I've been having the envie for a single shot 45-70 for a while. I decided rather than go with an H&R or other crack barrel, to wait and save up for a nice one. I am really torn between the 1885 and the #1. Main thing is I really do not care for the 28 inch barrel of the 1885 and I think that the 16.5" barrel would blow my socks off.
Opinions are solicited.

__________________
Forum consigliere

Do you really need socks?

__________________
Dum vivo cano

I have a Ruger #3 .45-70 with #1 wood on it. I think the barrel is 22". I've had other #3s and several #1s. I have three 1885s and much prefer them to the Rugers. Since it's a single shot falling block rifle, the 28" barrel you mention gives the rifle the approximate same overall length as a bolt-action rifle with a 24" barrel.

This is more a matter of personal preference than anything else; the Ruger #1 and the 1885 are both fine guns.

Whole hearted endorsement for an 1885. Don't worry about the long barrel. The single shot action is so short it doesn't matter. The drop lever action is super cool. The finger lever cocks the hammer with a short down-up stroke, de-cocks the hammer with a short drop and trigger pull, and acts as a handy secondary safety if you don't like thumbing the hammer. I used to sit in a deer stand with the lever partially dropped instead of cocking the hammer before firing. You will like it. If you get an early Ruger, it might have the quirky fore end mounting that messes with accuracy. I think they fixed it, but the Browning (Miroku) is a better built piece.

I've only had a small sample of the two. I think the 1885 is both tighter and slicker, but the trigger was designed by lawyers. I even had one worked on, but still wasn't happy with it. The Ruger is great, the stock fits scope use better, and the trigger is usually better; and if not they're easier to get worked on.

It should take about two seconds for someone to chime in that they're 1885 has a crisp two-pound trigger. Okey-doke, I'm just reporting my experiences.

I think the #1 with a 22" barrel is the bees knees. I've shot a #3 .45-70 some decades ago, I do not remember it as a pleasant experience.

Edited to add that I no longer have an 1885, but I do still have a #1. So I guess I've made my choice.

Do you want to hunt with it or only shoot at the range?
I own both;for the range,the High Wall gets the nod.For hunting,the Ruger is the one I pick(deers are quite nervous up here and most of the times just pushing the safety off uses up half the aiming time you've got to aim at the quickly ''I'm outta here''time the deer gives me).

I'm an 1885 fan. I have an Uberti High Wall, which is a copy of the original black powder era Winchester 1885 and a modern Browning 1885 Low Wall.

The modern Browning 1885 uses a hanger to supper the forend and free float the barrel - and it's much better executed, and much stiffer than the hanger Ruger uses to support the forend on the No. 3.

The 28" barrel won't be nearly as long as you think on an 1885 given the short length of the action, and it's a good length for the .45-70 cartridge. You'll also appreciate the weight compared to a 16" barrel.

Here’s a fairly lengthy comparison:

Browning 1885 And Ruger No. 1 Rifles Compared

The Browning sounds much more desirable than the Ruger.

The Ruger Number 1 and/or Number 3 are .45-70 rifles I wish I had bought when they could be found here since it is my favorite centerfire rifle caliber. Those Ruger rifles are the definition of elegant in my opinion.

__________________
KM
S&WCA 3110 S&WHF 625

I have a short barreled Rolling block .45-70. It doesn't kick any worse than my long barreled one.

a Ruger # 3 in 45-70 will hurt you just looking at it. get the Ruger #1S in 45-70

I had a Ruger No. 1 many years ago, just about the time I started handloading. Of course, I had to see how close I could get to the .458 Win. Mag with it. 10 rounds and I had to cover one eye to read my watch! It had a beautiful stock but the recoil eventually split it through the pistol grip. I had a succession of 1885’s and No. 1’s through the years after that. The only one I have now is an 85 in 50-90 Sharps. I really like that one. Overall, I prefer the 85 over the No. 1. The only downside with the 85 is that the hammer can be a little tricky in very cold weather with gloves, but that shouldn’t be an issue for you. I say go with the 85 but avoid anything with a crescent butt if possible.

__________________
Everybody could shoot

The Ruger #1 is the way I would go. It is accurate, well made and scope friendly. Recoil is not that bad compared to other popular 45/70s. The only 45/70 I presently own is a early Marlin 1895. With the other 45/70s I’ve owned I never hot rodded them, had no reason to. I’m now shooting the 300gr bullets with max loads. Only to jerk the rainbow out as much as possible since 45/70 is legal deer gun in Ohio.

The Ruger single shots I've had were all reasonably accurate, but at least three of them (#1s in .223, .22-250, and .270) wouldn't hold zeros for long. These were older guns; all were bought in the '80s, I think. The .223 and .22-250 were #1Vs (24" heavy barrels) and were new, the .270 was a #1B (26" sporter barrel) and was purchased used. I wouldn't have trusted any of these rifles to hold a zero on a hunt.

Perhaps Ruger has corrected the problem on newer #1s. I still like the Ruger single shots. All I have now are two #3s, a .30-40 and a .45-70. I've had both a long time and they seem to hold zero fine, but I doubt I'd ever buy another #1 or #3. Too many of them are like a tempermental British sports car.

The inability to hold zero over time that you've described is due to the inadequate hanger Ruger uses to support their forened. It's where the modern Browning 1885 is far superior.

From an aesthetic standpoint, one of the things that has always bothered me with the Ruger No. 1 is the way the safety sits on the tang. It's not flush fitting and it frankly looks cheap. I've never had the same fit issues with an 1885.

It's a small thing, but it's a thing none the less.

I may very well be wrong, but if you plan to deer hunt with it during the "primitive weapons" season in Louisiana or Mississippi then the Browning 1885 is more likely to be legal because of the exposed hammer. Unless the requirements have changed I don't think the Ruger #1 or #3 qualify as legal "primitive weapons" in those states.

Don

__________________
Laus Deo! <><

I've owned both, but to me the Browning 1885 just has a classier and better made feel to it.

I have a Taylor's Arms clone of "Quigley Down Under" Sharps 45-70 with tall rear silhouette sight and double set triggers. I've shot at least 1,300 cast bullet loads through it. The action is still tight, 1-1/2" groups at 100 yards are possible off a rest. After 2 rounds, you really appreciate the extra weight of the 32" barrel.

It is fun to shoot, but not for deer hunting, just too heavy for field carrying.

1874 Sharps Sporting Rifle .45-70 32” Octagonal, Case Hardened Frame, Forend has a Hartford-Style, Pewter Forend Tip, with Schnabel Forearm, Walnut Stock, Double-Set Trigger, Model 138A

__________________
S&WHF 366

I was reading monthly firearms magazine recently (call me T-Rex), and on a visit to the Ruger plant the writer (and I) were amazed at the number of 10/22's Ruger could make per hour when running full throttle.

The number 1 assembly cell consisted of two guys. There's not a good business case for Ruger to keep making them, but I assume they do to honor their heritage. Buy one before they stop making them and prices go up.

If you need one more testimony that the #3 in .45-70 kills on both ends, just ask. I shot one frequently while my wife was carrying our firstborn. She said he jumped every time I fired it and he has been gun-shy his whole life.

The .22 Hornet version was a sweetheart.

__________________
I need ammo, not a ride.

I am a huge 45-70 fan! There are several areas to enjoy. The Long Range Black Powder Cartridge competition game is the one that demands the 28 to 34 inch barrel length. I have a 1974 or 5 production C. Sharpe's 1874 with only some of the bells and whistles. For American made expect to pay 3 grand and up to get started. (you never struck me as that kind of guy.)

Next would be authentic buffalo hunting. A good Italian copy of a Sharpe's or Remington or H&R Trapdoor would do nicely for about half the price.

For "Modernish" Buffalo and big bear hunting, there are a number of good American Made lever actions Marlin and Henry both make several models. The Winchester/Browning 1886's are made in Japan, and my 1986 production 1886 45-70 is better than any original Winchester! My 2005 45-90 takedown was a little rough in the action, and finding people to work on it was problematic!

Uberti make some very nice looking 1885's and 1886's copies. They get good reviews from magazines and people that never owned a real one.

From the little bit I know about you I think you might be happy with a Marlin Guide Gun. I have an early one with porting. It only kicks as bad as the level of Ammo you put in it. (Factory 300 gr is pistol cartridge mild, Hot reloads will bring tears to your eves!)

Ruger No.1 rifles are fantastic if you have a good one and a nightmare if you don't. I never had a 45-70 but had a wonderful 375 H&H, still have a 7x57 (pre 1976) and a 218 Bee from the late 90's and love them. Avoid a used one (why would anyone sell a good one?) If you get a new one shoot it promptly and if it isn't up to snuff, return to the factory! I know men that spent a fortune having them rebarreled or "rehung" and the "All Knowing" Gunsmith didn't know his nose from a banana! The torque on the forend screw is critical and need to be exact (but it is different on different models! barrel length and weight make this necessary!)

My current 45-70 battery is 4, with the number of "Did not pass muster" around 20. My pride and joy is a 1875 production (only 5 made that year) 1873 Cavalry Carbine in VG to Fine condition. I don't shoot it, but I admire it!

Plinking ammo is fun: 300 grain coated bullet (RNFP) and Trail Boss. It is like shooting a pistol caliber lever gun with cowboy loads.

Serious ammo: I use a 400 gr cast RNFP/GC at 2100 fps (hot IMR 3031 load) with a red dot scope I have kept 5 in 1.5" @ 50 yards in 1.3 seconds!

It's you money, have fun!

Ivan

Another vote for the 1885 and another vote for the shotgun buttstock on it. I love the 45-70 and load it on both ends of the spectrum. A crescent buttstock under the right circumstances will draw blood.

__________________
Dave
Regulators mount up!

I have a Quigley model as well from Armi-Sport.

Chiappa Firearms // 1874 Sharps Rifle Down Under (Color Case) 45-70/34"BBL



It's well made, accurate and has held up very well. I bought it when I lived out west where long range BPCR shooting was a bigger thing than it is here in eastern NC.

Out there I hand loaded black powder rounds using a Lyman 457-658 (480 gr bullet) and a compressed load of FFg. It's long throated, which let me seat the bullets out past the first lube groove and stuff in some more powder. If I'd stayed out west I'd have reamed it to .45-90.

Here in NC, I use commercial cast 405 grain flat points loaded over a charge of Unique at black powder velocities. I still get excellent accuracy in the 1.25 MOA range at 100 yards, and they work well out to the 300 yard ranges I shoot in this area. In that regard I'm glad i stayed with .45-70 as it's very flexible in terms of bullet selection from 300 to 350 grain jacketed bullets to 535 gr cast bullets.




I agree that it's way too heavy for field use and from time to time I suspect I chose poorly and should have went with the Billy Dixon model instead. But it's still very nice looking and a joy to shoot, if not to carry. I understand completely why one of the prop guns used in the movie had an aluminum barrel (the one used in the fight seen at the beginning of the movie).

That's really where my Uberti 1885 came in. It's much more amenable to field use.

I see Pedersoli is making a Remington Rolling Block in a couple models chambered in 45-70. Always liked the rolling block.

The Ruger Number 1s are made in the USA and I have had several over the years. In my humble opinion the No. 1 is the way to go.

Attached Images

Rugers.jpg (152.3 KB, 30 views)

__________________
Living a dream - S&WCA #2364

I've had a few of the no 1's but never kept one . I have a Miroku 1885 in 38-55 that I will keep until I pass it to one of my sons . Much rather shoot the 1885 with a scope or without .

__________________
Grumpy Old Man With a Gun

If BPCR competition is on the horizon, an exposed hammer is a requirement. In that regard, the 1885 has both the hammer and the requisite accuracy to shoot a thousand yards. I cannot speak to the No. 1

Main reason Is for primitive rifle hunting. I need to check into the legality of that for Louisiana. Love the guide gun but my Lord the prices
Plus I might want to wait a bit to see what Ruger does with them

__________________
Forum consigliere

I had a original Remington Rolling Block that was rebarreled to 45/70. Gun had heavy octagon barrel. I had tang sight on it and was shooting 405Rn cast at moderate load of Unique. Velocity was close to BP govt issue load.
I took it deer hunting. Not worlds best deer rifle. When that dude started swinging you didn’t have any choice but to follow through. I took a snap shot and the tang sight just skimmed my eye brow. I was lucky it didn’t connect solid, still had blood running in my eye. Killed the deer but for awhile wasn’t sure who was hurt worse.

This thread has veered considerably from Ruger #1s and Browning 1885s to single shot rifles in general, so I may as well join in and continue off topic.

I've had one rifle with an original Remington rolling block action and another with a reproduction rolling block action marketed by Navy Arms years ago. I don't know what maker actually produced these, but they were well made. Regardless, still a rolling block; to me a very crude action with a long hammer fall. No comparison between a rolling block and an 1885 (original or reproduction). The 1885 is a far more refined and desirable action.

I know a hammer is required in MS for primitive. I used a 45-70 Taylor's Sharps for a season or two before switching to an H&R in .35 Whelen.

__________________
I need ammo, not a ride.

Gary—since I had a minute and you still have to be mourning LSU and cursing Mike Leach, I pulled this for you a greatly discounted rates—only $895.00 per hour, 5 hour minimum.

Legal Gear for Primitive Firearms Season includes:

Rifles or pistols, .44 caliber minimum, or shotguns 10 gauge or smaller, all of which must load exclusively from the muzzle, use black powder or approved substitute only, take ball, shot, or bullet projectile only, including saboted bullets. All of the above may be fitted with magnified scopes.
Single shot, breech loading rifles or single shot, breech loading pistols, .35 caliber or larger, having an exposed hammer that use metallic cartridges loaded either with black powder or modern smokeless powder. All of the above may be fitted with magnified scopes.
Single shot, breech loading shotguns, 10 gauge or smaller, having an exposed hammer, loaded with buckshot or slug.

Deer Hunting | Louisiana Hunting Seasons & Regulations – 2020 | eRegulations

__________________
Possum—The other white meat!

Looks like you need a 1885

Are used to be a big Ruger number one fan. I still have at least eight in various calibers.

I had a Ruger number one in 4570 and eventually sold it later buying a 1885 in the same caliber

The Ruger is a workhorse the 1885 feels a little more refined

Given that you can hunt with a single shot, exposed hammer rifle in .35 cal. in both Louisiana and Mississippi ........ I would be looking for something legal in .35 Whelen (see Buford57's post). A .35 Whelen has much better range and ballistics than the .45-70 caliber. JMO!!

Don

__________________
Laus Deo! <><

Don—I was astounded to read that these modern rifles are classified as “primitive” as long as they have a hammer. Moreover you can mount the finest Leupold scope on them too. Arkansas only allows muzzle loaders.

__________________
Possum—The other white meat!

PA has a flintlock only deer season after Christmas. Can't use a percussion cap gun even. Back about 25 years ago or so PA enacted a muzzleloader season for October that allows in-line, flintlock or percussion. But for a long time the only primitive firearms season option was a flintlock, which is 1700s technology.

If you know how to operate it you never need to touch the hammer on a 1885 unless you want to. The hammer spur doesn't protrude much and can be hard to cock very quickly if a scope overhang covers it. The solution is the brilliance of the 1885 design. The hammer is easy to lower safely by lowering the finger lever about an inch, pulling the trigger (Don't worry. The breach block is out of battery), and raising the finger lever. The mechanism gently lets the hammer down. If you're holding a loaded rifle with the hammer not cocked, simply cycle the finger lever down and up about an inch and the mechanism cocks it for you. You could do all this in mittens. It's very safe, quick and convenient, faster than thumbing a hammer.

John, we're limited to muzzle-loaders only here in Tennessee also. Fact is they just call it "muzzleloader" season in the hunting regulations.

If it were legal here a good set-up would be a .35 Whelen barrel on a Thompson Center Encore rifle, which has the exposed hammer, and topped with a quality Leopold scope (might need to do a little work on the Encore trigger).

That combination could reach out and touch a deer easily at 300+yds or further if someone was a good enough shot.

Don

__________________
Laus Deo! <><

Thanks ggibson. I've just learned something new.
I have an original hi-wall that was very nicely rebored from 32-40 to 45-70. Took it out of the safe and it performs just as you described.

As far as deciding between a high wall or the Ruger #1, that's a tough one. Both are very strong actions, even the original Winchester hi-walls. Strong enough to pound your shoulder into mince meat with the heavier loads. But the beauty of the old 45-70 is that you can always load it down to easy powder puff levels with 10 gr Unique and lighter lead bullets.
My 45-70s have included new and old hi walls, a couple Remington rolling blocks and trapdoors. Also have a Pendersoli Sharps that was reamed out to 45-120. Never owned a #1 or 3 in 45-70 but did own a nice early 1b in 30-06.

As far as safety and speed of loading goes, the Ruger action wins hands down. The Sharps is down right clumsy and slow to reload, not that I don't like it.
The Remington roller is simple, easy to use and clean, but are not as strong as most people think. I would not use the mid range loads made up for the 1886 Winchester and newer Marlin lever gun in any rolling block action, original or the new remakes.
The trap door action is the weakest.
But the original question was the choice between hi wall or #1. Simple answer is to get both. Put a nice wide view scope on the #1, and augment the open sights on the hi-wall with a decent Soule type rear tang sight for long range fun.

John

Objectively speaking, no other single shot firearm compares to the Ruger #1. But don't do the 45-70; go whole hog and get the 450-400 3" - you can load it up or down for anything on the planet. They are appreciating at a dizzying rate as well.

Time honored lawyer trick-let someone else look up the law for you
As far as billing is concerned....sue me

__________________
Forum consigliere

You really need to check out at least one book and perhaps 2 to get some good insight. Both are by the same author.

The first is, "Forty years with the .45-70" by Paul Matthews, and the other is, "The paper patched bullet", same author.

He loved his single shots and mostly favored the Ruger #1s and #3s (more affordable than vintage or repros), and pure lead, paper patched slugs and mostly smokeless powder for hunting. His loads made my shoulder hurt just reading what he stuffed into that ctg to put meat on the table. He rarely needed a second shot.

*I* highly reccomend his book(s), but, especially, the 40 years with the .45-70.

Rob

Henry has entered the single shot 45-70 field. I have yet to see a 45-70 Henry, but I like Henry rifles (whatever that makes me) compared to other currently manufactured and moderately priced rifles. Maybe worth a look.

Buy a 1874 Shiloh and call it a day .

Well this thread made me order a Ruger No. 1 in .45-70. I think CajunLawyer should pay half my costs, but I'll not be holding my breath.

I've had a couple of Shiloh Sharps .45-70s and still have one that I bought thirty years ago. It doesn't get fired very often, but I did shoot it yesterday. No surprise that these guns are very accurate but that action has always seemed a bit awkward and clunky in comparison with the 1885 and Ruger single shot; I use them, too. Of course, the 1874 is an older design.

Again, it comes down to what one prefers as they can all be more than satisfactory shooters. As for the .45-70 cartridge, cast bullets are certainly the way to go. I can't imagine what advantage a jacketed bullet would have in the .45-70 over the right cast bullet.

The Ubertis are also good to go as well as their low walls. The Ruger #1s are good guns, but not as nice as the Mirokus or the Ubertis.

But I guess that my favorite single shot is my original 1887 Winchester high wall in 40-70 straight Sharps.

Attached Images

	IMG_0154.jpg (142.1 KB, 9 views)
	IMG_0147.jpg (141.4 KB, 9 views)
	IMG_0149.jpg (196.0 KB, 10 views)
	IMG_0148.jpg (103.4 KB, 9 views)