Opinions on the High Standard Supermatic Citation

N

Newfoundlandrover

Regular
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
38   0   0
Location
Ottawa Ontario
Been looking for a decent older .22 pistol for plinking, and picked up a mid 60's High Standard 104 Supermatic Citation locally for $300. I don't know a whole lot about High Standard's, but was told that these vintage target pistols are pretty bulletproof. It actually looks to be a pretty well made firearm. Any thoughts or opinions?..
 
Newfoundlandrover said:
Been looking for a decent older .22 pistol for plinking, and picked up a mid 60's High Standard 104 Supermatic Citation locally for $300. I don't know a whole lot about High Standard's, but was told that these vintage target pistols are pretty bulletproof. It actually looks to be a pretty well made firearm. Any thoughts or opinions?..
Click to expand...

Depending on condition of course, I'd say for the price, good score and more than adequate for plinker purposes. It should more than meet your needs. A short while back, I picked up a Hi-Standard Supermatic Citation model 103 for a 'bit' more than the $300.oo you paid and I thought I did well.

UPDATE:
Neglected to mention, 'my' personal preference for something geared more towards more serious paper punching would be more along the lines of a S&W model 41. It just 'feels' better to me.



Primarily, because I like that grip angle better.


With it, in addition, I did get a set of Herritt's target grips. Nothing shabby about Hi-Standard, as a plinker or decent target gun.
 
Last edited:
If this is your 103....it's identical to my 104 with the exception of the magazine being flush. Mine has some holster wear and a couple of speckles on the frame though, but it cycles as smooth as silk. I really like the take down button feature.
 
I was looking for something like the S&W, Colt Woodsman or Ruger MKII, but pickings are kinda slim here in Ottawa lately. I'm happy with the Supermatic though....the price was right, and spares don't seem to be an issue
 
Newfoundlandrover said:
If this is your 103....it's identical to my 104 with the exception of the magazine being flush. Mine has some holster wear and a couple of speckles on the frame though, but it cycles as smooth as silk. I really like the take down button feature.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing, but I think the mag I got with it was adapted for use with the Herritt's grips. A spare mag I picked up at a recent gun show doesn't have that bottem feature.
 
Johnn Peterson said:
Depending on condition of course, I'd say for the price, good score and more than adequate for plinker purposes. It should more than meet your needs. A short while back, I picked up a Hi-Standard Supermatic Citation model 103 for a 'bit' more than the $300.oo you paid and I thought I did well.

UPDATE:
Neglected to mention, 'my' personal preference for something geared more towards more serious paper punching would be more along the lines of a S&W model 41. It just 'feels' better to me.



Primarily, because I like that grip angle better.


With it, in addition, I did get a set of Herritt's target grips. Nothing shabby about Hi-Standard, as a plinker or decent target gun.
Click to expand...

Johnn, your picture of the two handguns, one above the other, shows exactly why I never liked the S&W 41 (or 46.)
When I get the Smith into a comfortable shooting position, it is aimed about two feet under the target, due to the angle of the grips!
The grip on the High Standard shown, is a perfect angle for me.
 
H4831 said:
Johnn, your picture of the two handguns, one above the other, shows exactly why I never liked the S&W 41 (or 46.)
When I get the Smith into a comfortable shooting position, it is aimed about two feet under the target, due to the angle of the grips!
The grip on the High Standard shown, is a perfect angle for me.
Click to expand...

For me,;) it's the other way around. I like the angle and 'feel' of the S&W 41.
That grip angle of preference you have also goes well with that of the Browning Medalist.





That being the case;),:) here's another that might appeal to you. Another fairly recent acquisition, a Colt Woodsman Match Target.



;)Here's another unrelated photo for you from the past taken a few years back in the Bowron Lake area.

 
I guess it is not coincidence that I won most of my trophies with the Browning Medalist!
 
I had and used a High Standard Trophy for years and won a number of matches with it. I did eventually switch to the Browning Medalist; liked it; but eventually got out of rimfire shooting and sold it.

When I was trying out different guns, I tried the S&W model 14, and the Bakail Margolin; actually liked the Baikal better.

Been getting interested in getting back into it again, and plan to get another High Standard. Liked it better then the Browning, and I shot better with it; but that is just personal preference. The HS is a good, reliable gun that gives competition class accuracy.
 
I often wondered about the grip angle difference between such guns as the 1911 and Model 41 and the more swept back style. One day I was trying some stuff and I did some "close my eyes and raise the gun to shooting stance" tests. For our modern isocelese triangle positioning the 1911'ish angle guns seemed to raise automatically to the sight line. The swept back "target" angle on my Ruger Mk III was pointed at the ceiling. But this flipped around when I closed my eyes and raised the guns to a 45 degree to the side and into the one handed "bullseye" position. Now the Ruger was pointed out naturally at a straight and level attitude while the 1911'ish guns were pointed down at the baseboard.

I'm thinking that it's got something to do with how the bones of our forearms lay over each other and how they naturally support our wrist angle. It would be interesting to see if you folks try this and what you find.
 
BCRider said:
I often wondered about the grip angle difference between such guns as the 1911 and Model 41 and the more swept back style. One day I was trying some stuff and I did some "close my eyes and raise the gun to shooting stance" tests. For our modern isocelese triangle positioning the 1911'ish angle guns seemed to raise automatically to the sight line. The swept back "target" angle on my Ruger Mk III was pointed at the ceiling. But this flipped around when I closed my eyes and raised the guns to a 45 degree to the side and into the one handed "bullseye" position. Now the Ruger was pointed out naturally at a straight and level attitude while the 1911'ish guns were pointed down at the baseboard.

I'm thinking that it's got something to do with how the bones of our forearms lay over each other and how they naturally support our wrist angle. It would be interesting to see if you folks try this and what you find.
Click to expand...

Good discusion topic:). I'm not into the more formal aspects of Bullseye shooting these days, more plinking & playing than anything. Years ago, when I first started into serious more formal aspects of Bullseye shooting, I thought for a centerfire I'd probably settle on something along the lines of a 1911, which I did. :redface:A 'number' of them actually. With that decision made, I started out looking for rimfires that are available with a similar grip angle. Prior to this, I had a Browning Challenger but settled on a S&W model 46 for what I took to be a closer angle match to my 1911. Later I did a couple of small upgrade, those being a couple of different model 41's and have recently acquired one more 41. The last move in my Bullseye shooting days was the purchase of a Walther GSP with all the .22 & .32 'trimmings'. ;)The ultimate, or so I thought and if I recall correctly, a grip angle very similat to the 41 & 1911's I had become used to.

:redface:Sorry for the long winded trip down memory lane but I think it has a bearing on what 'feels' good or the resulting angle of sight you've mentioned you experienced in your experiment. I just tried raising a number of the .22 target pistols I presently have, with eyes closed and a traditional Bullseye stance. With the 41, when I open my eyes, the sights are almost aligned. With my Woodsman Match Target, Browning Medalist and the Hi-Standard Supermatic Citation, the front sight is way high. Again, I 'believe' that may be the result of what I started out with and got used to.

A bit of a side issue, but with that sharper grip angle and going a ways back to a noteable example, the German Luger, guns with that angle are great 'instinctive' pointers/shooters.
 
John, I suspect that long term muscle memory and familiarity has a lot to do with it. When I conducted my own highly unscientific test I'd only been shooting for about a year or so. And a wide variety of various guns to boot. So I didn't really have any long term training for my muscle memory to cling onto. Likely this could be part of my results vs your results.
 
BCRider said:
John, I suspect that long term muscle memory and familiarity has a lot to do with it. When I conducted my own highly unscientific test I'd only been shooting for about a year or so. And a wide variety of various guns to boot. So I didn't really have any long term training for my muscle memory to cling onto. Likely this could be part of my results vs your results.
Click to expand...

With your time span and variety of firearms, I would think your evaluation is much more realistic and closer to the mark than my own experience. In addition,;) I've also always been quite adept at forming and developing bad habits:p.
 
I grew up shooting small caliber revolvers and pistols with my father back in NL....I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with any of his revolvers or the FN style pistols, but the Ruger MKI was a different story....I was no Annie Oakley, but I'd at least make my dad stop rolling his eyes. My first pistol was actually a Hy-Score model 800 air pistol,(which I still have) and it shared a very similar grip angle to the Ruger.....which is similar to the old High Standard I just purchased. I know the grip angle makes all the difference in my case.
 
BCRider said:
I often wondered about the grip angle difference between such guns as the 1911 and Model 41 and the more swept back style. One day I was trying some stuff and I did some "close my eyes and raise the gun to shooting stance" tests. For our modern isocelese triangle positioning the 1911'ish angle guns seemed to raise automatically to the sight line. The swept back "target" angle on my Ruger Mk III was pointed at the ceiling. But this flipped around when I closed my eyes and raised the guns to a 45 degree to the side and into the one handed "bullseye" position. Now the Ruger was pointed out naturally at a straight and level attitude while the 1911'ish guns were pointed down at the baseboard.

I'm thinking that it's got something to do with how the bones of our forearms lay over each other and how they naturally support our wrist angle. It would be interesting to see if you folks try this and what you find.
Click to expand...

Steve, I started in pistol shooting back in the years after WW2, when every body was shooting something. One handed, bulls eye shooting, slow, timed and rapid firing, was THE standard pistol formulae. So I set about to read and listen to everything I could about pistol shooting.
About 98% of the information I got was to stand at right angles to the target, extend your shooting arm toward the target and lay your chin back on your shoulder. I found this to be a very uncomfortable way to shoot.
So I started to experiment. I started with my eyes closed, raised the gun to shoulder height, then moved it around latterly until it felt comfortable. When I opened my eyes, I discovered I was standing at about 45 degrees from the target.
I adopted that method for ever after. Standing up to shoot, I would close my eyes and find the comfortable condition. If I was out as little as six inches at 20 yards, I would slightly adjust my feet.
At the same time I discovered what guns had the right amount of angle on the grips to suit me.
 
Johnn Peterson said:
Depending on condition of course, I'd say for the price, good score and more than adequate for plinker purposes. It should more than meet your needs. A short while back, I picked up a Hi-Standard Supermatic Citation model 103 for a 'bit' more than the $300.oo you paid and I thought I did well.

UPDATE:
Neglected to mention, 'my' personal preference for something geared more towards more serious paper punching would be more along the lines of a S&W model 41. It just 'feels' better to me.



Primarily, because I like that grip angle better.


With it, in addition, I did get a set of Herritt's target grips. Nothing shabby about Hi-Standard, as a plinker or decent target gun.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with the 41 as I have two and have a hard time thinking of selling even one. circa 1971 & 2013
 
H4831 said:
I guess it is not coincidence that I won most of my trophies with the Browning Medalist!
Click to expand...

I'd take one if the opportunity was there but again it would have to be in great shape because of the parts availability.. I shoot everything, I have no safe queens..
 
I have read that High Standards should only be used with standard velocity ammo, as HV ammo will eventually crack frames. Do any of those with any experience with these pistols have any thoughts on this?
 
tjhaile said:
I have read that High Standards should only be used with standard velocity ammo, as HV ammo will eventually crack frames. Do any of those with any experience with these pistols have any thoughts on this?
Click to expand...

It's not obvious at first since we tend to think of the recoil in terms of center fire delayed blowback operations. But heavier bullet SV rounds actually produce MORE recoil impulse than faster and lighter high velocity ammo.

This was hammered home for me with my Tanfoglio Force .22. It shot great and cycled super reliably on the CCI SV ammo I fed it for the first few thousand rounds. But then it began to act up with stove pipes and even failures to clear the empty casing before picking up a new round. This led me to watch the "energy" of the ejected casings. The CCI SV ammo still worked superbly and ejected the empties out a good two feet or more to the side. The 38gn HV ammo I was trying at the time barely made the empties dribble out over my hand when it didn't jam up. I went for a slightly softer recoil spring and that did the trick.

So I would not be too worried over shooting a Hi Standard with MOST of the HV ammo on the market since the slide won't travel back as hard as it will with SV ammo. What I would avoid is the "hot" rimfire ammo such as Mini Mag and other fancy rimfire ammo which actually has higher pressures to push the full weight bullets out at HV to UV like speeds. THAT stuff is hotter than the stock recoil springs are set up for. And because of that it's likely that the slide will hammer back hard and the rear stop point of the frame and slide will have to absorb the beating.

Even then if you were to fit the slide with a slightly stronger spring to aid in damping out the recoil impulse then there would not be an issue. Even the "hot" rimfire ammo is pretty soft for the amount of metal in these guns. The key is simply tuning the recoil spring to absorb all or most of the impulse before metal hits metal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom