Colt vs Hi-Standard

[D.B. Cooper]

Comparing a Colt Challenger to a Hi-Standard Duramatic 22LR pistols, both with 6" barrels:

Which is considered to be the more desirable from a collector's point of view? Which would command the higher price? Which is considered the more: durable, reliable, accurate, etc?

Where do these guns fall in relation to say the Colt Woodsman, S&W 41, or early Ruger Mark I or II series?

 

[earplug]

Duramatic is the lowest quality High standard 22 long rifle Semi Auto pistol. Shared little or nothing with the target models.
Collector's are a fickle bunch who trades on rarity's, condition and pristine boxes, manuals and fadish quirks..
Duramatic is lower then a Ruger Mark 1 in joy to shoot.

 

[Ru4real]

Which is considered to be the more desirable from a collector's point of view? Which would command the higher price? Which is considered the more: durable, reliable, accurate, etc?

Where do these guns fall in relation to say the Colt Woodsman, S&W 41, or early Ruger Mark I or II series?

LOL

Your questions are mutually exclusive. The Colt will ALWAYS demand the higher price. But, the High Standard is more durable, reliable and accurate.

And both guns fall below the S&W and the Ruger. Evidence? The market picks winners. Which are still being made?

 

[D.B. Cooper]

And both guns fall below the S&W and the Ruger. Evidence? The market picks winners. Which are still being made?

I see your point, but some of that is subjective. Example: the Winchester Model 12. Best shotgun ever made. Out of production since 1964, largely due to production costs. Same might be said of the Colts. (Pythons were out of production for decades, but they commanded very high prices as well.)

 

[Jeff olson]

Duramatic is the lowest quality High standard 22 long rifle Semi Auto pistol. Shared little or nothing with the target models.
Collector's are a fickle bunch who trades on rarity's, condition and pristine boxes, manuals and fadish quirks..
Duramatic is lower then a Ruger Mark 1 in joy to shoot.

The duramatic was the entry level high standard. I paid $90 for mine in I believe 1984. I don't own a Challenger. I do have a huntsman and a woodsman and that old duramatic wins every time. But it doesn't have the pony on the side. High standards will never garner the collector price. But if you like to shoot arguably the best rimfire automatic then..........

 

[Howland937]

Pretty sure the Challenger was intended to compete for the same market as the Duramatic. I can't see either one being appreciably better or worse than the Ruger Standard or MKI, but neither are at the level of a Woodsman or 41.

Collector interest would probably be from more entry level types or folks that just buy anything with a particular logo. Which one does the best would really depend on which person you came across first.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Pretty sure the Challenger was intended to compete for the same market as the Duramatic.

I'm getting the feeling that you may be right. They both came from the same person who had several budget class guns.

 

[Jim Watson]

Post WWII, the Woodsman, Challenger, Huntsman, Targetsman were all the same action. The Woodsman had a slide stop and better sights, heavier barrel in the MT.
HS kept refining their target models and the M41 was new when the Woodsman peaked out.

The Duramatic was the HS entry model, striker fired with no connection to the Supermatic series. Although Colt's last gasp, the Cadet, then Target .22, is pretty much the same design.