Although the old style schutzenfest rifles were single shots, I don't think you see any single shot rifles in competition these days, do you? At least not Ruger No. 1s. And the are not necessarily less expensive, given what a Ruger No. 1 goes for or one of the modern day Sharps rifles. The difference is in the finish and the wood, I'd say. So, other than the shorter overall length for a given barrel length, there's no real practical advantage.
A curious thing about the owners of single short rifles is they way they will tell you that you only need one shot and how you have to make that shot count, then turn around and boast how quickly they can get off a second shot. To be honest, I can understand both statements, having owned a few single shot rifles when I still was shooting rifles. One really can get off a second shot fairly quickly with at least some single shot rifles, even when running (yes, really), though more than about three shots will be getting a little difficult unless you're holding cartridges in your mouth.
It compares fairly favorably with some Mausers that have a relatively stiff action, but not so well with something like a Lee-Enfield. Of course, no manually operated rifle will compare well with a semi-automatic and those have been used for hunting since the 1930s.
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.