[yosemitesam64]

..Im thinking of getting a nice Challenger to go with a Winchester 63 for fun-shooting in the field, woods...sometimes bullseye more often for can-popping...not sure which barrel length would be more suitable, enjoyable......opinions????

[rcmodel]

A lot depends on which barrel length allows you to see the front sight better.

When I was young, I shot a 7 1/2" barrel S&W Model 41 in competition, and had better scores then with a 5" barrel on the same gun.
Now that I am old, I can see the front sight on the short barrel better.

Also, if you plan to carry it in your hand, or in a holster.

The short barrel is much handier for holster use, setting down in a truck seat, blind, etc.

I currently own four Woodsmen.
A 6 5/8" Woodsman Target made in 1927.
A 4 1/2" Sport made in 1936.
A 6" Targetsman made in 1965.
A 4 1/2" Match Target made in 1976.

The Sport is the one I pick up & holster when I go to the woods.
Usually one of the longer or heavier ones when I go to punch paper.

I think you will find the 6" Challenger easier to find and cheaper then the 4 1/2".
The 6" Woodsman of any of the series seems to be more common, around here anyway.

rc

[capttom]

I've owned many Woodsmen over the decades but currently have only one. It dates from 1933, has the 4 1/2" barrel, and belonged to my grandfather. My 58 year old eyes do better with the shorter sight radius and I think the gun handles and looks better. Not that I out of the market for a 6" version. I would buy depending on condition and price, not barrel. Even the "lower" cost Targetsman, Huntsman, and Challenger are joys in the .22 world.

[yosemitesam64]

..I found and bought a still-new condition, unfired Colt Challenger with 4.5" barrel for $400..:)

[capttom]

Whoa! Way to go!