Saw one of these at the store yesterday. They wanted $475. Is this a good price, considering the gun is in excellent condition? Is this a revolver that tends to need some special care (ie. frequent trips to the smith) or is it a pretty rugged gun? Would you buy one again? Or would you recommend something else? I'd like to get a nice accurate but rugged little gun to take with me on backpacking trips up in the mountains. I really don't want something too heavy or one that I'll have to worry about if it gets dropped, muddy, lack of lube, etc. Thanks
Colt Diamondback (or alternate 22 cal handgun)
- Thread starter xyzman44
- Start date
- Status
Pricing depends on your locale and the demand both nationally and within the area. From what I've seen in the Gun List, their asking price seems normal.
In my opinion, the Diamondback .22 is the best .22 LR revolver to have. The action is based on the Colt Python and once properly tuned, it will stay tuned for a long time. The problem is, if you've been following the Colt made by Morons Thread here is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find a revolver smith who knows how to work on Python/Diamondback type actions. Parts are more expensive too, but since they're 4140 steel, you replace them very infrequently. That set aside, I'd buy the Diamondback. If you enjoy plinking with a .22, I don't think you'll find another .22 which will give you as much shooting pleasure.
If you're into the woods and low maintenance, I'd consider a Ruger SP101 .22. Nobody makes a revolver as tough as Ruger. Trigger pull is not nearly as nice as the Diamondback or the S&W though. Another favorite of mine is the 8 shot S&W Airweight .22 with 3" barrel and adjustable sights. I'd go with that Airweight over the regular steel frame 6 shot S&W.
Enough rambling...happy shooting.
------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
In my opinion, the Diamondback .22 is the best .22 LR revolver to have. The action is based on the Colt Python and once properly tuned, it will stay tuned for a long time. The problem is, if you've been following the Colt made by Morons Thread here is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find a revolver smith who knows how to work on Python/Diamondback type actions. Parts are more expensive too, but since they're 4140 steel, you replace them very infrequently. That set aside, I'd buy the Diamondback. If you enjoy plinking with a .22, I don't think you'll find another .22 which will give you as much shooting pleasure.
If you're into the woods and low maintenance, I'd consider a Ruger SP101 .22. Nobody makes a revolver as tough as Ruger. Trigger pull is not nearly as nice as the Diamondback or the S&W though. Another favorite of mine is the 8 shot S&W Airweight .22 with 3" barrel and adjustable sights. I'd go with that Airweight over the regular steel frame 6 shot S&W.
Enough rambling...happy shooting.
------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
Check out a S&W 17 or 617 if your into stainless. About the same size as a Diamondback, adjustable sights, nice trigger and a whole lot cheaper. Diamondbacks are pretty collectable now and I don't know how much I'd carry one around in the woods.
IMHO
------------------
Join the NRA.
IMHO
------------------
Join the NRA.
xyzman44,
I have owned a Diamondback 22 and they are extremely nice. Like burrhead said - I wouldn't be packing it around much because they are just too nice (and expensive). One drop and that beautiful blueing is toast!
The S&W 617 with the steel cylinder is my most favorite 22 revolver. Extremely accurate and rugged, and stainless for packing!
Mikey
I have owned a Diamondback 22 and they are extremely nice. Like burrhead said - I wouldn't be packing it around much because they are just too nice (and expensive). One drop and that beautiful blueing is toast!
The S&W 617 with the steel cylinder is my most favorite 22 revolver. Extremely accurate and rugged, and stainless for packing!
Mikey
I have a real affection for the Colt D-frame revolvers, but as stated before Diamondbacks are too nice and becoming too rare to use as a knocking around gun.
If you want something compact but still accurate, look at the Smith J-Frame Kit Guns. My Model 34 has hiked many a mile with me.
If you want something compact but still accurate, look at the Smith J-Frame Kit Guns. My Model 34 has hiked many a mile with me.
xyzman44: The airweight will never be as easy to shoot as a Browning Buckmark or a Ruger Mark II since its tiny grips and a shorter sight radius works against it. It does enjoy the advantage of being so light you'd hardly notice it. The sights of the 3" are superior to the 2" (which is why I regret buying mine so soon). It's not a bad shooter, but it's not a target gun either.
Grayfox and Mikey are right about Diamondbacks getting scarce and there is a certain reservation about carrying it into the woods where it may be abused. That's why I like the Ruger SP101. Rugged, reliable and who cares if you drop it? On the other hand, the Model 34 S&W (which I've shot) is much smaller & lighter than the Ruger. Both are good shooters.
That's a problem (blessing of this country): So many guns, so few time to shoot them all.
------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
Grayfox and Mikey are right about Diamondbacks getting scarce and there is a certain reservation about carrying it into the woods where it may be abused. That's why I like the Ruger SP101. Rugged, reliable and who cares if you drop it? On the other hand, the Model 34 S&W (which I've shot) is much smaller & lighter than the Ruger. Both are good shooters.
That's a problem (blessing of this country): So many guns, so few time to shoot them all.
------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
The Colt Diamondback's full-lug barrel seems too heavy for backpacking, where weight is pared to the ounce. Also, Diamondbacks in excellent condition are beginning to enter the realm of the collector's item, so I'd carry and shoot one sparingly if at all.
For backpacking, my suggestion would be an S&W .22 Kit Gun, as Grayfox says. Sports carry in the outdoors is what the Kit Guns were originally designed for, and they're perfect for the purpose. I'd pick either a current-production Model 317 AirLite, or one of the older, all-steel Kit Guns such as the Model 63.
[This message has been edited by jimmy (edited October 14, 1999).]
For backpacking, my suggestion would be an S&W .22 Kit Gun, as Grayfox says. Sports carry in the outdoors is what the Kit Guns were originally designed for, and they're perfect for the purpose. I'd pick either a current-production Model 317 AirLite, or one of the older, all-steel Kit Guns such as the Model 63.
[This message has been edited by jimmy (edited October 14, 1999).]
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I had a Taurus 94 but wasn't particularly
impressed by it.
For a knock around, low weight impact
22 LR - I got the SW 317 LS as it has
the full hammer spur. Given the fixed
sights, it's not a target pistol but
for utility when carrying a long arm,
it's fine. I would probably recommend the
kit version of the 317 to answer the question.
Glenn http://www.enconnect.net/cyberguns
impressed by it.
For a knock around, low weight impact
22 LR - I got the SW 317 LS as it has
the full hammer spur. Given the fixed
sights, it's not a target pistol but
for utility when carrying a long arm,
it's fine. I would probably recommend the
kit version of the 317 to answer the question.
Glenn http://www.enconnect.net/cyberguns
- Status