nightowl64
Inactive
Is one generation better than the others?
How do the different Colt Woodsmans compare?
- Thread starter nightowl64
- Start date
The Woodsman
I have had a Colt Woodsman since 1956. My late dad shot a sport model in competition and we carried them while hunting.
I carry my Woodsman in an empty back pocket muzzle up, chamber empty. When sighting a target I pull back the slide and load the chamber.
When making a long shot that requires the steadiest aim I reach out with my left hand and hold the Woodsman's barrel half way out with my thumb and forefinger.
I have had a Colt Woodsman since 1956. My late dad shot a sport model in competition and we carried them while hunting.
I carry my Woodsman in an empty back pocket muzzle up, chamber empty. When sighting a target I pull back the slide and load the chamber.
When making a long shot that requires the steadiest aim I reach out with my left hand and hold the Woodsman's barrel half way out with my thumb and forefinger.
As with most Colts, the pre-WWII guns were the best as far as fit and finish go, but the post-war (c. 1950-1960) guns stood up better. I have a few, one a pre-Woodsman, but consider them part of the collection; if I want to shoot a .22 pistol, I get out a Ruger. On the older Colts, make sure the mainspring housing (backstrap), is the new type with the horizontal lines before firing high velocity ammo.
FWIW, the older Woodsman pistols are surprisingly weak; the frames are so thin, even a moderate blow will bend them and they can be twisted in the hands. Rugers and High Standards are more rugged.
Jim
FWIW, the older Woodsman pistols are surprisingly weak; the frames are so thin, even a moderate blow will bend them and they can be twisted in the hands. Rugers and High Standards are more rugged.
Jim
trigger643
New member
Better from what standpoint? As pointed out, fit and finish on prewar guns is the best. The 2nd gens are my favorite and I pretty much ignore the 3rd gens because the few I've had the pleasure of shooting were notches below 1st & 2nd gens in terms of fit, finish, quality and accuracy...
JAMES K wrote:
"As with most Colts, the pre-WWII guns were the best as far as fit and finish go, but the post-war (c. 1950-1960) guns stood up better. I have a few, one a pre-Woodsman, but consider them part of the collection; if I want to shoot a .22 pistol, I get out a Ruger. On the older Colts, make sure the mainspring housing (backstrap), is the new type with the horizontal lines before firing high velocity ammo.
FWIW, the older Woodsman pistols are surprisingly weak; the frames are so thin, even a moderate blow will bend them and they can be twisted in the hands. Rugers and High Standards are more rugged.
Jim "
I question your statement that the old Woodsman pistols are weak in any way!
Of course anything can be damaged however after a lifetime my late dad's woodsman was always ready and able.
He had very large and powerful hands and still won the CT state pistol championship with his Woodsman.
I have carried mine in my back pocket for almost a lifetime of hunting with it.
They are not weak, however anything can be broken!
"As with most Colts, the pre-WWII guns were the best as far as fit and finish go, but the post-war (c. 1950-1960) guns stood up better. I have a few, one a pre-Woodsman, but consider them part of the collection; if I want to shoot a .22 pistol, I get out a Ruger. On the older Colts, make sure the mainspring housing (backstrap), is the new type with the horizontal lines before firing high velocity ammo.
FWIW, the older Woodsman pistols are surprisingly weak; the frames are so thin, even a moderate blow will bend them and they can be twisted in the hands. Rugers and High Standards are more rugged.
Jim "
I question your statement that the old Woodsman pistols are weak in any way!
Of course anything can be damaged however after a lifetime my late dad's woodsman was always ready and able.
He had very large and powerful hands and still won the CT state pistol championship with his Woodsman.
I have carried mine in my back pocket for almost a lifetime of hunting with it.
They are not weak, however anything can be broken!
Few people ever actually remove the slide and the grips and look at how thin those frames really are. i had never realized it either until I had to repair a few of them that had been literally "bent out of shape." True, that shouldn't happen and seldom does, but stress that a 1911 frame (for example) will take in stride will badly distort a Woodsman frame.
Jim
Jim
I was collecting woodman pistols in 2013.
I paid between $300 and $1,000 for them.
Half have the old square bottom frame.
Half have the new swept bottom frame.
So there are more than one type of magazines.
Don't buy an old one without the magazine. The magazines are worth a big fraction of the value of the gun.
I paid between $300 and $1,000 for them.
Half have the old square bottom frame.
Half have the new swept bottom frame.
So there are more than one type of magazines.
Don't buy an old one without the magazine. The magazines are worth a big fraction of the value of the gun.
Like many other guns designed in an era of low wages and machined steel, the Woodsman simply was too expensive to compete with a design like the Ruger, made from stampings and steel tubing. Some of you took offense at my describing the frame of the Woodsman as weak; others simply denied it without even checking as I suggested. Nonetheless, the Woodsman was always a well made pistol and a near-ideal outdoor and plinking pistol, as well as one that turned in top performance on the range.
Again, like other guns of that era, it is gone, and it won't be back. And that is, truly, too bad.
Jim
Again, like other guns of that era, it is gone, and it won't be back. And that is, truly, too bad.
Jim