Topgun
member
Which do you prefer? Personally, I like the LOOKS of the 41 and the performance of the HS.
If you have shot BOTH, which do you like?
If you have shot BOTH, which do you like?
Hi Standard or S&W 41....ONLY if you have shot BOTH
- Thread starter Topgun
- Start date
- Status
Oleg Volk
Moderator Emeritus
SW41 is my favorite .22 autoloader.
It is accurate (much more so than HS, Buckmark or Ruger Mk2), the example i've used was 100% reliable with any ammo (over 1,500 rounds w/o cleaning -- minimal fouling inside). Maintenance is much eaiser than others (HS recoil spring change is a real pain). Only complaint about S&W41 is the magazine disconnector. Not sure if that can be removed or disabled, probably so.
I don't own a S&W41 but have used a borrowed one and liked it over my own .22 pistols. I was inclined to like HS (Military) but experience turned me against the design.
It is accurate (much more so than HS, Buckmark or Ruger Mk2), the example i've used was 100% reliable with any ammo (over 1,500 rounds w/o cleaning -- minimal fouling inside). Maintenance is much eaiser than others (HS recoil spring change is a real pain). Only complaint about S&W41 is the magazine disconnector. Not sure if that can be removed or disabled, probably so.
I don't own a S&W41 but have used a borrowed one and liked it over my own .22 pistols. I was inclined to like HS (Military) but experience turned me against the design.
Jim Watson
Member
My High Standard will shoot 1" at 50 yards from Ransom Rest. I like its military grip profile since I shoot 1911s so much. Getting decent magazines and tuning them to work is the main liability of High Standard.
My M41 is about as accurate from sandbags - I do not have Ransom inserts for it and I am not a good enough shot to make final pronouncements without it, but it is plenty good. Its magazines are well made and feed reliably with no tinkering. It has its own grip shape and angle to get used to.
Please don't limit me to one good .22, Herr Coronel Jackbooted Thug.
My M41 is about as accurate from sandbags - I do not have Ransom inserts for it and I am not a good enough shot to make final pronouncements without it, but it is plenty good. Its magazines are well made and feed reliably with no tinkering. It has its own grip shape and angle to get used to.
Please don't limit me to one good .22, Herr Coronel Jackbooted Thug.
aircarver
Member
I still own both from my days as captain of a .22 league pistol team. The High Standard (Hamden, Conn) was most used, by most of the shooters in the league, as it was by me. S&W 41s were scarce and hard to get, as they were made in batches & you had to grab one when the current batch was selling out. After I got mine, it retired the HiStandard, not because of inherent accuracy, (they were both excellent) but because I prefered the muzzle heaviness of the (heavy barrel) 41. Also, the sharp corner on the HiStandard grip dug the heel of my hand. I note Gil Hebard has 41s, but the price is outrageous compared to what I paid (which was outrageous in it's day ) 
Wildalaska
member
S&W 41 by a long shot!
Unisaw
Member
I prefer the S&W 41 by a wide margin. As a matter of fact, I can't think of a single aspect of the HS that I like better than the Model 41.
cratz2
Member
Yup... have a friend that has a 41 and matched Hi Standards in 22lr and 22 short. While that 22 Short is pretty fun to shoot, and either would serve in most capacities very well, in my mind, the 41 is superior in every aspect.
Jeff OTMG
Member
I have two Hamden High Standard Victors and a S&W mod 41. I like the mod 41 better, I have four barrels for it and one of those is scoped, but I find myself shooting the Victors much more.
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
I own three High Standard .22 caliber pistols and a (pre-Snopes Clinton-Liar Gore régime agreement) Smith & Wesson model 41.
My original (new in 1978 or 1979) High Standard Trophy is far and away the best of the lot. It's never jammed. It's never failed to feed. It failed to fire some old Remington ammunition once, but that's it. It's consistently much more accurate than I've ever been or ever will be again.
My expensive (used) Victor is a dog. A previous owner seems to have tinkered with it. It'll feed as many as 45 rounds, then starts jamming, no matter which magazine I use in it. It works much better with a replacement Volquartsen barrel, but doesn't always feel rounds into it, and occasionally fails to fire. 2003 is the year I find a gunsmith who'll be able to fix this pistol.
My less expensive (used) Victor is nearly as good as the Trophy, but the magazine tends to stick, and it's failed to fire a few times.
Out of the box, the model 41 was a dog. The trigger pull was over five pounds and creepy, and afflicted with absurd over-travel. It failed to feed every brand of ammunition I tried at least once every 20 or 30 rounds. I replaced the recoil spring with one from Wollf's, and it now feeds virtually all brands. I had a trigger job done by a .22 caliber enthusiast with lots of experience, and it's better, although sometimes inconsistent. The rear sight fell off. I put it back on, tightened the Allen screws, and continued to shoot—only to discover the pressure of the Allen screws bent the top strap that hangs over the slide, with the result that both the top of the slide and the bottom of the top strap are badly scratched. I finally glued the rear sight in place.
When I shot competitively years ago in the boondocks of Michigan, the vast majority of us shot High Standards. One or two people shot the Colt Woodsman, and the newbies tended to show up with model 41s, which they then traded in on High Standards.
That saidâ„¢, there are three serious problems with High Standards: 1.) those currently being manufactured in Texas have a bad reputation among High Standard afficionados; 2.) it's hard to tell a good High Standard from scrap iron without putting at least 100 rounds through it, and even then, you have to check carefully for cracks in the right side of the frame, and 3.) finding a competent High Standard gunsmith can take awhile. Ed at Kerley's Sporting Goods in Cupertino, the People's Republic of California, did good work on two of mine. Lou Lombardi of Falcon Machining was reputed to know what he was about; after waiting eighteen months for him to build me a High Standard replacement barrel, however, ("Just a couple more months!") I decided not to trust him with my problem Victor.
I'm thinking about a Volquartsen remanufactured Ruger these days.
My original (new in 1978 or 1979) High Standard Trophy is far and away the best of the lot. It's never jammed. It's never failed to feed. It failed to fire some old Remington ammunition once, but that's it. It's consistently much more accurate than I've ever been or ever will be again.
My expensive (used) Victor is a dog. A previous owner seems to have tinkered with it. It'll feed as many as 45 rounds, then starts jamming, no matter which magazine I use in it. It works much better with a replacement Volquartsen barrel, but doesn't always feel rounds into it, and occasionally fails to fire. 2003 is the year I find a gunsmith who'll be able to fix this pistol.
My less expensive (used) Victor is nearly as good as the Trophy, but the magazine tends to stick, and it's failed to fire a few times.
Out of the box, the model 41 was a dog. The trigger pull was over five pounds and creepy, and afflicted with absurd over-travel. It failed to feed every brand of ammunition I tried at least once every 20 or 30 rounds. I replaced the recoil spring with one from Wollf's, and it now feeds virtually all brands. I had a trigger job done by a .22 caliber enthusiast with lots of experience, and it's better, although sometimes inconsistent. The rear sight fell off. I put it back on, tightened the Allen screws, and continued to shoot—only to discover the pressure of the Allen screws bent the top strap that hangs over the slide, with the result that both the top of the slide and the bottom of the top strap are badly scratched. I finally glued the rear sight in place.
When I shot competitively years ago in the boondocks of Michigan, the vast majority of us shot High Standards. One or two people shot the Colt Woodsman, and the newbies tended to show up with model 41s, which they then traded in on High Standards.
That saidâ„¢, there are three serious problems with High Standards: 1.) those currently being manufactured in Texas have a bad reputation among High Standard afficionados; 2.) it's hard to tell a good High Standard from scrap iron without putting at least 100 rounds through it, and even then, you have to check carefully for cracks in the right side of the frame, and 3.) finding a competent High Standard gunsmith can take awhile. Ed at Kerley's Sporting Goods in Cupertino, the People's Republic of California, did good work on two of mine. Lou Lombardi of Falcon Machining was reputed to know what he was about; after waiting eighteen months for him to build me a High Standard replacement barrel, however, ("Just a couple more months!") I decided not to trust him with my problem Victor.
I'm thinking about a Volquartsen remanufactured Ruger these days.
Porter Rockwell
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2002
- Messages
- 226
S&W 41 vs HS?
Having owned and shot both at everything from NRA BE to pin matches I sold them and bought Ruger 678 models. The reasons are cost, parts & mag availability and accuracy. The Ruger can easily equal the 2MOA of both mentioned models and has on many rested tests shot 1MOA.
Having owned and shot both at everything from NRA BE to pin matches I sold them and bought Ruger 678 models. The reasons are cost, parts & mag availability and accuracy. The Ruger can easily equal the 2MOA of both mentioned models and has on many rested tests shot 1MOA.
I own a Model 41 5" extensible sight (remember those?). I have fired many H-S pistols, but all of the old company; I have not fired one of the current products.
I prefer the Model 41, but I will also say that my old Ruger Mk I 5" bull barrel (you can see I prefer short heavy barrels) will shoot about as well off a rest as either and at a fraction of the cost. However, I have done some pretty heavy duty trigger work on the Ruger; out of the box, they are just not that good, and (IMHO) will never be as good as either the S&W 41 or the top H-S guns.
Jim
I prefer the Model 41, but I will also say that my old Ruger Mk I 5" bull barrel (you can see I prefer short heavy barrels) will shoot about as well off a rest as either and at a fraction of the cost. However, I have done some pretty heavy duty trigger work on the Ruger; out of the box, they are just not that good, and (IMHO) will never be as good as either the S&W 41 or the top H-S guns.
Jim
Back in the '70's the U.S. Coast Guard Academy Pistol Team used both the High Standard and the S&W 41. The majority of cadets used the High Standard. Since my Dad had a 41, that's what I chose to shoot. But, without his influence I would've used the High Standard...it just felt better.
Fiveshooter
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 169
Tough Choice
I own and sometime shoot a High Standard Supermatic Military Trophy. My wife has a mint S&W model 41. I don't shoot the H. S. much any more but if I behave myself I get to shoot the wife's model 41.
From an accuracy standpoint I would give a very slight edge to the H. S.
As far as which gun feels best in the hand the Smith wins hands down.
If I had to choose only one of the two(depressing thought) it would be the Smith model 41
Someday I hope to have a model 41 of my very own so I don't have to behave myself to get to shoot it.
I own and sometime shoot a High Standard Supermatic Military Trophy. My wife has a mint S&W model 41. I don't shoot the H. S. much any more but if I behave myself I get to shoot the wife's model 41.
From an accuracy standpoint I would give a very slight edge to the H. S.
As far as which gun feels best in the hand the Smith wins hands down.
If I had to choose only one of the two(depressing thought) it would be the Smith model 41
Someday I hope to have a model 41 of my very own so I don't have to behave myself to get to shoot it.
I grew up shooting a 1967 model 41 and a mid 70's Supermatic trophy. I thought the accuracy was equal but I greatly prefer the model 41. Neither one ever jammed on me even once with any ammo.
The 41, it just feels right. I also shot a lot of 1911's and the weight, feel, balance of the model 41 is closer to the 1911.
TW Tx
The 41, it just feels right. I also shot a lot of 1911's and the weight, feel, balance of the model 41 is closer to the 1911.
TW Tx
cyclopsshooter
Member
I own both and use the 41 every wednesday night for league
NoAlibi
Member
It's Alive!!!
Ready on the left - Ready on the right...
Shoot this Zombie thread from 2002!
Ready on the left - Ready on the right...
Shoot this Zombie thread from 2002!
Preferred the HS Victor for Bullseye & League and the S&W 41 for all around use. Way back when, I used to use about any .22 ammo in the HS. With them being out of production & finding out about the frame cracking issue with .22 HV mine stays in the safe unless I shoot SV. I put a recoil buffer in my S&W 41 and shot HV from it without issue. I have owned over 10 the High Standards, 2 S&W 41's and shot scores more. Most of the like and dislike comes down to grip angle and trigger for bullseye. Another change is that now most are using one of the dot's for bullseye. When I was shooting it was strictly factory sights. The S&W's 41's come drilled and tapped currently ............big plus for the 41!
aircarver
Member
Just a note in this blast fom the past to say that I still got both the HS and the 41 that I referred to in the original post !....
I've owned a LOT of Hi Standards and I love the old hammer guns, but I've owned 4 different M-41's and they are definitely a better gun. I sold my last Hamden Trophy to my shooting partner and kept my M-41 as it has the finest trigger of any handgun I've ever fired.
- Status
