Colt Diamondback -VS- S&W Mod. 34

[nero45acp]

I'm in the market for a 4" .22LR revolver and have narrowed it down to a Colt Diamondback or a S&W model 34. I'd appreciate any opinions as to which of the two is the "better" (more accurate, more durable, best trigger, best sight picture) revolver. I intend to use it for informal target shooting and plinking. I wish I could afford both but I can't swing that at this time, so it's one or the other. TIA

 

[Erich]

They are both equally durable and accurate. The S&W might have a slightly better trigger from the factory, but that's going to really vary on a gun-to-gun basis (certainly Colts triggers will clean up just fine if you have a problem, but they're likely to be about the same). The Smith will pack a little lighter. The Colt may feel a little better when shooting (if you're like me, you like a little weight in your handguns).

The Smith should cost you a considerable amount less than the Colt. One doesn't see NIB .22 Diamondbacks nowadays for < $300 (rarely < $500), and you can still find Model 34s in that condition for under $300.

I own a 34-1, but I love the Diamondbacks (though I prefer the .38s) and D-frames in general.

 

[Gun Runners Alaska]

You're a winner either way !




Remember friends don't let friends buy Rugers !!!!

 

[nero45acp]

Well I guess I settled my dilemma of which .22LR revolver to get. I went to my local gunshop/range to put a deposit on a CCW class my grandfather and I are going to take on 3/21 and what do I see but a S&W model 63 in like new condition for $379. I bought it on the spot and will pick it up on saturday (3 day wait until I have my CCW). I really like the feel of the mod. 63.
I had a Colt Police Positive MK V and currently have a 1st series Colt Detective Special, both .38 special. My grandfather has a late 50's mod. 34 and a "flat latch" Chiefs Special .38 special, so the mod. 63 will fit nicely in our little small frame revolver collection. (I'd still like to get a Diamondback in the future.)
Thanx for your replies and info. I'll post how the mod. 63 shoots sun. or mon.

 

[Erich]

Great!

Enjoy the 63!

 

[9mmepiphany]

the 63 is a great gun, i lliked it much better than the 34 and the stainless is so much more prectical for a "kit/backpacking/fishing" gun

better start your search for the .22lr diamondback now...it takes awhile to find an affordable one. the diamondback compares more directly with the smith K-frame (m-18)

in the smaller frames, J-frame vs. D-frame, the heavier colt barrel really helps "hang", the leaf spring is smoother then the coil spring, the longer trigger pull helps steady the DA and the sights are bigger

 

[9x19]

I have both the 63 and 651, and prefer them to their larger brethren (M18 and M48).

Mine have given me years of good service, which I expect to continue for many more.

 

[FPrice]

nero45acp...

"what do I see but a S&W model 63 in like new condition for $379. I bought it on the spot and will pick it up on saturday (3 day wait until I have my CCW). I really like the feel of the mod. 63."

I have a Model 63 and it is a good little .22 revolver. Although I did have to send it back to S&W to get the DA trigger pull lightened and smoothed to the point where I could use it for training new shooters.

 

[4v50 Gary]

I like the 63 as it's a small, light gun. I'd consider a 3" 317 though instead. Anyway, I've a 4" Diamondback and it is my favorite 22 revolver. Only trouble is that you pay much more for one of them.

 

[nero45acp]

Took my M63 to the range today. Put 150 rounds of CCI Mini-Mags thru it without a problem. I was able to consistently shoot 2" groups freehand at 50'. Trigger was very light and crisp. I'm very happy with my new revolver, too bad S&W doesn't make them anymore.



nero45acp