I can't decide Ruger vs Colt Woodsman .22's

[P14Enfield]

I have been promised a .22 caliber handgun for my birthday. I am allowed to decide what kind. After multiple times of holding (and shooting some) .22 handguns, I have come to a problem. I like the Ruger (Mk1 or Mk2, doesn't matter) and the Colt Woodsman equally. Now I know that I like the 6" barrel on both, and I have shot a Ruger. I have handled many Woodsmans at various gun shows and know that i like the grips. I cannot decide which one is better. I am aware that the Ruger would be a lot cheaper, and I have been told that price between the two is not a problem.

Now comes the fun part. I am 16, the only firearm I own is a P14 Enfield. This will be my first hadngun, and my first .22. Which of the two do you guys/girls think I should get?

 

[joebogey]

I have no experience with the Woodsman, but I do own the MKII.
I love mine and have never had a problem with it other than faulty ammo.

 

[AZ Jeff]

If price is not a big consderation, investigate the S&W Model 41. It was a contemporary of the later Woodsman, and survived past the Woodsman's demise in the 1970's.

The Model 41 is considered by many to be the best .22LR autoloader generally available in the US today. But, it IS more expensive than a Ruger by a fair amount.

 

[steveno]

in this day and age a Woodsman in good condition or better is fairly expensive and has collectors value. Does Colt still make parts for it if it breaks?

 

[AZ Jeff]

Poster "Steveno" brings up a good point. Although parts "may" still be available from Colt, it's a certainty that parts and support for a Ruger, or S&W are going be easier to come by.

This may be an issue for the original poster, unless he is either an amateur gunsmith, or familiar with some esoteric sources for replacement parts for out-of-production pistols.

 

[BlackJack]

Shoot a Ruger. There are thousands of replacement parts and upgrade items available. The Colt is expensive in the first place and part are pricey and hard to get. I have both so I know. And the Ruger is the one I shoot often.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Go with the Woodsman -- it's a collectable piece, and will be both a joy to shoot AND a treasure for your kids and grandkids. Someday when you have a job, you may also want to pick up a Ruger, but if someone is going to GIVE you a gun, go for the Colt -- it's a no-brainer!

 

[Standing Wolf]

The Colt Woodsman is a far, far better pistol. Parts aren't easy to find or cheap, and it may take awhile to find a competent gunsmith if you need one, but thirty years from now, you'll be glad you chose it rather than the ordinary Ruger, (which, incidentally, is very poorly designed.)

 

[BozemanMT]

You're kidding right???????
Why is this even a choice? The Ruger is a nice pistol, but it's not even in the same class as a Woodsman.
Get the Colt, you'll have it forever. The Ruger is just another pistol.

 

[arinvolvo]

BLASPHEMY!!!!

EVERYONE knows that the MkII is the time tested, go-to pistol when it comes to 22.


colt woodsman...pffft.

 

[Ala Dan]

A nice Colt Woodsman would be a very desireable piece to have.
Third series Woodsman's are expensive; second series even more
so. I was fortunate enough to own a second series with a 6" bbl.
It was a tack driver.

I also owned a Ruger MK-II KMK-512. Thats the 5.5" bull barrel
stainless model. It too was a good shooter, but you have to keep
the breach clean of debris. An old toothbrush comes in mighty
handy.

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

 

[Dienekes]

All things being equal, the Woodsman! You can always pick up a Ruger later, whereas the Woodsman is a classic that is getting more classic every day.

The Ruger is a good piece (we have a few in the family) but the Colt is really special. Those old guys in the Colt factory really knew how to make guns in the old days, and these were proof of it. I have a First Model 6" of about 1940 vintage that is a pleasure to handle and shoots very well too. Don't shoot it much but it's always a treat when I do.

Have wanted a Third Model Match target 4 1/2" since 1960. One of these days I will nail one down...

 

[tc300mag1]

For my money i liked the Ruger MKII Target and thats what i bought i havent had any probs that wasnt ammo relatedwith it

 

[P14Enfield]

I am not really looking into one of these for a collectable really. I am not looking for one in perfect condition. I want one for some good plinking and that can last a while. From what I have heard/read both will be able to survive for many years of shooting.

 

[BluesBear]

Y'all act like a Colt Woodsman is made of glass or something.

Parts are available. Sure they're more expensive than the Ruger, but when is the last time you saw a broken one?

I believe he's also open to one of the Woodsman variations such as a Challanger, Huntsman or Targetsman.

 

[SnWnMe]

Kid listen to me. I have a pre-Woodsman made in 1922. That's right, an 82 year old gun. It will be over 100 yearsold when I hit my 6th decade. I shoot it... ALOT! It was made back when there were no MIM parts, composites or plastics or whatever. It is all steel and wood. It is a tack driver. It will last forever. Springs are available from Wolff.

There are millions of Ruger MK IIs and soon, Mk IIIs out there. Such run of the mill pistols can wait. Life is too short, get the Woodsman.

 

[Majic]

You are young so now is a good time to learn. When given the choice between an everday run of the mill object versus a classic go with the classic everytime. In a few years you will still find the Rugers everywhere and the price will basically be the same. The Colt may have gained another $50 to $100 in value and be more difficult to find (take notice now of how many Rugers you see for sale vs the Colts).
Take the Colt. You can pick up a Ruger anytime, anywhere and it will be less money coming out of your pocket then.

 

[Jspy]

Ditto, the two previous posts.