I have been shopping around for a 22LR revolver. Had pretty much decided on the Model K22/Model 17 and than came discovered the Colt Diamondback in 22LR.

Very pricey compared to the S&W.

I am still set on the K22/Model 17 but would like to get some feedback on the Diamondback versus K22/Model 17.

I like my .22 K frames, and have no experience with the Diamondback in .22. BUT, if you are thinking new, I would take a hard look at the new Colt King Cobra in .22. I have not seen one in the wild yet, but the pictures look like a Python. If they are anything like recent Pythons and Anacondas, then the fit and finish will be very good, and frankly better than most new S&W's I have seen. I plan on buying a six inch version when I find one.

Larry

Personally, I feel there is no comparison. The Diamondback is not the "junior Python" some seem to think it is. The ones I remember when they were still being made were pretty mediocre. The action is gritty and the accuracy is poor.
While it looks flashy on the outside, performance-wise it is closer to a Charter Arms or Harrington & Richardson.

But, if you want a finely tuned .22 revolver that possesses match grade accuracy and you want to see the "prancing pony" on the frame in deeply polished blue steel, I highly recommend the Colt Officer's Model Target or Officer's Model Match. The latter was made until the late 60s or so, the former dates back before WWII. Another nice one, often overlooked, is the old Colt Police Positive Target. It's built on the smaller Colt DA frame, but it shoots great!
These were made when Colt still employed highly skilled workers who knew how to build and tune a fine revolver.
Be aware that the early "Target" models have a windage adjustable rear sight and an elevation adjustable front sight. That is, unless you run into a rare King's Gunworks modified Colt.
The later "Match" version has a conventional Elliason target style fully adjustable rear sight.

My brother owned a pre-war Colt Officers model Target. He bought it from a collector in unfired condition. We fixed that right away! It was the finest shooting .22 revolver I have ever shot, bar none. It was also absolutely beautiful.
All if this, of course, is just personal opinion.

Bought a new 6" Diamondback and new Ace in '80.
Gave the Ace to my brother, soon after, and years later the kids said to sell the Diamondback, keep the K22M and buy an auto that can hit the barn wall when not standing inside.
The Diamondback was pretty but not a great shooter like the K22M.

I drilled and tapped the Smith and put a scope/RMR/DPP on just to see how accurate it was at 25 yds.
Haven't had time to take it out to 50/100 for a real test yet with the MKIV Ruger Target using optics or my new eyes with irons.

IIRC there was an old ad that said the K22 could keep a dime sized group at 60yds. Maybe a quarter these days with inflation?

Good luck to the OP to get a tack driver and crisp trigger either way.

Attached Images

3F7E9E93-3FAC-42D1-86A7-E72D9A7367DE.jpg (60.0 KB, 50 views)

__________________
Have Fun/Stay Safe

Colts are very well made, accurate and great Revolvers. Between the two, a S&W M17 or M18 was and is my choice.

I always seems to me that folks collect Colts and shoot S&Ws. I like to shoot my guns.

The Colt Diamondback was claimed to be a smaller version of the Python, it is actually a D-frame Colt, same as the Colt Detective Special. The smaller frame and lock work do not lend themselves to the buttery smoothness you can get with the bigger, I-frame Colts. On the firing lines at NRA Bullseye matches, you could find plenty of S&W K-22/Model 17's, but not Colt Diamondbacks.

__________________
VCDL, GOA, NRA

Can't speak from experience on a .22 Diamonback but I did have a .38 Spl Diamondback. They are nice beautifully finished firearms but after handling both I prefer the S&W. That is just me though.

__________________
Sceva
OGCA SWCA NRA

It's pretty hard to beat the S&W K22 or Model 17 revolver. It outsold Colt's 22 pistols by perhaps a ratio of 100 to 1. For very good reason - price, accuracy, quality, - all those things are in the favor of S&W.

__________________
S&WHF #946
S&WCA #3824

I have a first year Colt Diamondback with the 6" bbl. and it has a tiny front sight. Hard to pick up targets. They would have been much better with Elliason target si ghts like all the late Woodmans. In 1979 you could sent them to Colt and have these sights installed, but never did. I did send a Python to Colt for
Elliasons and what a difference. The 50 yard steel targets were no match for that Python. IMHO, the 17 is a much better revolver. Big Larry

I don’t think I’d buy a Model 17 or 18 without shooting it first. I went through two of each before I found my current K-22 which is the only one without terrible sticky extraction. Shooting a .22 is supposed to be fun, not a chore.

I haven’t had a .22 Diamondback, but my .38 4” is a joy.

I agree with the suggestion to look at the new Colt .22 King Cobra, if you can find one.

Attached Images

	1F0C2C9D-9FC0-48D9-9605-F2E6354C3732.jpg (73.1 KB, 20 views)
	8BB83862-1440-41E5-A9FA-DB2D3ACC3BDD.jpg (98.6 KB, 29 views)
	7CC126A8-9956-4602-A6C8-42FC5B88894C.jpg (26.6 KB, 26 views)

__________________
Rule of law, not a man.

Just last year I had Alex Hamilton install a 6" .22 D'back barrel on a finish challenged model 18 creating a "Smolt" revolver. Everything was fit to perfection and the result was a VERY accurate .22. I also have .357 Smolts and knew the Python barrels were very accurate but didn't know how well the D'back barrels were because nobody ever used them in match conditions. Anyway, 10 shot group sizes were equal to my 17s and OMMs that I use in Bullseye shooting. It turned out to be a satisfying project.
Mike

__________________
Mike
S&WCA #2470

I had Diamondbacks new in booth 22 & 38. I liked them and sure wouldn’t grade them down to H&R status. Having said that they weren’t the gun a m17 is. S&W won the 22 revolver competition with K22, everything else is judged against them.
I’ve never been crazy on Python either. It is undeniably a finely made revolver. Very nicely finished, but would rather have a 27 since that would have been S&Ws counter. Much better design.
The collector status of Colts is the hype behind a lot of this snake poo. S&W was 1st with the Registered Magnum, it was years before Colt broke into 357 models. S&W was built on DA revolvers, Colt was always playing catch up.

For many years I had all three.........Sold the diamondback to purchase a 617.......Still have all.

__________________
S&W Accumulator

By now you have heard just about everything about the Colt vs S&W in .22RF. I agree with all, the S&W K22 (in all it's versions) was made for match shooting, and the Colt was made to look at and maybe collect.

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

I’m a big fan of the K22 and later Model 17, when it comes to either looks or shooting.

The Colt Diamondback cannot cut it in comparison to the Smith & Wesson Model 17. It's wholly inferior, unless one admires factory ribs on his revolvers.

The Colt Officers Model is what competes with the Model 17. I like the Officers Model Match revolvers better than the Python.

Very nice ....I'd like to get one someday only in .38 special.

I bought a new in the box 6" .22 Diamondback when they first offered the 6" barrel length.

Never warmed up to any part of 'using' it. Just owning it.

As others have stated the action was not it's greatest selling point.

I decided to let it go and haven't any regrets.

Now, I own a K22. It's all good.

bdGreen

Agree with the comments that the Colt Officer's Model Target/Match is the analog to the K-22. The Cold Diamondback is more like a very fancy finished Kit Gun. Using this comparison, both Colts are larger and heavier than the S&Ws.

My 1933 OMT is smoother in DA than the 1931 K-22 Outdoorsman, but the SA let-off on the S&W is better. Colt's sights are better for target work, but my K-22 has a somewhat odd notch rear/bead front.

Colt is more tempermental and has required a trip to a top-notch gunsmith for work. The S&W just fires and fires. Colt is more of a range gun while I wouldn't hesitate to take the S&W afield; their current condition also has something to do with that assessment. Were the S&W nearly perfect and the Colt more nicked up, I might reverse that...

__________________
Psalm 27:2

And the Officers Model Special. This is an end of the line OMS, one of the last 75 made in 1953 -

IMG_0514.jpg

Stocks probably aren't correct for the gun, but in excellent shape and fit right. Medallion is actually silver, lighting makes it look gold.

I have both,
First off what is your intention?
Do you want an accurate reliable gun that you will shoot often or do you want a collectors piece that will go up in value if you don't use it?

IMO if it's going to be a range gun buy a 10 shot 617, comes with a warranty so if it breaks it gets fixed for free, 10 shot cylinder means alot less wear n tear on the yoke from reloading, (example to fire 600 rds in a 6 rd gun requires 100 loading ejecting reloading procedures vs 60 in a 10 shot gun) so more shooting less reloading.

Bottom line,
IMO the SW's have better actions and triggers and are easier to work on and find parts for.
The Colts look pretty and will go up in value in high condition if you oil them regularly and don't shoot them.

If you get into collecting and shooting you will eventually realize the solution is to have many in each flavor.

Mike:

We need a few photos of that gun...

__________________
Richard
Engraved S&W fan

Your descriptions are sound.

My first .22 handgun, this Smith & Wesson Model 17-4 K-22 purchased new in January of 1980. One of the real "usin' guns" here. More shots have been fired through it than any firearm in the menagerie and it still just shoots and shoots and shoots. It's been holster up and marched about in the field since it was new. It better in this 2008 photo than it looked at that time and the intervening years haven't improved appearance.



Just for fun. Picked up seven or eight years ago. Should have acquired one long ago to compliment the long-snouted one.

I have always admired the Colt Diamondbacks but only in 4" configuration. The 6" guns look ungainly and the snubbies look unfinished.

However here in California they bring stupid money. Like at least $1800 for a 4" in .38 and up to $2500 for a 4" in .22 LR. And those aren't just asking prices but prices that people are willing to pay when they find them.

You can find a near new in the gold box 5 screw .22 Combat Masterpiece or 5 screw .22 Masterpiece for about half of those prices and a Model 17-3 or 18-3 for a few hundred less. I don't get it with the Diamondbacks.

A friend called me a few years ago and said he was looking at a very nice 4" Diamondback .38 and the seller was asking $1000. He said that seemed like too much money and what would I do ? I told him he'd better buy it asap and he did. That was a heck of a deal in this market. But it sure isn't a $2000 gun to me.

Thanks for all the GREAT replies! It was the exact kind of feedback that I wanted.

The purpose of this gun will be shoot/collect. I like 22LR as I grew up shooting it. Its fun and cheap. I have come to like older guns for their better fit and finish.

I am still going to get a K22/M17. I want an older one. The Colt intriqued me but the prices are stupid high. I have always thought the Python prices were insane. They are nice guns but they arent that nice. Even this 22LR Diamondback was $2500. Besides I prefer the unshrouded barrels like on M27.

I live in a place that has crazy strict pistol laws and have to get a permit for EACH pistol. I am waiting a month already for my permits. Bought a German made PPK that I waiting to collect from the shop. The end result is when I buy, I buy quality because I cant just sell it and buy another one if I dont like it.

OP - Cant go wrong with a K frame .22. I have a 6 inch 617 with a 4x scope attached that is as accurate as a rifle, and is a real squirrel killer. My old model 18 is a favorite for casual shooting and woods carry. It is also extremely accurate, with my eye sight being the limiting factor.

Larry

Attached Images

m18.3.jpg (80.6 KB, 80 views)

I love the Diamondbacks, have had four over the years, have one now. All in 38 spl. Even back in the day I considered them too much money for a 22 to play with, and it's even worse now. Given the crazy money Dbacks are bringing now, I don't understand how they're even in the running compared to the Smiths

Don't rule out the very early 22 Troopers. Not a lot of them around. Look like early Pythons. Pre MK series. Big Larry