Uberti or Browning 1885

[.45Cole]

I'm looking for a 1885 in 38/55 and I have started to see a problem between the Browning and the Uberti, the Uberti has more furniture and is cheaper but the traditional hunter Browning is finished excellent and will have a correct chamber and bore. Thoughts?

[fn1889m]

I have three Browning 1885 rifles, in .223, .30-06, and .45-70 (silhouette rifle). All are excellent rifles, fit, finish, rifling, accuracy, etc. The lock-work is NOT the same as an original 1885, and the trigger is not easy to adjust. But the Japanese Browning (and Winchester) 1885 rifles are very nice. I also have a .45 Winchester 1892, Japanese reproduction. The Miroku rifles are probably the best made production rifles on the market today.

There is no internet bad mouthing of the Miroku 1885 in 38-55.

After a lot of research, I have ordered a Uberti 1885 in .45 LC to match a Uberti pistol in the same caliber. It will be a 100 - 150 yard plinker. I expect a less polished but more authentic copy of the 1885 rifle. And maybe more fun. I am older and my eye are not as good as they used to be. 100 yards is a fun target. I am not expecting it to be a Browning, and I am willing to tinker with it.

In short, get the Browning Traditional Hunter.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Don McDowell]

C Sharps

[.45Cole]

A Browning can be had for $1k

[marlinman93]

but the traditional hunter Browning is finished excellent and will have a correct chamber and bore. Thoughts?

Correct chamber and bore? Never heard that UBerti had the wrong chamber or bore? What do you consider "correct"?

[MT Chambers]

Of your two choices, I'd definitely get the C. Sharps 1885.

[sparky45]

Love my Uberti 1885 and the fit and finish is very good. I believe the Uberti is closer to the Winchester original 1885 than the Browning, ect.

[oldred]

Browning is finished excellent and will have a correct chamber and bore. Thoughts?

Yes the Browning is finished excellent and it's a very nice rifle however the Uberti has the "Correct bore" vs the Browning's smaller .375! This was just discussed in another thread a few days ago and there is a big misconception that the Uberti has an oversized bore when in fact most newer rifles, not just the Browning, chambered in 38-55 actually have a smaller bore than a true 38-55 like the Uberti. Apparently the manufacturers of most new rifles/barrels are already tooled up for the .375 and it's so close to the traditional 38-55 that they just use it instead of retooling to make a slightly different bore for a very small market, can't blame them for that I suppose and besides the .375 will have a much bigger bullet selection to chose from.


I believe the Uberti is closer to the Winchester original 1885 than the Browning, ect.

Yes it's MUCH closer since it's an almost exact copy of the original while the Browning shares only the model no. and a somewhat similar outward appearance, not a singe part inside the receiver or anywhere else on the rifle is even close to an original (or the Uberti or C Sharps)! The Brownings are a completely new modern and quite complex design having many more small parts than the much simpler original design, this is not to knock them however as they are fine rifles it's just that they are VERY different.


Also C Sharps is probably the best choice out there for an 1885, it is extremely well built and maintains the original design with it's time proven reliability and simplicity.

[Bigslug]

The Miroku .32-40 that I bird-dogged for my Dad a year or so ago has turned out to be our most accurate cast gun, and it has a fantastic finish, but as has been said, it's not really a true 1885.

I've been trying to get a specific Uberti 1885 Low Wall for about a year, but it's been a case of (1.) correct model not available, (2.) incorrect model shipped and shipped back, and (3.) correct model still not available. Had the correct gun been shipped, I'd have been a happy camper at least based on the visual. Not a show piece, but they did it justice.

With .38-55, I wouldn't pick before I asked the manufacturers or importers about true land and groove diameters as well as twist rates to make sure it's going to do what you want it to do.

[Gunlaker]

I've owned a number of Miroku built 1885's and they were all quite accurate. I've never owned an Uberti 1885, but I've heard more than once of people getting rifles that won't shoot.

If I had to choose only between those two I'd pick the Miroku for sure. I'd try to find a used one, the heavier barreled .38-55's that they were selling maybe 5 or so years ago with the shotgun buttplate.

Chris.

[bigted]

I am with old red here. The uberti is more original in almost all respects including bore diameter.

There is a huge difference between my1893 Marlin 38-55 and my rebarreled with a GM barrel Miroku 38-55. The Marlin has the correct .380 diameter groove and the Miroku has the WRONG groove diameter of .375.

Both are very accurate, but, they do NOT use the same boolits.

Huge difference between .375 and .380. If fed the right boolit diameters either one will have accurate potential.

[oldred]

Huge difference between .375 and .380. If fed the right boolit diameters either one will have accurate potential.

I think this is why some Uberti owners have complained of accuracy problems with the 38-55, they mistakenly assume something is wrong with the rifle when it's nothing more than feeding it the wrong ammo! The newer model Winchester/Browning 1885 manufacturers, and a couple others, seem to have done a huge disservice by opting to use the wrong bore diameter for this caliber simply because that's what they had already so it saved them money since it was "close enough" in their opinion, of course their opinion is greatly influenced by profits and they couldn't care less about the shooter! Some companies, like Uberti to their credit, stayed true to the traditional design and the correct bore diameter while Miroku changed everything about the rifle including the bore in the instance of the 38-55.

[marlinman93]

Seems that many shooters today consider the smaller .375" bore to be the "correct" size, and the traditional old original bore sizes to be wrong. Nice to see that many here know the difference and appreciate a truly correct (original) bore.

[indian joe]

Seems that many shooters today consider the smaller .375" bore to be the "correct" size, and the traditional old original bore sizes to be wrong. Nice to see that many here know the difference and appreciate a truly correct (original) bore.

I am somewhat of a traditionalist (dont shoot fake blackpowder = subs) but now and then common sense has to get a bit of a run too - counting myself very fortunate that my Oliver F Winchester 38/55 came out of the factory with the wrong size bore - its a tackhole shooter - I can take my pick of the mob of 375 boolits, molds, ammo, thats available rather than cussing at a pretty gun that wont shoot worth a hoot unless I mess with uncommon sized components. I had thought that the oversized bore thing was just winchester being sloppy wih their machining - not so aparrently - does anyone know for sure at what point the 38/55 became a 37 and a half/55 ?? (the 55 bit is suspect too - no way no how they ever got 55 grains of black in there with a boolit that would cycle, on top of it)

[marlinman93]

All my .38-55's have bores of .380" or larger. Never had any trouble getting them to shoot extremely accurate, or finding molds to cast bullets for this bore size. My Schoyen Ballard has a .382" groove and a 1:15" twist. I shoot the old Ideal Doc Hudson bullet in it, and it will shoot under 1" at 100 yds. So I'm happy with the original bore sizes myself.

[Gunlaker]

The bore size doesn't really matter. It's pretty easy to get a mold to fit anything you want these days. Of greater concern to me is the quality of the barrel/chambering job, and the rest of the rifle.

Chris.

[Char-Gar]

I have no experience with Uberti rifles, however I do have a Browning Traditional Hunter in 30-30 that I have had for better than 16 years. It is a finely made and highly accurate rifle with cast bullets. It would be one of the very last rifles I would part with.

[indian joe]

The bore size doesn't really matter. It's pretty easy to get a mold to fit anything you want these days. Of greater concern to me is the quality of the barrel/chambering job, and the rest of the rifle.

Chris.

A little less easy to do all that if you live south of the equator - expensive shipping - unreasonable customs and import delays for anything gun related - stringent licencing laws ................

[Gunlaker]

I imagine so. I'm in Canada so it's easier than it is for you, but still trickier than for an American. Is it difficult/expensive to get a mold from Buffalo Arms sent to you?

Chris.

[.45Cole]

Maybe going Uberti would be best if one was looking at a companion marlin 38/55 too. Is there any difference between all the Italian guns for hte 1885 in 38/55 (taylor, uberti, navy arms, cimmarron, ect?)

[Lance Boyle]

I have a Taylor arms branded uberti. Mine is .382ish and I bought a fatter mold from Tom. The uberti twist from what I read is set up for sub 300 grains. I am shooting 250-265 grains between my cast and commercial .381” bullets.

So check your twist which limits bullets and know what you want to do. I don’t think my gun will shoot 350’s for 1000 yards. I don’t plan on that anyhow. I am playing at 100-300 yards.

[Rokkit Syinss]

Maybe going Uberti would be best if one was looking at a companion marlin 38/55 too. Is there any difference between all the Italian guns for hte 1885 in 38/55 (taylor, uberti, navy arms, cimmarron, ect?)

Uberti is a manufacturer. Cimarron, Navy Arms and Taylors are importers. Each importer may have slightly different fit and finish specs for a specific gun made by Uberti but the guts of the gun are the same. I should note that in some instances a model may be importer specific but this mostly applies to the revolvers. Pedersoli also manufactures the 1885 rifle.

[country gent]

Throwing in another choice here just for thought. The uberti and Browning are Off the shelf firearms you get what they make and if needed modify/upgrade from there. There are different models but not a lot of specific choices. A C Sharps highwall gives the options of barrel length, contour, twist rate, and finish. The receiver action you get selections on trigger, finish. Wood can be upgraded to almost any grade and type applicable. Also fore end tips caps grip caps checkering. Engraving is also an option. Sights can be just what you want also from barrel sights to a period scope. Here there are a lot of choices to get just what you want.

The drawback to C Sharps and the custom rifles is wait time is longer since rifles are built to order not on the rack. Also cost is a little higher.

[Gunlaker]

Yeah, I'd pick a C. Sharps over either of the two brands suggested, although my Browning BPCR was an excellent rifle. I was just afraid to take it apart.

Chris.

[bigted]

I am somewhat of a traditionalist (dont shoot fake blackpowder = subs) but now and then common sense has to get a bit of a run too - counting myself very fortunate that my Oliver F Winchester 38/55 came out of the factory with the wrong size bore - its a tackhole shooter - I can take my pick of the mob of 375 boolits, molds, ammo, thats available rather than cussing at a pretty gun that wont shoot worth a hoot unless I mess with uncommon sized components. I had thought that the oversized bore thing was just winchester being sloppy wih their machining - not so aparrently - does anyone know for sure at what point the 38/55 became a 37 and a half/55 ?? (the 55 bit is suspect too - no way no how they ever got 55 grains of black in there with a boolit that would cycle, on top of it)

Cant answer the year they became 37 and a half-55's but can answer the 55 grain question as i was mystified by this me self.

The original 38-55 was a target rifle which began during the pre smokeless days. Being a target rifle i believe Ballard was the first rifle chambered such and was a single shot.

They loaded 55 grains of the original powder in the case and as i understand, it came to the top (mouth) of the case where there was a card wad that was crimped over to hold the powder in and then the bullet was breech seated or muzzle loaded down on the case of powder.

These were single shot rifles designed for top shelf accuracy and originally were not thought of as a repeater style cartridge.

By downloading to 46 grains, Marlin did the deed and loaded a 250 grain bullet that loaded length wise to work through their model 1893 rifle. Winchester jumped on the band wagon with their 1894 rifle and as they say ... all history from there.

I have been tempted to try loading the cases to 55 grains with a .060 vegi wad crimped in the mouth, and try my hand at muzzle loading a boolit to engrave the rifling as it is loaded down on the charged case of powder, but have not done so as of yet. Maybe find a breech seater or build one for me modified Miroku heavy barreled 38-55. Should be a treat to play with.

[Don McDowell]

Actually even the very first Ideal Handbook list's the 38-55 bullet diameter as .375, and that includes Winchester and Marlin.

[EDG]

It matters little what it is called in any handbook. The only thing that matters is what the manufacturers produced in the rifles.
For new production only the SAAMI standard drawings are the US authority.


The current SAAMI drawing is not a .375. See link to dwg.
The groove diameter is specified to be .379 plus .002 minus .000.
It is possible to make a good chamber with the SAAMI drawing but a dumb manufacturer like H&R can make bad chambers too.

Of course I am referring to the US convention of usually using the groove diameter and bullet diameter.
My own .38-55 has a .375 land dia and .380 groove dia. It would hit nothing with a .375 bullet. How do I know it is .375 land dia? I pushed a Hornady 270grn jacketed bullet through with one hand on a cleaning rod.
My .375 Win in a Marlin and .375 Win in a #3 Ruger measure .377 to .378 groove dia. so they are not exactly .375 either.

https://www.google.com/search?q=saami+drawing+.38-55&oq=saami+drawing+.38-55&aqs=chrome..69i57.18657j0j8&client=tablet-android-att-us&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=XYX7hnFa-bAv6M:

[indian joe]

Cant answer the year they became 37 and a half-55's but can answer the 55 grain question as i was mystified by this me self.

The original 38-55 was a target rifle which began during the pre smokeless days. Being a target rifle i believe Ballard was the first rifle chambered such and was a single shot.

They loaded 55 grains of the original powder in the case and as i understand, it came to the top (mouth) of the case where there was a card wad that was crimped over to hold the powder in and then the bullet was breech seated or muzzle loaded down on the case of powder.

These were single shot rifles designed for top shelf accuracy and originally were not thought of as a repeater style cartridge.

By downloading to 46 grains, Marlin did the deed and loaded a 250 grain bullet that loaded length wise to work through their model 1893 rifle. Winchester jumped on the band wagon with their 1894 rifle and as they say ... all history from there.

I have been tempted to try loading the cases to 55 grains with a .060 vegi wad crimped in the mouth, and try my hand at muzzle loading a boolit to engrave the rifling as it is loaded down on the charged case of powder, but have not done so as of yet. Maybe find a breech seater or build one for me modified Miroku heavy barreled 38-55. Should be a treat to play with.

I made a breech seater for my lever gun and did the case full of powder thing with a card wad - it was a PITA and didnt shoot any better than my normal case loaded rounds - very shortlived project that was :bigsmyl2: hope you have better luck/more fun with it

[Gunlaker]

Ted I have shot a fair number of breech seated BP loads in a few single shots. As a matter of fact I'd say that my most accurate black powder single shot rifle, at least at 200m is a .38-55 breech seated. Joe it did take a fair bit of experimenting to find the right bullet and powder to make it really work. And it was easier for me because I was using a CPA rifle and a Russ Weber breach seater so I didn't have to custom build anything.

The funny thing about that rifle is that it has a Sammi spec chamber, not the one CPA advertises that they put on their schuetzen rifle. But, with the right bullet it is super accurate.

Chris.

[indian joe]

Ted I have shot a fair number of breech seated BP loads in a few single shots. As a matter of fact I'd say that my most accurate black powder single shot rifle, at least at 200m is a .38-55 breech seated. Joe it did take a fair bit of experimenting to find the right bullet and powder to make it really work. And it was easier for me because I was using a CPA rifle and a Russ Weber breach seater so I didn't have to custom build anything.

The funny thing about that rifle is that it has a Sammi spec chamber, not the one CPA advertises that they put on their schuetzen rifle. But, with the right bullet it is super accurate.

Chris.

Chris -- I didnt try real hard and proly did a number of things wrong - the rifle shoots really, really nice with a bog standard load - so less room for improvement than there sometimes is - my boolits were too hard - would like to try it again sometime with a heavier boolit soft enough to seat ok.
joe

[Gunlaker]

Joe the funny part is that mine didn't really shoot any bullet/load very well until I found this oddball mold from Buffalo Arms so I guess we have opposite guns :-)


Chris.

[CSMR]

I'd go with the fit/finish...Browning