|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 2, 2013, 08:22 PM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: February 6, 2013
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 98
|
Colts Woodsman vs Mitchell High Standard
Did not want to high-jack the Colts Woodsman thread but wanted to get some infromation on these 2 guns. I picked them up some time ago and have not shot them much. I guess you can call these Safe Queens. Winchester_73 did provide some information on the Citation.
Last edited by KnotRight; April 2, 2013 at 08:36 PM. |
April 3, 2013, 09:12 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 9, 2010
Location: East Tn. for 56 years
Posts: 540
|
After much reading I think the general consensus on the Mitchell HS is they are hit and miss as to function. I would encourage you to go to Rimfirecentral.com, there is a section there dedicated to Colt and H.S. One person in the HS section, John Stimson, can tell you ANYTHING and EVERYTHING about your HS. Hope that helps. Good Luck.
__________________
If something is worth doing well, it is worth failing at to get there. |
April 5, 2013, 09:27 PM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2011
Location: Freestone County, Texas
Posts: 1,133
|
Quote:
The Colt looks like a 3rd series Sport model.... U might check out this site.... http://www.colt22.com/
__________________
Hog Hunters never die........They just reload......... |
|
April 5, 2013, 09:47 PM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 3, 2008
Location: AL
Posts: 169
|
Quote:
|
|
April 5, 2013, 10:24 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 16, 2005
Location: Northeast TX
Posts: 1,197
|
The Mitchell gun is just a High Standard copy, isn't it?
|
April 6, 2013, 05:25 AM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2011
Location: Freestone County, Texas
Posts: 1,133
|
Quote:
__________________
Hog Hunters never die........They just reload......... |
|
April 7, 2013, 03:51 PM | #7 |
Member
Join Date: February 6, 2013
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 98
|
I called Colt and asked about the Woodsman and it was a 1962 2nd generation gun. Now looking into the Mitchell High Standard a little more.
|
April 7, 2013, 07:57 PM | #8 |
Member In Memoriam
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
|
Maybe it is what my daughter used to call an "otical delusion" but the frame of the Colt looks odd ahead of the slide, like it is tapered front to back, which it shouldn't be.
I don't see why either should be a safe queen; the Woodsman is not pristine, and the H-S copy is a new gun, presumably made to shoot. Have fun. Jim |
April 7, 2013, 08:07 PM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2011
Location: Freestone County, Texas
Posts: 1,133
|
Quote:
There are three series of Woodsman pistols, corresponding to three basic frame designs. First Series refers to all those built on the S frame as it existed prior to and during World War Two. Second Series includes all versions built on the second S frame design from late 1947 until mid 1955, and Third Series means the third S frame design as used from 1955 to the end of regular production in 1977. Each series had a Sport Model with a 4-1/2 inch round barrel, a Target Model with a 6 or 6-5/8 inch round barrel, and a Match Target Model with a heavy, flat sided barrel. For the first series Match Target that flat sided barrel was 6-5/8 inches in length, while in the post war versions it was either 4-1/2 or 6 inches.
__________________
Hog Hunters never die........They just reload......... |
|
April 7, 2013, 08:09 PM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2011
Location: Freestone County, Texas
Posts: 1,133
|
Quote:
__________________
Hog Hunters never die........They just reload......... |
|
April 8, 2013, 09:29 AM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2008
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 2,863
|
Quote:
__________________
Winchester 73, the TFL user that won the west |
|
April 16, 2013, 08:32 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 26, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 450
|
Looks just like the third generation (1960) I recently purchased. I have always wanted one but now that I have it I have certain reservations. Despite the thumb rest or perhaps because of it, it doesn't sit well in my hand. I was shooting today with a friend and he had the same impression. For some reason, it also shot a much wider group than the Les Baer 1911 I was also shooting. As for the Hi Standard, they are currently in production.
|
April 17, 2013, 08:44 AM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 21, 2000
Posts: 4,193
|
^^^^^ I have the same issue with my 6 inch barreled, 3rd Gen Woodsman Match Target. Beautiful, well made pistol, but I can not grip it as well as my Ruger MK II's. While it is an accurate pistol, I can shoot my Rugers and other .22 target pistols a bit better.
I think the Woodsman was designed in an age when men were smaller, and had smaller hands.
__________________
Pilot |
April 17, 2013, 07:39 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 9, 2010
Location: East Tn. for 56 years
Posts: 540
|
The following info may shed more light on the Mitchell. It's not mine but from someone that really knows.
Mitchell is a former executive of High Standard of Connecticut. When Hi Std went out of business in 1984, Mitchell started up a company making clones of the High Standard target pistols. He even marked them with High Standard names. The pistols were all stainless steel and looked fine but apparently did not quite match the originals for accuracy. Some who report here might disagree but the consensus is that they were less accurate and operationally troublesome. Some have done "work" on them an got them to be at least reliable. Then the real owners of the name (purchased along with all the engineering drawings and some tooling and parts) sued Mitchell and another company that made Hi Std clones for Stoegers. Mitchell and the other company lost the lawsuit and those clones were taken off the market. That all played out in the 1990's.
__________________
If something is worth doing well, it is worth failing at to get there. |
|
|