This video was informative, and I thank you for producing it. At least one commenter complains that current Browning/Winchester low wall rimfire barrels are poorly made, and contribute to purported poor accuracy. I don't own an 1885 and I have no direct knowledge of it, but I do own a Savage Stevens Favorite in 22 LR, 1/10th price of the current B/W low wall, shorter barrel, inexpensive iron sights... On any given day, just having fun and without much effort, my friends and I shoot with it 3" or less groups at 40 yds, offhand, with indifferent ammo - again, I emphasize with iron sights. We all are old enough have grown up learning to shoot with traditional open sights; we adopted to using telescopic sights much later, and to this day a scope is a supplement to, and not the basis of, our marksmanship. With utmost respect, the inability of many folks nowadays to hit (with iron sights) the broadside of a barn while standing inside of it appears to be a generational problem. If one is unfamiliar and uncomfortable shooting traditional firearms without a scope, then please consider picking up any decent old 22 rimfire rifle with good iron sights, and spending several days at the range with an old head NRA firearms instructor, who will drill into you all the fundamental BRM principles. Do that first, and the videos which result from that training will be a heck of a lot more valuable to the viewing public.
I have a copy in 22lr and topped her off with a Leupold M8-6x held on with the beauty finished Talley rings and base. Every weapon I received from the Miroku factory is first rate in fit, finish and function. The Japanese craftsmanship is very hard to beat. I use this kit for squirrel hunting and with the Winchester 42MAX Subsonic HP load she prints minute of angle consistently. She is a joy to have in the collection.
I have this in .22 WMR. It is a wonderful rifle and very, VERY accurate! With just the open sight, I was getting holes touching each other out to 50 metres (about 55 yards). Mind you, this was not "bench-rested". This was just me shooting it slouching, while resting it on top of my car hood! Once I started shooting off-hand standing up, the group opened up, but not as much as on other platforms I have: All within a 4 inch square even off-hand! I agree with you. The stock rises TOO high almost as if it was designed for scopes. I would have preferred lower comb because I also have to tilt my head quite a bit just to get my eye lined up to the sight. Mine does not have your wonderful rear sight that folds down to accommodate a scope mount without having to remove your rear sight. I do have to remove my regular buckhorn rear sight with the elevator before mounting a scope, which is a HUGE downer, as I would love to keep both on. I have a Leupold scope with the Win 1885 proprietary scope mount coming soon. I suspect this rifle will be super accurate with the scope. But I still DO prefer it without one like many others here!
I would never put a optic sight on such a beautiful rifle. You should try the original vernier Tang creedmoor sight. It greatly extends your sight radius and is very accurate. Thanks
Testing a rifle for accuracy with crude sights and offhand is really testing the shooter, not the rifle. Even the prone position at 100 yard is still testing the shooter's ability to see and align the sights. Put a scope on it and shoot from a bench if you want to know how accurate it is. I can't speak to the .17 WSM but I have two .17 HMRs, both CZs (a 452 American and a 455 American switch-barrel), that both shoot under 1 MOA at 100 yards... and both have Leupold 4.5-14 target scopes. I also have two of the Miroku Low Walls, a Browning-labeled .22 Hornet and a Winchester-labeled .22 LR, and both are under 1 MOA... again with scopes and good ammo. I will likely pick up one of these, mount a scope on it, and be perfectly happy with it.
Don't like the cocking lever looks protruding. Very kool wood and octagonal barrel. Sighting anything bench rest is best helps eliminate shooters errors
The accuracy of these Winchester low walls is absolutely horrendous. I had one in 22LR and it was simply the worst gun I've ever owned. The barrel was terrible with tight and loose spots all up the length and it wouldn't group anything (I tried 15+ different types of ammo). Everyone tried to shoot it, tried various arrangements with the forearm and hanger, tried various scopes. In the end I slugged the bore and that's when we worked out the barrel issue. It also wouldn't eject fired rounds. Maybe one it four would kick free, the rest you had to dig out with a finger nail. It was returned under warranty. Pity, because I loved the rifle but it was unusable.
That sounds like a really bad one. The one I shot in this video was returned by a customer before I got my hands on it. Probably wasn’t what they were expecting accuracy wise either!
@@D5quared91 Probably the style of the rifle. Classic style single shots like this are just so pretty. I might get one of these at some point, myself, if I can find one cheap enough.
John Browning's first design and I'm sorry but you didn't do it any justice. With the 17 WSM you should be putting shot after shot in the black. Put an optic on it and show us how accurate it is.
@@SurvivalShowcase Skinner makes a great Peep Sight for these. I've found them much better than a "Buckhorn" sight. They are not expensive and I really liked it on my Henry lever gun.
Beautiful gun, but I think none of those Low Walls shot very well in the WSM... It's really the ammo mostly. The 17WSM sadly should go back to driving nails into concrete....
That’s correct, I can say that while shooting off-hand can demonstrate a shooter's ability to stabilize the gun and maintain control, it is not necessarily a reflection of the accuracy of the gun itself. The accuracy of a gun depends on a number of factors, including the quality of the barrel, the ammunition used, and the precision of the manufacturing process. Shooting off-hand can be a useful way to test a shooter's skill and their ability to control the gun in a variety of situations, but it should not be the sole factor in determining the accuracy of a particular firearm.
I have an original 1885 Winchester 22 LR flat spring version. It has been relined and a beautiful retro extractor added. Wonderful little rifle.
That’s nice!
This video was informative, and I thank you for producing it.
At least one commenter complains that current Browning/Winchester low wall rimfire barrels are poorly made, and contribute to purported poor accuracy. I don't own an 1885 and I have no direct knowledge of it, but I do own a Savage Stevens Favorite in 22 LR, 1/10th price of the current B/W low wall, shorter barrel, inexpensive iron sights... On any given day, just having fun and without much effort, my friends and I shoot with it 3" or less groups at 40 yds, offhand, with indifferent ammo - again, I emphasize with iron sights. We all are old enough have grown up learning to shoot with traditional open sights; we adopted to using telescopic sights much later, and to this day a scope is a supplement to, and not the basis of, our marksmanship. With utmost respect, the inability of many folks nowadays to hit (with iron sights) the broadside of a barn while standing inside of it appears to be a generational problem. If one is unfamiliar and uncomfortable shooting traditional firearms without a scope, then please consider picking up any decent old 22 rimfire rifle with good iron sights, and spending several days at the range with an old head NRA firearms instructor, who will drill into you all the fundamental BRM principles. Do that first, and the videos which result from that training will be a heck of a lot more valuable to the viewing public.
There is a lot of tech out there nowadays and getting back to the basics of iron sights definitely a skill set most shooters should have.
I have a copy in 22lr and topped her off with a Leupold M8-6x held on with the beauty finished Talley rings and base. Every weapon I received from the Miroku factory is first rate in fit, finish and function. The Japanese craftsmanship is very hard to beat. I use this kit for squirrel hunting and with the Winchester 42MAX Subsonic HP load she prints minute of angle consistently. She is a joy to have in the collection.
Very nice‼️
I have this in .22 WMR. It is a wonderful rifle and very, VERY accurate! With just the open sight, I was getting holes touching each other out to 50 metres (about 55 yards). Mind you, this was not "bench-rested". This was just me shooting it slouching, while resting it on top of my car hood! Once I started shooting off-hand standing up, the group opened up, but not as much as on other platforms I have: All within a 4 inch square even off-hand! I agree with you. The stock rises TOO high almost as if it was designed for scopes. I would have preferred lower comb because I also have to tilt my head quite a bit just to get my eye lined up to the sight. Mine does not have your wonderful rear sight that folds down to accommodate a scope mount without having to remove your rear sight. I do have to remove my regular buckhorn rear sight with the elevator before mounting a scope, which is a HUGE downer, as I would love to keep both on. I have a Leupold scope with the Win 1885 proprietary scope mount coming soon. I suspect this rifle will be super accurate with the scope. But I still DO prefer it without one like many others here!
That’s great thanks for sharing your thoughts on this rifle.
Your photography is a cut above. I love your shallow DOF
Thanks I appreciate your comment!
I'd have to use optics too.
Great looking rifle, then again it is a Miroku built Winchester!
I would never put a optic sight on such a beautiful rifle. You should try the original vernier Tang creedmoor sight. It greatly extends your sight radius and is very accurate. Thanks
I will have to try that out sometime‼️
Browning doesn't own the Winchester name. Both are sister companies of the parent company, FN.
Testing a rifle for accuracy with crude sights and offhand is really testing the shooter, not the rifle. Even the prone position at 100 yard is still testing the shooter's ability to see and align the sights. Put a scope on it and shoot from a bench if you want to know how accurate it is. I can't speak to the .17 WSM but I have two .17 HMRs, both CZs (a 452 American and a 455 American switch-barrel), that both shoot under 1 MOA at 100 yards... and both have Leupold 4.5-14 target scopes. I also have two of the Miroku Low Walls, a Browning-labeled .22 Hornet and a Winchester-labeled .22 LR, and both are under 1 MOA... again with scopes and good ammo. I will likely pick up one of these, mount a scope on it, and be perfectly happy with it.
I'd give anything for one of those.
Very neat rifles!
These rifles are easier to shoot if you have a smaller head.
Don't like the cocking lever looks protruding. Very kool wood and octagonal barrel. Sighting anything bench rest is best helps eliminate shooters errors
The accuracy of these Winchester low walls is absolutely horrendous. I had one in 22LR and it was simply the worst gun I've ever owned. The barrel was terrible with tight and loose spots all up the length and it wouldn't group anything (I tried 15+ different types of ammo). Everyone tried to shoot it, tried various arrangements with the forearm and hanger, tried various scopes. In the end I slugged the bore and that's when we worked out the barrel issue. It also wouldn't eject fired rounds. Maybe one it four would kick free, the rest you had to dig out with a finger nail. It was returned under warranty. Pity, because I loved the rifle but it was unusable.
That sounds like a really bad one. The one I shot in this video was returned by a customer before I got my hands on it. Probably wasn’t what they were expecting accuracy wise either!
closetdistiller Why would you love the rifle if it were so unusable?
@@D5quared91 Probably the style of the rifle. Classic style single shots like this are just so pretty. I might get one of these at some point, myself, if I can find one cheap enough.
John Browning's first design and I'm sorry but you didn't do it any justice. With the 17 WSM you should be putting shot after shot in the black. Put an optic on it and show us how accurate it is.
I agree that an optic would have been a better approach for me. I don’t shoot iron sights all that often‼️
@@SurvivalShowcase Skinner makes a great Peep Sight for these. I've found them much better than a "Buckhorn" sight. They are not expensive and I really liked it on my Henry lever gun.
Just because JMB designs something doesnt make it good
Beautiful gun, but I think none of those Low Walls shot very well in the WSM...
It's really the ammo mostly. The 17WSM sadly should go back to driving nails into concrete....
That’s to bad maybe I should try a 22 Hornet???
A 22 Win Mag would be an excellent version of this rifle‼️
I do not like the front sight and the force hand hell.
Did you just say China 🤮😡
I don’t think so....
Shooting off hand, only proves your ability, has absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of the gun.
That’s correct, I can say that while shooting off-hand can demonstrate a shooter's ability to stabilize the gun and maintain control, it is not necessarily a reflection of the accuracy of the gun itself. The accuracy of a gun depends on a number of factors, including the quality of the barrel, the ammunition used, and the precision of the manufacturing process. Shooting off-hand can be a useful way to test a shooter's skill and their ability to control the gun in a variety of situations, but it should not be the sole factor in determining the accuracy of a particular firearm.