Have a chance to pick up a Colt Diamdback 38

The Diamondback is the Cadillac of D frames. Get it and use it. You won't wear it out.

The D'back is a deluxe grade revolver. The only problem is that since Colt quite making them collectors have driven the price for one to insane levels.

BTW- I paid $185 for my 38 D'back in 1999.

I carried a 4 inch Diamondback off duty for a while, one of the smoothest shooting triggers out of the box I've ever seen, problem was I couldn't get used to the bass ackwards cylinder release compared to the S&W (which I was required to carry).:banghead:

LD

threefeathers

To me, the D frame is perfection for Colt much like the K frame is for Smith.

My daily carry is a Diamondback Snubby. I love DBs. Find them hard to resist. I think I have 5.

The good thing is that they have great triggers, nice sights and have a great balance.

The bad thing is that holsters are hard to come by unless you buy custom. The extra thick top-strap and target sights makes it too tight for every d-frame holster I have tried.

Also, like all Colts, gunsmiths are few and far between. (Colt is still an option)

If you decide to buy it and want leather, I can help you out. The guy I get my holsters made by is a fellow named Cotton who owns Cotton's leatherworks. I am very pleased with his work.

I will drop off one of mine and so that he has a form to mold your holster to.

http://www.tex45.com/

The D'back is a deluxe grade revolver. The only problem is that since Colt quite making them collectors have driven the price for one to insane levels.

Click to expand...

Yep. I'd buy one in a second if I found one at what I consider a fair price. Go for it. I would check it out for function prior to buying however just to be on the safe side.

I couldn't get used to the bass ackwards cylinder release

Click to expand...

at least the cylinder spins the proper direction!!!

I couldn't get used to the bass ackwards cylinder release

Click to expand...

In their pre-war advertising Colt pointed out that if one placed the tip of their thumb against the thumbpiece of a S&W when they fired, recoil pushing the gun backwards would cause the cylinder to be unlatched for a fraction of a second - and they had high-speed/x-ray movie footage to prove it.

This couldn't happen with the Colt design, where the latch was pulled backwards to release the cylinder.

Take this for whatever it's worth...

Old Fuff said:

In their pre-war advertising Colt pointed out that if one placed the tip of their thumb against the thumbpiece of a S&W when they fired, recoil pushing the gun backwards would cause the cylinder to be unlatched for a fraction of a second - and they had high-speed/x-ray movie footage to prove it.

This couldn't happen with the Colt design, where the latch was pulled backwards to release the cylinder.

Take this for whatever it's worth...

Click to expand...

Then there's Dan Wesson, their ad would show the shooter's thumb cooked to a perfect medium rare

In their pre-war advertising Colt pointed out that if one placed the tip of their thumb against the thumbpiece of a S&W when they fired, recoil pushing the gun backwards would cause the cylinder to be unlatched for a fraction of a second - and they had high-speed/x-ray movie footage to prove it.

This couldn't happen with the Colt design, where the latch was pulled backwards to release the cylinder.


Makes sense to me, wasn't implying that Colt had a bad design. With the Ruger push button, I've heard stories of some holsters releasing the cylinder from too much pressure, and I've personally seen a holster release the magazine on my P-95!

LD

Reading pre-war Colt and Smith & Wesson's catalogs and advertisements is an education on to itself. Sales were hard to find during the Great Depression, and claims and counter-claims flew back and forth like artillery shells. No holds were barred, no statement too outrageous. They were both determined to be the last man standing.

When it came to domestic top-quality handguns they were the only two. The rest were second tier. Imports were inconsequential in the big picture.

Ah… The blood… The gore.

And Colt could, and did, advertise its products in the National Geographic

Back in the depression, a reduction of $5 was probably considered a big sale based on the retail pricing back then and the "value of the dollar". My understanding was there were few sales for both Colt and S&W products.