Model12Win
Moderator
The Colts are legends for a reason.
They are the BEST semi-auto .22 rimfire automatic handgun EVER MADE. PERIOD.
They are the BEST semi-auto .22 rimfire automatic handgun EVER MADE. PERIOD.
Colt Woodsman versus modern 22lr
- Thread starter BoogieMan
- Start date
The Colt is a fine pistol and good within its limitations but they are not up to a modern 22 target pistol. The current models have much better adjustable triggers are worlds better in terms of ergonomics. That is not taking anything away from the Colt or the model 41 Smith, it is just that modern higher end 22 target pistols are much better now.
Of course there are pistols that are optimized for certain tasks, like Olympic bullseye. They will certainly be better at that. But I kind of doubt those are the ones you will be taking into the "woods" with a wide variety of plinking and small-game hunting loads. And I really doubt they are shapely enough to slide into your jacket pocket. Ergonomics is more than how the gun feels on a benchrest.
rickmelear
New member
I have a Colt Huntsman which was the economy model. My grandfather bought around 1965 and it was left to me after his death. As a young man I found it extremely accurate and never had any feeding problems. Now as I near 60 I find the fixed sights a little hard to see. I enjoyed shooting it ever the 40 years I've owned and it's one I'll never part with. A well made pistol from years gone by.
One major difference between the older Colts and later guns is the trigger pull. When the (Pre) Woodsman first came on the market, target shooters preferred a trigger pull that resisted the finger until it suddenly let go, a pull often likened to the breaking of a glass rod. Later, shooters came to prefer a softer pull, with a less abrupt release, and later pistols, including Colts, have a different feel. So, any discussion of Woodsman triggers has to take into consideration the fact that the factory pull varied over the years, based on the desires of the customers of the day.
Jim
Jim
You are exactly right. When I first started shooting European pistols after competing with a Ruger and then a High Standard, I came across my first "roll trigger." I was convinced that the "glass rod" trigger was better until my scores went up with the roll trigger. The designers knew what they are doing. The high end guns like the Hammerli, Pardini, Benelli, etc; are designed so that you set up the trigger either way.
The heel releases on these classic Colts aren't really "drawbacks", given their intended purpose (target shooting). There is one big drawback though and that is good ones bring a lot of money. I have most of the classic, American-made Bullseye guns, both revolvers and autos, but my collection is missing two notables: a Colt Woodsman "Match Target" and a target-oriented High Standard. Hope to fill those voids someday.
Irish Jack
New member
The Colt Match Targets were a bargain in the late 1960s. Target shooters traded them off the more advanced Hi Standard target pistols of that time. The Hi Standard had a better grip design and a rigid mounted rear sight. The Colt's rear sight became a handicap after some wear. Depending on the slide to repeat alignment every time was an issue.
You're exactly right; an immovable rear sight was one of the factors that made Ruger and Smith Model 41s popular and prompted the "bridge" holding the sight from the frame over the moving slide on later High Standard pistols mandatory. However, as a long-time Bullseye shooter, I've always believed the advantage of a stationary sight over a moving one was more theory than reality in a practical sense. I will concede, however, that the really good shooters could appreciate the difference and make use of it. Those people were never me.
Irish Jack
New member
The sight alignment was a sales advantage for Hi Standard. Colt dug in and refused to adopt the 1911 grip angle or a rigid sight. Ruger was not in the serious Target handgun business at that time.
Many Colt shooters expected Colt to Modify the grip frame and add a rigid rear sight. They did not and the rest is history.
Many Colt shooters expected Colt to Modify the grip frame and add a rigid rear sight. They did not and the rest is history.
Except that it was always much more than a pure target gun (as you can tell from the name). Of course there were "match target" variants, but the fact that it excelled at target shooting is more an indication of the versatility of the design. Here are some ads from back in the day:
There was also a nice article in American Rifleman last year on a Woodsman that saw many African Safaris: http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/nra/ar_201610/index.php?startid=84#/84
Jim Watson
New member
Consider that the Woodsman is a Browning design.
Mr Browning used heel catches everywhere until the 1911 where the Army requested the side button. I suspect because the brass liked the location first seen on the Luger. He carried it over to the BHP series. So much for "American" mag catch. Then returned to the heel catch for the .22 without military influence
Mr Browning used heel catches everywhere until the 1911 where the Army requested the side button. I suspect because the brass liked the location first seen on the Luger. He carried it over to the BHP series. So much for "American" mag catch. Then returned to the heel catch for the .22 without military influence
Colts Woodsman is first rate in all regards. I have a Match Target with a 4-1/2" barrel that's the accuracy equal to my Smith Model 41, (built in the late 70's). I've never found the heel magazine release objectionable, but then a Woodsman is not the kind of .22 auto that you need to "speed" mag change. It's a deliberate target gun.
For field use, woods carry, I prefer it's heel mag release over the more conventional 'behind the trigger guard' type in that it's easily possible to accidentally push the trigger guard type and lose a mag...been there twice at considerable expense.
I prefer the Smith, but that's due to the more straight up and down grip angle (very similar if not an exact copy of the Colt 1911). The Woodsman's grip angle more nearly resembles the Luger...I shoot the Smith better for that reason. Rod
For field use, woods carry, I prefer it's heel mag release over the more conventional 'behind the trigger guard' type in that it's easily possible to accidentally push the trigger guard type and lose a mag...been there twice at considerable expense.
I prefer the Smith, but that's due to the more straight up and down grip angle (very similar if not an exact copy of the Colt 1911). The Woodsman's grip angle more nearly resembles the Luger...I shoot the Smith better for that reason. Rod
What is not modern about a Woodsman ( Huntsman or other monikers) it is a simple steel pistol that has endured for a lot of years and shoots as well as any other .22 pistol I have in the safe. The biggest problem and one that causes it to endure is the steel and machining required to craft the pistol is very expensive in this plastic and stamping world.
l love my M&P .22 Compact but it doesn't shoot a bit better than a woodsman for plinking holes in those dreaded soup cans.
l love my M&P .22 Compact but it doesn't shoot a bit better than a woodsman for plinking holes in those dreaded soup cans.
I find that heel releases are easier to employ in cold weather when you're wearing gloves or mittens. As some have pointed out, you are a lot less likely to end up with a single-shot weapon at the end of the day with a heel-release-that is, if your pistol doesn't have a "magazine safety". If it does, you have a club with a rifled barrel. 