Model 18-4 or Colt Woodsman - which would you buy?

[aimedfire]

Smith & Wesson model 18-4. Pinned and recessed. Bluing finish has lots of small blemishes throughout, but gun is mechanically fine. $400 FTF






Colt Woodsman mint, 2nd series made in 1951 with four magazines. $500 FTF






I would love to have both, but can only afford one.

 

[aimedfire]

Smith & Wesson model 18-4. Pinned and recessed. Bluing finish has lots of small blemishes throughout, but gun is mechanically fine. $400 FTF






Colt Woodsman mint, 2nd series made in 1951 with four magazines. $500 FTF






I would love to have both, but can only afford one.

 

[Gunhacker]

Wow... believe it or not, I had to make a similar choice last month, a M15-4 or a Colt Target Woodsman, both in excellent shape, with boxes & paperwork.

I picked the M15-4 and my friends thought I was totally looney tunes, but there was also about a $500 difference in the price tag between the two.

My rationale was that I know S&W's a lot better than I do Colts, as far as the "vintage" ones are concerned.

I know that if something should go wrong and break on the M15-4, I feel that with great certainity that I'll still be able to get parts... I wasn't as confident about the Woodsman.

I can shoot the M15-4 without feeling bad about it, whereas the Colt Target Woodsman would have bugged me to shoot it realizing that they aren't growing on trees.

So... you're the best equiped to know what you want to do and accomplish by buying which ever gun you choose. Go with what your gut feeling is telling you, that first initial impression is usually correct... the rest is second guessing yourself.

 

[Stranglehold]

In this case, I think the Woodsman is the better deal considering the condition of both guns.

Or do what I did and get both. Hell, it's only money...

Roe

 

[ACP230]

I'd buy the Woodsman, I already have an M18.

 

[j38]

Economically, I believe the Woodsman would be the preferred choice. Which one do you want the most?

Jerry

 

[okie john]

I used to have a Woodsman of that vintage. Never could warm up to it.


Okie John

 

[the45automan]

No second thought on my part, the Woodsman. I have a second series Woodsman that was my Dad's gun and would definitely get a second one if I had the chance.

 

[Luis Fernando]

http://home.comcast.net/~rjrayburn/index.html

Two differents worlds.
[IMG:left] [/IMG][IMG:left] [/IMG]

IN MY OPINION :THE COLT IS THE WINNER
LF.

 

[310Pilot]

I'm a revolver guy, and I love my K-22. That being said, I vote for the Woodsman. There has never been a more elegant .22 semi-auto handgun than the Colt Woodsman. I have owned quite a few, and regret every one that got away from me. I currently own a 1948 vintage Woodsman Target with a 6" barrel that I bought earlier this year at an outstanding price. Like all my previous Woodsmen, it is extremely accurate, well balanced, and just feels so good in the hand. The mechanism and internals are, actually, relatively simple and straightforward, and parts supply is not any worse than most old guns, and much better than some. There's just something special about a Woodsman - and remember, that comes from a life-long revolver fanatic!

 

[Raider]

I would get the Woodsman; they are far more scarce in my neck of the woods than the Mod 18. BTW I have both and neither are for sale.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

I would get the Woodsman. I could probably shoot better with, it is certainly a better value for the money, given present conditions, and I could probably carry it more easily concealed.

The only advantage (for me) that the 18 has is that I could carry it fully loaded in a proper holster. I would not carry a Woodsman that way, although it could be done. For me, however, that advantage is invenereal - I always have another gun of at least .38 Special with me, ready to go, so the mode of carry for the .22 doesn't matter.

I would definitely get the Woodsman, but you might want to consider an 18 or 17 eventually, anyway.

 

[Texas Star]

I'd get the Woodsman. S&W .22 revolvers frequently have very tough extraction. I'll never own another, after the problems that I had with a M-34!

 

[T. McIntyre]

I would opt for the Woodsman.

 

[m657]

Answer these two questions:

1)Which do you *shoot* better?

2)just *why* would you decide to purchase either?

If these are for collection purposes, the Woodsman would be *my* choice.

And I love the Target Woodsman configuration much more....it's just that I personally don't *shoot* them as well as the revolver...

 

[keppelj]

Another vote for the Woodsman. Beautifully made, classic elegant design, very lively, accurate gun to shoot.

 

[ol timer]

I have one of each and from the two examples shown above I would go for the Colt. There are cleaner M18s to be found if you're determined.

But as a shooter, I enjoy the Smith much more. My 2nd series Match Target with 4 1/2" barrel is fun but very particular in what ammo it will reliably shoot.

 

[Texas Star]

I forgot to mention that the Colt auto will give higher velocity. Very useful on small game or for defense.

T-Star

 

[Walter Rego]

The Woodsman is a much better deal, especially if the three spare magazines all look like the one with the exposed thumb follower assist gizmo. Factory mags like that will run $75 and up.

 

[Buford57]

You should buy the 18 and tell me where the Woodsman is.

Or, you could buy the Woodsman and tell me where to find the 18.