I was trying to highlight the case of a catholic marrying a non-Catholic outside of the Church.  In that case, there is no sacramental marriage, though there is a natural law marriage.  If the non-Catholic converts, then they would be obligated to get it blessed by the Church.
.
If you have 2 non-catholics get a natural marriage, but one converts to the Faith, while the other is anti-Catholic and harsh towards the Faith, the convert could get "re-married" to a catholic.  It's called the Pauline Privilege, as it apparently was supported by St Paul, during the early days.  My explanation is simplistic, but this is what I've been told.

I've never heard this.  I've only heard that a CATHOLIC COUPLE could marry themselves, if after 30 days a suitable pastor/ordinary cannot be found.  This is the canon law that Trads use to have supplied jurisdiction for marriages, as there aren't any orthodox pastors/ordinaries in existence.
.

From what I was taught, basically:

2 catholics with correct matter, form and intent = valid sacramental marriage

All other options for the Catholic and non-catholic alike, no sacrament is involved. Then the Church must have changed her teaching (or possibly just discipline, or both), as I have always understood that when Catholics marry baptized non-Catholics with canonical form and dispensation/permission, a valid sacrament is confected.  I don't doubt, as you put it, that you were taught this, but just for my own edification, I'm going to check out Woywod/Smith so I will more fully understand.  This runs entirely counter to what I have always understood.  I fully recognize that it is possible to "understand wrong", even for many decades --- I realize many people are resistant to change what they have "always thought", but I'm not one of them.  Truth is truth regardless.

If a dispensation is granted the one Catholic to a mixed marriage, he can receive a blessing for his marriage and the Church recognizes it as valid.  Valid natural marriage, but even if it is between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic, not sacramental?

All other options involving a Catholic are not valid within the Church.

Marriages of non-Catholics are valid. Are you saying, then, that the marriage of two baptized non-Catholics is only a valid natural marriage, not sacramental?  And what about the Orthodox?

I have never heard this before.
Interesting.

Many, or most, cases today would fall under the conditions of Canon 1098 of the 1917 Code, when the authorized pastors and ordinaries, or a delegate of either, prescribed by Canon's 1095 and 1096 cannot be had without great inconvenience, and it may prudently be foreseen that this will last for a month.   As long as there are no diriment impediments, all that matters for a marriage to be valid under the conditions of c. 1098 is the fact that the conditions of c.1098 truly exist when and where the marriage takes place.  Under such conditions, mixed marriages between a baptized Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic are valid, even if in bad faith they are married by a civil official or non-Catholic minister in a non-Catholic ceremony.  The judgment, beliefs, motives, or sinful intentions of those marrying does not affect validity, even if those marrying think their marriage will be invalid in the eyes of the Church.  Canon 1098 takes effect as soon as the conditions are fulfilled, independent of a priest declaring it or the parties knowing about the canon.

   Mixed Marriage Before Protestant Minister Valid If Conditions of Canon 1098 for Marriage Before Witnesses Only Are Verified (S. C. Sacr., 4 March, 1925) Private.
  The following rescript was received by the Bishop of Pinsk in reply to a question concerning mixed marriages.
  Reply. If all the conditions which are required by canon 1098 for the validity of marriages before witnesses only are verified, the circuмstance that such marriages were blessed in a non-Catholic church is an argument, not against validity, but against licitness.
  (Private); S. C. Sacr., 4 March, 1925. Reported by Dalpiaz in Apollinaris, Vol. 10, 1937, p. 277. See also Nevin in The Australasian Catholic Record, Vol. 19, 1942, p. 96.

It need scarcely be remarked here that, when the parties are entitled to contract marriage without the presence of the priest, they are justified in going to a justice of the peace, or any other official of the government who is entitled to witness the marriages, so that their marriage may have the recognition of the civil law. They can also marry before a non-Catholic minister, not as a minister of religion but as an official entitled by civil law to witness marriages; they must not allow him to use any religious ceremony, as may be seen from Canon 1063.

According to canon 1060 the impediment of mixed religion is an ‘impedimentum prohibens’ which sub gravi forbids the marriage between a Catholic and a baptized nonCatholic, but does not make it invalid. Moreover, it is stipulated in canon 1061 that, before a dispensation from this impediment can be given, the ‘cautiones’ must first be given, whereby the non-Catholic promises to avoid all that might lead to a weakening of the faith of the Catholic party, while both the Catholic and non-Catholic party promise to see to the baptism and Catholic upbringing of the children of their marriage. The ‘cautiones’ are required ad validitatem for the dispensation, even in danger of death. Hence, no dispensation from the impediment is possible without the ‘cautiones’. And in the case where no dispensation from the impediment of mixed religion was obtained, the marriage is graviter illicitum, but all the same validum since it is a question of an impedimentum prohibens. If they contracted a marriage without the ‘cautiones’ being given either implicite or explicite, they are validly married without dispensation or suspension from the impediment, and the Catholic party is punishable according to canon 2375, ipso facto excluded from all legitimate ecclesiastical acts and from the sacramentals. The latae sententiae penalty of exclusion from legitimate ecclesiastical acts is vindicative and supposes full knowledge and deliberation, since canon 2375 uses the term ‘ausi fuerint’. Hence ignorance even crass or supine, fear, even light, and any cause which lessens imputability excuses from the penalty (canon 2229, par 1, 2). But the Ordinary can dispense from these penalties. However, as we saw already, the marriage is valid though punishable because of the absence of ‘cautiones’.

It is a gratuitous assumption to say that the witnesses mentioned in Canon 1098 have to be privatae personae. To state that Canon 1094 excludes civil officials and non-Catholic ministers and that therefore they are to be excluded in Canon 1098 does not quite follow. A nonCatholic minister or a civil official, qua talis, cannot take part in a Catholic ceremony in his official capacity. They are not excluded by law from acting as ordinary witnesses in the ordinary form of marriage. In marriages contracted according to the extraordinary form, at least as far as validity is concerned, there is nothing in the law that excludes them from acting in their official capacity. The law disregards their official capacity and takes cognizance merely of the exchange of matrimonial consent in the presence of two witnesses. As for the argument that a non-Catholic ceremony was excluded by the legislator because of the divine law prohibiting participation in a non-Catholic religious service, one may say that such was not the finis legis of the legislator in framing this canon. Non-Catholic ceremonies are still forbidden, even in cases envisioned in Canon 1098. However, if the parties, whether in good or bad faith, do approach a non-Catholic minister and exchange matrimonial consent, otherwise naturally sufficient, in the presence of two witnesses, the marriage will nonetheless be valid. The Church has at times recognized marriages contracted before non-Catholic ministers. Pope Pius X, in his apostolic letter “Provida,” dated January 18, 1906, declared that in Germany the parties in a mixed marriage would be exempt from the ordinary form of marriage. Marriages contracted before a civil official or a non-Catholic minister were to be considered valid in such cases. This exemption was later extended also to Hungary. It had been a long-standing rule under the Tametsi matrimonial discipline that with reference to the form prescribed by the decree Tametsi there should be observed that part which could be observed. Hence matrimonial consent in the presence of two witnesses was all that was required. The fact that this took place in a nonCatholic ceremony was something irrelevant and could be abstracted from.

According to an answer of the S.C. Sacr. 22nd March, 1910 such a marriage is valid even if the couple intentionally went to a place where no authorized priest was within reach, and this is even licit, since they merely use their rights. Similarly it is licit to delay the marriage until all the conditions demanded by canon 1098 have been fulfilled. Should the couple then contract a so-called civil marriage, i.e. according to the customs of the district, provided that all the conditions of canon 1098 have been fulfilled, even if they erroneously believe that their marriage is invalid in the eyes of the Church and that therefore they have been guilty of sin, and even if they know nothing of the exception of canon 1098, still the marriage is valid.

Right.  Any non-catholic, even if baptized, can’t receive a sacrament because they aren’t/won’t submit to the authority of the Church/pope.  So they can’t have the benefits/graces of the sacrament.  How could they?
.
This also applies if a catholic marries a non-catholic (even if both are baptized).  A sacrament requires BOTH persons to submit to church authority.  If there is a reason/approval for a mixed-marriage, then the couple can receive certain church blessings but they don’t/won’t have the full-time sacramental graces for the rest of their lives.  
.
This is why mixed-marriages have been forbidden save for extreme circuмstances.  In the US it’s much more common for mixed marriages, because we're a Protestant country, but in catholic counties it’s much more unique (pre V2).  

They have no priests to give them a sacramental marriage

3) Could a "mixed" couple (1 catholic, 1 baptized non-catholic) have a sacramental marriage?  I'm not sure, but logically I would say "no".