Curious how well the Woodsman performs alongside modern 22lr like the Buckman and Ruger Mark series. The gun is rather legendary. The only drawback I see (in pics) is that it has a heel magazine release unlike the modern pushbutton side mag release. Bluing on the Woodsman is beautiful.
Colt Woodsman versus modern 22lr
- Thread starter BoogieMan
- Start date
walks with gun
New member
I love the ld High Standards and wish I had a Colt or 400, but have to say that they need more care and cleaning compared to the Rugers. If one were to just shoot a bit at the range, the old Colts would be just fine, but if one was hunting or banging about in the woods or desert I guess I would opt for the Ruger.
I have a Woodsman, a Ruger 22/45, and a S&W model 41 along with a few .22 revolvers. The Woodsman is as enjoyable to shoot as even the 41. The Ruger is accurate and a fine pistol, but when I am just taking one .22 to the range, I take the Woodsman. The 41 is the most accurate .22 I have, but the Woodsman and the Ruger are right up behind it in accuracy. By far the finish and fit on the Woodsman is better than any of my other .22s. If I had to pare down to just one .22, it would be the Woodsman
David
David
Lucas McCain
New member
High Standard was a well liked, good performing pistol, no argument there. The Colt Woodsman equaled it in every aspect in my opinion. The best one is the Colt Match Target, that gun was excellent, even better than the S&W model 41.
As far as the latch goes we didn't need that feature, our matchs did entail running through a course shooting at man targets, dropping magazines along the way. No doubt, today if they still made the match target Colt would have changed the location of the latch. I have a older Belgian made Browning Challenger 22 pistol that has the latch at the bottom of the magazine, so Browning changed for the market. The police combat matches were done with revolvers, and speed loaders were used.
As far as the new pistols of today It is my opinion they will need to improve some more to be equal to them.
As far as the latch goes we didn't need that feature, our matchs did entail running through a course shooting at man targets, dropping magazines along the way. No doubt, today if they still made the match target Colt would have changed the location of the latch. I have a older Belgian made Browning Challenger 22 pistol that has the latch at the bottom of the magazine, so Browning changed for the market. The police combat matches were done with revolvers, and speed loaders were used.
As far as the new pistols of today It is my opinion they will need to improve some more to be equal to them.
Jim Watson
New member
I am kind of like David, the Woodsman is just a delight.
Can't imagine its barrel is inferior to S&W or HS but my MT does not have as light and crisp a trigger pull as the others. Better than a stock Ruger or Buckmark, though.
Can't imagine its barrel is inferior to S&W or HS but my MT does not have as light and crisp a trigger pull as the others. Better than a stock Ruger or Buckmark, though.
mikejonestkd
New member
I have two woodsmans, as well as many examples of other nice american made 22 target grade pistols.
IMO a good woodsman is a joy to shoot, and can hold its own with a HS, smith 41, ruger or browning.
IMO a good woodsman is a joy to shoot, and can hold its own with a HS, smith 41, ruger or browning.
Target 22 semiautos - - I pretty much have them all. IMO the Woodsman would be a fine choice for the Original Poster. Unfortunately none of the models are red dot or scope friendly. You would deface the pistol putting an optic on it. Modern 22 target pistols like the Browning BuckMark would be a better choice if the Original Poster wished to add an optic.
.02
David.
.02
David.
turtlehead
New member
My buddy has the Match Target and I have a PC model 41 with a 7" barrel. There's no comparison. 41 hands down. The trigger on the Colt is pretty poor.
His Colt is pretty and more reliable than my 41, however. Both great guns.
His Colt is pretty and more reliable than my 41, however. Both great guns.
turtlehead
New member
And there's a Vortex Viper on mine. It's like cheating.
claydoctor
New member
I refer to my Woodsman as "the gun my father didn't leave me". My dad was not into guns but from an early age , he knew I was . The only gun I ever heard him speak of having was a Colt Woodsman. It was stolen when I was an infant . He bought me several guns , when I was in my teens but I always remembered his story about his missing Woodsman. A few years back , I found a nice one and bought it. When I checked the serial number, it was made in the year of my birth . I like to think maybe, just maybe, it was my dad's.
ALL Colt guns shoot well. Period.
I doubt there is any discernible accuracy difference between a Woodsman and any other quality .22 Auto with the same setup - barrel configuration, overall weight, etc.
One thing to note about the Woodsman. The frames are very thin; they look sturdy, but that solid steel block they begin with has been machined away to the point that the frame bends easily if dropped or even twisted in the hands. They will stand a lot of shooting, but simply won't take abuse; the H-S pistols are tougher, and the Rugers* even more so.
Jim
*The stamped frame; I have no experience yet with the machined frame.
JK
I doubt there is any discernible accuracy difference between a Woodsman and any other quality .22 Auto with the same setup - barrel configuration, overall weight, etc.
One thing to note about the Woodsman. The frames are very thin; they look sturdy, but that solid steel block they begin with has been machined away to the point that the frame bends easily if dropped or even twisted in the hands. They will stand a lot of shooting, but simply won't take abuse; the H-S pistols are tougher, and the Rugers* even more so.
Jim
*The stamped frame; I have no experience yet with the machined frame.
JK
My Woodsman is extremely reliable with a broad spectrum of ammo, at least as reliable as my Buckmark, and probably slightly better. Trigger is also slightly better. Mechanical accuracy is a wash -- both are very good. Fit/finish is no comparison. Pull the slide on a Woodsman and you know some work went into that fit.
BTW, the second series Woodsman had a push-button mag release, if that is important to you. The first and third series have the heel latch.
Personally, I have a strong preference for the first series Woodsman -- the original John Browning design. The reason is the size, weight, and basic economy of the design. The second and third series were somewhat bulked-up in the grip area, making them more comparable to modern pistols.
This illustrates my basic problem with the Buckmark:
It's a fine-shooting pistol, but there is nothing size-efficient about the design. It's a .22, but you might as well be carrying a .45. As a range/target gun that issue won't matter, but it becomes quite obvious when you start carrying it around outdoors.
The first-series Woodsman, by contrast, will slip into a coat pocket. The grip frame is no larger than it needs to be. The gun just feels like it is scaled perfectly to the .22 cartridge.
For me, the one fairly serious drawback is that it's a work of art from the 1930's, and I experience a guilt-factor associated with high-volume blasting through the thing. Shooting and outdoor activities are not quite as care-free as they could be. For that reason, when I want to carry and shoot a very reliable, size-efficient, and highly shootable .22 outdoors these days, it's usually a Beretta 71.
BTW, the second series Woodsman had a push-button mag release, if that is important to you. The first and third series have the heel latch.
Personally, I have a strong preference for the first series Woodsman -- the original John Browning design. The reason is the size, weight, and basic economy of the design. The second and third series were somewhat bulked-up in the grip area, making them more comparable to modern pistols.
This illustrates my basic problem with the Buckmark:
It's a fine-shooting pistol, but there is nothing size-efficient about the design. It's a .22, but you might as well be carrying a .45. As a range/target gun that issue won't matter, but it becomes quite obvious when you start carrying it around outdoors.
The first-series Woodsman, by contrast, will slip into a coat pocket. The grip frame is no larger than it needs to be. The gun just feels like it is scaled perfectly to the .22 cartridge.
For me, the one fairly serious drawback is that it's a work of art from the 1930's, and I experience a guilt-factor associated with high-volume blasting through the thing. Shooting and outdoor activities are not quite as care-free as they could be. For that reason, when I want to carry and shoot a very reliable, size-efficient, and highly shootable .22 outdoors these days, it's usually a Beretta 71.
There's quite a discussion of the Colt Woodsman and General Patton in this thead:
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=560235&page=2&highlight=woodsman+hv
Also go down to post #41 and #42 for some important information about using high velocity .22LR ammo in your Woodsman.
The Colt Woodsman, IMhO, is truly an iconic handgun that would be fun to own but I'd feel a bit guilty about shooting it because, you know, only so much Colt Woodsman 'goodness' left in the world.
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=560235&page=2&highlight=woodsman+hv
Also go down to post #41 and #42 for some important information about using high velocity .22LR ammo in your Woodsman.
The Colt Woodsman, IMhO, is truly an iconic handgun that would be fun to own but I'd feel a bit guilty about shooting it because, you know, only so much Colt Woodsman 'goodness' left in the world.
Also, one thing I forgot to mention, in favor of modern .22's.
Most modern .22's are fine to dry fire as much as you want, while the early Colts will slowly accumulate damage at the edge of the chamber if you dry fire extensively. For that reason, it's important to use snap caps or some equivalent if you want to practice dry firing a Woodsman.
Also, if you have a very early Woodsman or pre-Woodsman, this is how to check to see if it's good to go with high-velocity ammo. Checkered mainspring housing = standard velocity only, while straight lines = high velocity ready.
Most modern .22's are fine to dry fire as much as you want, while the early Colts will slowly accumulate damage at the edge of the chamber if you dry fire extensively. For that reason, it's important to use snap caps or some equivalent if you want to practice dry firing a Woodsman.
Also, if you have a very early Woodsman or pre-Woodsman, this is how to check to see if it's good to go with high-velocity ammo. Checkered mainspring housing = standard velocity only, while straight lines = high velocity ready.
Metric, fantastic post! I have to say that it sure seems to me that you could easily find a far more "used" First Series that you could buy for low money and tote around guilt-free. In fact -- I owned one and simply had to let it go. It was a 1928 gun and totally wonderful but also quite finish worn. Just ran like a top, but I elected to forward it on to the next owner simply because the First Series magazine situation is... for lack of a better term... irrational. I truly loved the pistol but after finding my 1952 Colt Challenger, I knew that was the "Woodsman" for me.
Also to your early point about the way a Woodsman slide feels when you draw it back -- honestly! Is there truly anything that feels exactly like every proper, cared for Woodsman does? It feels so perfect that it approaches the ridiculous.
Which brings me to my next point (Dale A), while I agree that they are definitely not making any more of the Woodsman goodness... there is nothing scarce about these guns. The Woodsman occupies that extremely cool niche in gundom where the design was -SO- fantastic and -SO- popular that everyone bought them, so they made piles and piles of them.
I believe there are some fantastic handguns that exist in this way... the Woodsman, the Ruger MK-series, S&W 39-2, S&W 28-2, S&W Model 10 (oops, my preferences are shining through...) but my point is -- these were so fantastic that everyone wanted one and they filled those demands and nowadays, it means you can get some amazing cornerstones of American handgunning and you get them for a bargain because so many were produced.
Also to your early point about the way a Woodsman slide feels when you draw it back -- honestly! Is there truly anything that feels exactly like every proper, cared for Woodsman does? It feels so perfect that it approaches the ridiculous.
Which brings me to my next point (Dale A
), while I agree that they are definitely not making any more of the Woodsman goodness... there is nothing scarce about these guns. The Woodsman occupies that extremely cool niche in gundom where the design was -SO- fantastic and -SO- popular that everyone bought them, so they made piles and piles of them.I believe there are some fantastic handguns that exist in this way... the Woodsman, the Ruger MK-series, S&W 39-2, S&W 28-2, S&W Model 10 (oops, my preferences are shining through...) but my point is -- these were so fantastic that everyone wanted one and they filled those demands and nowadays, it means you can get some amazing cornerstones of American handgunning and you get them for a bargain because so many were produced.
True, a lot of them were made. Still, I have a sneaking suspicion that if everyone actually knew what they could get for ~2x the cost of a new Ruger mk, the price would jump overnight.
I personally find it kind of strange and sad that present-day production cannot produce any .22 with the combination of slim size-efficiency, trigger, accuracy, reliability, and fit/finish quality that Colt was churning out every day 80 years ago. But at least you can still get one -- and now they have the feature of being a piece of American history. Every single master that was responsible for the fit I appreciate in my Woodsman today is a piece of history as well.
I personally find it kind of strange and sad that present-day production cannot produce any .22 with the combination of slim size-efficiency, trigger, accuracy, reliability, and fit/finish quality that Colt was churning out every day 80 years ago. But at least you can still get one -- and now they have the feature of being a piece of American history. Every single master that was responsible for the fit I appreciate in my Woodsman today is a piece of history as well.
It may be strange and sad, but this cannot come as a surprise. We absolutely live in different times, mass produced items today are churned out by expensive machines and while they build amazing things, they are NOT humans and not craftsman.
To make what the men at Colt made in the 20's or the 50's or even the 70's, you'd literally have to pay them the way you pay an ASE-certified auto mechanic or a plumber to build a Woodsman.
These days, you CAN get a handgun built that way, but it's likely to be a 1911 and you'd be talking beyond $4,000.
To make what the men at Colt made in the 20's or the 50's or even the 70's, you'd literally have to pay them the way you pay an ASE-certified auto mechanic or a plumber to build a Woodsman.
These days, you CAN get a handgun built that way, but it's likely to be a 1911 and you'd be talking beyond $4,000.