Which and why? Could have brought home a near 100% 41 last weekend for $850. I've already got a Woodsman though. Should I have?

Well, duh......

You need both. I am still looking for my Colt.

The Colt feels better in my hand, but the M-41 is theoretically more accurate because the sights don't move with the slide. See my first sentence!

Yep you need both. Never owned a Woodsman, but had a 5" 41 I foolishly sold.

sounds like YOU need both, too. Me? I only need about 10....

Fail.


Travis

Yep, the Campfire is a crappy place to find absolution for passing up a gun buy.

Cole, if you have to ask, you know the answer.

Bought the 41 for $200 at a pawn shop when I was in college. Traded it when I got my first job for a Super Blackhawk so I could hunt with a handgun I have since learned

Fail number two....


Travis

Well, maybe the most accurate post on the subject.

I found a mint 29-2, in box, with all the fancy little accessories and paperwork. $950.00.

Oh and it was a 4".

Fail...


Travis

I prefer the 41 over the colt. Keep in mind though if you were going to carry it everyday the colt is lighter and would probaly be a better pistol to pack.

If your like me and mostly shoot them at the range the 41 is the gun to have. I don't believe there is a finer 22 pistol made in this day and time.

I was talking with some bullseye shooters the other day and all claimed that the colt or a high standard would not shoot with the 41. I don't know if the average guy could tell the difference between them though.

I also prefer the older 41's to the newer ones. Do you know what year 41 you were looking at?

Dink

Nope. If the guy said, I disremember. I go to a lot of shows and subsequently, hear a lot of dates. If I said the date that's in my mind now, it could just as well be for another gun. I may see the same guy this weekend, but I don't know if I'll still have the money. heheh

I never shoot at the 'range'. I s'pose THAT is my justification for not having a 41.......

You still see 41's and some HS Olympic's at Matches and for a reason. Rarely if ever do you see a Colt. 41.s work and are very accurate. The Colt while a nice gun it has a hard time standing up to those two guns when it comes to real accuracy.

Fixed that for you..........

Didn't want to seem too harsh...


Travis

Now that's harsh.

Only you can decide how much you needed it but a Smith Model 41 is one of the finest rimfire handguns a guy could chose. The really nice ones aren't getting any cheaper.

My Model 41 has found a home. However, I still want a Colt WMT.

Bestest post yet.

I have both and the Woodsman isn't in the same league as the Model 41. The Woodsman is a field pistol macerating as a Target Gun and the Model 41 is a Target Pistol macerating as a Field Pistol. I purchased my first Model 41 in the early 70's for 175.00. I haven't been without a Model 41 since then. I have owned over a dozen since that first purchase.

A $1200 gun for $850?
Unless I was broke, it would have followed me home!

I Love my M 41!

I would disagree that a High Standard will not shoot with the Model 41. I have owned both, and for myself anyway the High Standard 107 easily was the more accurate pistol. I love the Woodsman, but it is not in the league.

The HS Victor is a pretty nice pistol, although they are not easy to find, they are usually a little less expensive than 41's.

Dad had a WMT from the 60's that he really liked, but I never got excited about it. The grips kept coming loose on it, as I recall.

And actually, I don't recall any .22 being able to touch this one...

I have owned three HS Victors and they are very accurate but also very particular what they would shoot without jamming.

I don't know about the qualifications of those bullseye shooters you talked to, but I would bet they would get an argument from both Huelet "Joe" Benner and Bill McMillan, both of whom won Olympic gold medals in rapid fire rimfire shooting with High Standard pistols.

Incidentally, I've got both a High Standard 106 and an S&W 41, both made in the late 60s, and like them both.

I own an older S&W M41 and recently had the opportunity to buy a very clean Woodsman Match Target--the fit and finish on the Colt gun was far and away superior to my 41, as indeed it should be, as the Colt was built before the war and my 41 was built in the early 70s. The 41 has been in production so long, and quality--in terms of finish, if not fit--has varied considerably and, thus, the comparison between the two is not exactly apples to apples.

If I could only have one, and someone else were paying I'd have the Colt.

I've never had a Woodsman so am kinda speaking out of my azz, but I sure was impressed with my 41, as long as I kept the chamber clean. Like to have another but the prices have kinda gotten out of my range.

Don't know about the Colt, but with regards to the High Standard vs the 41, I think those bullseye shooters might get an argument from a couple shooters named Huelet "Joe" Benner and William McMillan, both Olympic gold medal winners using High Standard pistols. Benner won his gold medal in 1952 before the 41 came into existence, but went on to consult for High Standard. McMillan won his in 1960, a few years after the 41 was introduced.

I have both a High Standard Trophy and a 41, both built in the late 60s. Both are a lot more accurate than I am, and I like 'em both.

I did too, I had a 5.5" Model 41 that I bought brand new for $450 many year's ago. I sold it a few year's later for $600 because I wanted the 7" version.
I did not get around to buying another for too many year's and now the MSRP is $1139 making it tough to buy a new one.

I own a second series Woodsman Match Target and competed with it for a number of years and did very well. The only thing wrong with it was the trigger pull being too heavy. Other shooters, when they tried it, would say that the safety is still on even after they had put it off. I told them no the safety isn�t still on and that it�s just the heavy trigger pull. I never had it weighed but figure it has to be eight pounds or more.

I tried other guns and settled on the Browning Medalist because it felt the best in my hand and the sight picture was right. It didn�t hurt that it was also the best looking competitive gun also. The S&W 41, that I thought I was going to purchase, didn�t feel right in my hand. I competed with the Medalist until I beat my high average that I had with the Woodsman, then I retired it for collectors value.

I was in the market again for another pistol and tried to get used to the S&W 41 but couldn�t get used to the feel of it in my hand. I then went with the High Standard Citation that felt great in my hand and competed with that for the remainder of my competitive years and did very well.

The Woodsman is a fine pistol but even if the trigger pull was set to three pounds or so I don�t believe it could quite come up to the standard of the Medalist, Citation or S&W 41. Just my thoughts on the matter and many years of competition. I don�t think that I saw more than one other Woodsman during all the years of competition I was involved in.

I don�t know why I didn�t try the Ruger, except that they seemed to be having more alibi runs and feeding problems way back in the early years. None of the higher scorers used a Ruger at that time if I remember correctly. I know Ruger has come a long way since and is an excellent competitive pistol now.

I've had both and both are great pistols but IMHO they fill different niches. The Woodsman is a great little gun to carry in the field but the M41 is THE gun if you want to shoot something. Here is a picture of my latest M41 with a Bully barrel and YHM suppresor. Serious squrrel medicine!

Love the Woodsman, but I don't think it was ever designed to compete with a 41 for target shooting.

I really hope that you were referring to masquerading as opposed to macerating as you stated. http://www.diynetwork.com/how-to/how-to-install-a-macerating-system/index.html