quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
There is no more Colt. It's just a brand name now.

I agree that there is no more Colt. For me it was a continuous slippery slope that started when they released designs like the All American 2000.

It seems like they've taken a lot of hits over the years. Most were self inflicted.

Some say Colt died When CZ took them over 10 years ago, for others it was in the late 90's when they went Chapter 11.

But I know that in the late 80's and early 90's, I had many friends who really wanted one of their 1911's so they were alive and well back then.

I've wanted a Diamondback .22 for a long time.

quote:

Some say Colt died When CZ took them over 10 years ago...

It was more like two years ago, but I get your point. Colt hasn't been Colt in a long time. But even when Colt was healthy (albeit between regular interval bankruptcies), they were an operation whose life blood depended almost wholly upon the cash cow of the Pentagon. An ever tenuous relationship at best, especially as the Army became increasingly dissatisfied with 5.56x45 and to a slightly lesser extent, the AR-15. Colt certainly didn't help themselves when they played their hand with political pressure during that time when the Army was evaluating the SCAR Light as a possible replacement rifle. The Army didn't forget that backhanded move, and thus it was FN and not Colt who got the lion's share of all remaining M4 orders.

Biting the hand that feeds never goes well...

As for this "new" KC rimfire design: well it would sure help if it would actually come to market. This was announced over a year ago and still it's been nothing but crickets.

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:
I agree that there is no more Colt. For me it was a continuous slippery slope that started when they released designs like the All American 2000.

Or the infamous Double Eagle I actually bought one because it sounded like a good idea at the time

If you check prices, they're not charging and extra 200 to 300 bucks. A S&W 617 goes for around 850 now. Even a j-frame 22 mag is right there at 800. A Ruger, around 799. In truth, that's just what a 22 revolver costs these days. Matter of fact, just about all name brand revolvers, regardless of caliber, are pretty close to that. Blame inflation, not the brand.

These were released into the wild last year. If you stop by the Colt Forum’s Revolver section there are quite a few user reports and pictures. Colt then ceased production to make an engineering design change due to light strikes. At least that’s the leaked, unofficial information. The revision should have been out before now, along with the six inch model…..
I consider myself an aficionado, but I’ll pass on this one. In addition to the strange trigger guard, I’m not impressed with the ejector rod. Clearly not the same level of refinement. I really really do not like the sights on the line. It is a horrible, kludgey design. They saved money in strange places. Eventually Elliason sight copies will be available for this frame size BUT one ends up spending another couple hundred on top of the $$ on a brand new gun.
As for not calling it a Diamond Back, my understanding is Colt no longer has the rights to the name. Despite the negatives, I am glad to see Colt is at least trying

Whenever a new gun is introduced all the naysayers come out of the woodwork. Deep down inside I really think they would love to have one of these but they just can’t afford to spend $1000 on a 22 no matter how good it might be.

Hmmmm. No “deep down inside” involved with my observations. I’ve owned several new Colt revolvers. Two Cobras, a Python, and a King Cobra Target. I still have the Night Cobra.
The ejector rod is plain old cheaply made. The rear sight is an abomination. The bent trigger guard is , well, silly looking. I will concede that the trigger guard may by my sense of esthetics, however the rest … just Nope. I certainly can afford the new .22.
I bought the S&W 617.

My SP101 in 22lr (4.2”) and my GP100 in 22lr (4.2”) are two that never fail to impress. They certainly never miss a range day either. Glad I bought them at less than half today’s pricing as well.

22lr revolvers with speed loaders are a LOT of fun.

^^^. Is Ruger still making the SP101 and GP100 in 22lr?

quote:

Originally posted by kaschi:
^^^. Is Ruger still making the SP101 and GP100 in 22lr?

Both are still listed on their website though the GP100 says “Limited Availability” under it. A lot of the GP100s say that. Maybe they have plans to do limited runs of some of them in the future.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Looks like vaporware to me. Whatever sites that have them "in stock" at the moment are scam sites. Do not proceed.

Lipsey's is showing them at $999 MSRP and cost is $150 lower, however they are alocated,


volume dealers will get a bigger discount

I owned two of the .22 Diamondbacks, a 6" and 4". The factory grips were awful, flared too wide at the butt and generally poor fitting. They usually rattled, no matter how tightly screwed down. This was a bloated Detective Special. The long hammer blade often pinched the web of my hand when cocked. The actions were smooth but the scaled-down Python appearance was its only real attribute. If you never owned one, you didn't miss much.

quote:

$999 MSRP

I like revolvers, and I like .22s....but there are a lot of guns that $1000 would buy me that I'd rather have for that money.

I'm pretty satisfied with my 63-5 that I got new for $630. I don't imagine the King Cobra could be much better even if it does say "Colt" on it.

The Smith 63s are great. They're compact, accurate and carry eight rounds. I own two, at the moment. I dressed both up with Altamont wood stocks. The K-frame revolvers, I've owned 17s and an 18, are much larger and heavier. They seemed like overkill to me, chambering rimfire ammo. I once owned the ultralight Smith 317. It felt like a cap pistol and forever needed adjustment. Most of my .22 handguns are semiautos these days.

I'd be interested if I didn't already have my grail gun of a Smith 4" 617 with 10 shot steel cylinder and no lock.