea...yet. This gun is actually drilled and tapped for a tang sight!
Incidentally, I have managed to resist the temptation of buying this gun for several years now...so to all who posted and contributed to this thread: I hate you!
Just received my new .375H&H 1885 today...gee, I wonder where that came from?
I need to find some scope mounts pronto, but I'll be playing with the irons until then; I have high hopes that this gun will be a keeper. New Winchester leverguns leave me cold, with their idiotic and unnecessary tang safety. Thank goodness they haven't butchered the 1885 design with that idea...yet. This gun is actually drilled and tapped for a tang sight!
Incidentally, I have managed to resist the temptation of buying this gun for several years now...so to all who posted and contributed to this thread: I hate you!
Once you do decide to get those mounts, get clay to send you a talley rail and rings. They look quite nice on my 375 1885.
On a side note, is there anywhere that sells a blank for the rear sight dovetail? Looks silly with the rear sight removed.
I went with a Skinner sight on my 1885 375 H&H, it mounts just ahead of the receiver and also brought in a few rear sight blanks from them. I just got the sight so off to try it this weekend. I am hoping to go to the Tally mount and quick detach rings and keep the Skinner sight on. The idea is to hunt with the open sight but have the ability to scope it if needed. I did take the Marble tang sight of my other 1885 in 405W and tried it on the 375, it work well at 100 yards with good grouping, but I could not dial it down enough with the short front sight and it shot 3" high at 100 with no more room to move down. I was going to order another Marble tang sight for the 375 and a new front sight, but wanted to try the Skinner out so went that way. I will try it out this weekend and see. Love the gun though and although it is a bit heavy to pack around, it will be used as one of my main hunting guns. Hope you enjoy yours jjohnwm.
Thanks, Win86, I expect I will.
I have the Skinner sight you are talking about on my old B78 in .45-70; it's decent, but not as fast as a tang sight and even poorer than a tang in low light, due to its distance from your eye. It mounts to the holes that are covered by the original rear sight, so if the Talley base uses those holes, using both on the same rifle at once is a no-go. If you order it, get the rear sight slot-blank with the storage hole for the extra aperture. This is such a cool little item that I got one with the sight, even though I have never switched apertures on the sight.
Heronfish, you can also order a standard blank for that barrel slot from Skinner. I defy you to look at their website and then order just that one piece. They have a ton of interesting and useful gizmos on there.
I have the Skinner sight you are talking about on my old B78 in .45-70; it's decent, but not as fast as a tang sight and even poorer than a tang in low light, due to its distance from your eye. It mounts to the holes that are covered by the original rear sight, so if the Talley base uses those holes, using both on the same rifle at once is a no-go. If you order it, get the rear sight slot-blank with the storage hole for the extra aperture. This is such a cool little item that I got one with the sight, even though I have never switched apertures on the sight.
Heronfish, you can also order a standard blank for that barrel slot from Skinner. I defy you to look at their website and then order just that one piece. They have a ton of interesting and useful gizmos on there.
Yes your right jj looking at it again, I can't go that way. Well I will try the Skinner this weekend and see. I hate to say it's was a waste of money as I do like the looks of the sight, but I am pretty sure my eyes may need a scope before to long if this is going to be a main hunting gun. I may look at keeping the rear factory sight on and still go with the detached scope anyway. Guess we never know till we try.
It occurs to me that you might be able to reverse the rear sight, so that the blade points toward the muzzle. I've done this with a number of guns because it moves the actual sight blade several inches further from my eye, allowing me to keep it in focus for a few extra years as my eyes age. I don't know how long the Talley base is, you'd have to examine it and try it out. If it works you get to have a scope as well as the original rear sight as a backup.
Well I played with my 375 a bit this weekend and the Skinner sight did well but, I think I will need to scope it. My eyes will need it pass 100 yards. So looking for thoughts on scopes. I am going the Tally base and rings, but no idea where to start regarding the scope. I would like to keep it as lean as possible so as not to make the gun bulky looking. Anybody scoped the 1885 in 375 H&H?
Small world...I took advantage of the insanely warm weather today (+4C...unheard of here in mid-Feb) and made some noise with mine as well. I knew up front that I needed a scope, but I wanted to sight in the irons now in case I ever have to rely on them in the future. As it turned out, I never even touched them; right out of the box the gun grouped about 3 inches high at 100 yards, and windage was near perfect. A good omen...
I am also planning on using the Talley mounting system. I have a number of scopes on hand, will have to play around to see what feels right. Odds are it'll be either a 3-9x40mm Leupold or a 2-8x36mm Bausch & Lomb, both in gloss finish. I don't have the rings in hand, so am unsure about how high they are (using lows), but if there is room the nod will probably go to the Leupold. The .375 has enough ranging capability to use that power range (especially with that nice long barrel), and there will probably be room for the 40mm objective.
Many shooters like a 1-4 or 1.5-5 straight-tube scope on a .375, and they look good...they have that dangerous-game-rifle visual appeal. I like those scopes on some rifles, but they just give up too much at first and last light for me to put one on a serious multi-purpose gun like a .375.
I am also planning on using the Talley mounting system. I have a number of scopes on hand, will have to play around to see what feels right. Odds are it'll be either a 3-9x40mm Leupold or a 2-8x36mm Bausch & Lomb, both in gloss finish. I don't have the rings in hand, so am unsure about how high they are (using lows), but if there is room the nod will probably go to the Leupold. The .375 has enough ranging capability to use that power range (especially with that nice long barrel), and there will probably be room for the 40mm objective.
Many shooters like a 1-4 or 1.5-5 straight-tube scope on a .375, and they look good...they have that dangerous-game-rifle visual appeal. I like those scopes on some rifles, but they just give up too much at first and last light for me to put one on a serious multi-purpose gun like a .375.
Thanks jj I seen some threads on here with guys using straight tube, so wanted to get so feed back. I thought maybe because the 3-9 or 2-8 might sit to high or something. I want to make sure if I need to scope it, I get the full use out of the caliber.
Do you have the rings and base yet? Or are you just guesstimating like me? Until I get them in from Prophet River, I really won't know for sure what kind of cheek weld I'll get or how much objective-lens room there will be; I'm just looking at pictures.
As far as the straight-tube scope goes, the Talley base/ring combo looks like it will leave lots of room for the lens up front, so why not take advantage of that space? IMHO there are few things that look as goofy as a straight-tube scope objective suspended an inch or more above the barrel. It isn't as if this were a flyweight rifle where every last fraction of an ounce of glass is critical.
As far as the straight-tube scope goes, the Talley base/ring combo looks like it will leave lots of room for the lens up front, so why not take advantage of that space? IMHO there are few things that look as goofy as a straight-tube scope objective suspended an inch or more above the barrel. It isn't as if this were a flyweight rifle where every last fraction of an ounce of glass is critical.
Haven't got base or rings yet, but good call. Looking at pictures on the interweb, and keeping cheek weld in mind, I'm going with a 3-9 or 2-8, I think, even a few of my Marlin 45-70 have the 4 power on them and look ok. (if a leaver ever looks ok with a scope on it,hate old eyes.)
- Location
- Yellowknife, NWT
I had a Browning in .30-06. It was a nice, accurate rifle but I sold it when I was safe cleaning; I wasn't attached to it. I recently bought a Winchester 1885 Traditional Hunter in .38-55 and LOVE that rifle. The only reason I will ever part with it is to get the same gun in .30-30.
The straight tube scopes give up nothing at first and last light so long as you keep the exit pupil at 6-7mm.
Assuming your eye's exit pupil is around 6mm (it will vary depending on age and individual) you will get max "brightness" in a 40mm objective scope at 6.7x or below. In a 20mm straight tube the image will be just as bright at 3.3x and below.
It's a common misconception that a smaller objective is dimmer at all magnifications. If you can make due with less magnification the image is just as bright in a smaller scope. Assuming equal optical quality and coatings.
That's true as far as it goes, and you'll note I didn't say the big lens was "brighter". There's way more to gauging the effectiveness of a scope than just looking at the exit pupil, and there are all sorts of optical and/or marketing terms like "relative brightness", "twilight factor" and "relative light efficiency" to cloud the issue. At my age my irises will never open up to 6 or 7 mm, probably not even 5, so on the surface a 4x20mm scope will give me all the light that's possible, looking at just the exit pupil.
But if you think that means it is just as effective as a 3-9x40mm scope in dim light at 9x, then try the two side by side and prepare for a shock. That 40mm objective has admitted far more light into the same exit pupil (actually, a slightly smaller exit pupil) and you will be able to resolve much more detail. It may not be technically "brighter" but it is definitely better.
The Europeans do a lot of shooting at night, in much darker conditions than we do. Using your logic, they would be just as well served by 4x28mm scopes (7mm exit pupil) as anything...but what they actually use is 8x56mm and 9x63mm jobs. Same exit pupil, but the larger image resolves much more detail.
Yep, this all assumes that everything else (i.e. lens quality and coatings) is equal...and of course it never is...but the simple fact is that a 3-9x40mm scope on maximum power, compared to an equally-well-made 1-4x20mm scope on maximum power...definitely lets you see more. I don't care what the scopes say on paper...I simply want to see more.
But if you think that means it is just as effective as a 3-9x40mm scope in dim light at 9x, then try the two side by side and prepare for a shock. That 40mm objective has admitted far more light into the same exit pupil (actually, a slightly smaller exit pupil) and you will be able to resolve much more detail. It may not be technically "brighter" but it is definitely better.
The Europeans do a lot of shooting at night, in much darker conditions than we do. Using your logic, they would be just as well served by 4x28mm scopes (7mm exit pupil) as anything...but what they actually use is 8x56mm and 9x63mm jobs. Same exit pupil, but the larger image resolves much more detail.
Yep, this all assumes that everything else (i.e. lens quality and coatings) is equal...and of course it never is...but the simple fact is that a 3-9x40mm scope on maximum power, compared to an equally-well-made 1-4x20mm scope on maximum power...definitely lets you see more. I don't care what the scopes say on paper...I simply want to see more.
