Colts Diamondback and Trooper MK III .22 rf

[Dand]

I have been watching Gun Broker offerings of S&W K 22 (M17 and 18) guns and decided to compare pricing to comparable Colts like the Diamondback ad Trooper MK3.

I don't seem to see much comment on Colts guns and thought I'd ask for opinions on them.
I've wanted a nice K22 for a long time but wonder if I should also consider a good DB or Trooper?

Main use would be plinking, maybe some hunting, and to have a nice 22 revolver.
I have a Colt Frontier .22 but I bought it a bit rough and didn't always treat it well when I was young.

[tomray]

I have been watching Gun Broker offerings of S&W K 22 (M17 and 18) guns and decided to compare pricing to comparable Colts like the Diamondback ad Trooper MK3.

I don't seem to see much comment on Colts guns and thought I'd ask for opinions on them.
I've wanted a nice K22 for a long time but wonder if I should also consider a good DB or Trooper?

Main use would be plinking, maybe some hunting, and to have a nice 22 revolver.
I have a Colt Frontier .22 but I bought it a bit rough and didn't always treat it well when I was young.

Dand,

I own 2 Colt Diamondbacks both 4", one .22 cal and the other .38 Spl...................I like the Colts over the S&W's because I shoot them more accurately. The Colts will cost you MORE $$$, though.
I've owned many S&W revolvers over the years, nice guns, but I've traded them all out for Colt replacements.

Many years ago, I sold my S&W Model 29 6" and replaced it with a Colt Anaconda 4", which in my hand, (offhand) will noticably out shoot the Model 29.... For me, its in the grip. The Colts have a grip that is more suited to my hand, and I don't have a large hand.

I guess I should say, "You should try the Colts and the S&W guns to see what feels good to you, and enables you to aquire a good , steady sight picture".

Tom
NRA LIFE

[CannonKrazy]

As Tom said the Colts will cost you a bunch more but they are good guns. I have been in the market for a used S&W K-22 but thought it best to purchase other things before inauguration day comes to pass. I decided once things settle down a bit and money is available I will probably buy the new S&W model 617. They are pricey but really nice shooters. Either the Colt or the S&W will be a great choice and you won't regret buying either one.

[jcn59]

I had a 4" Trooper III in .22 mag., but I think my single six would out shoot it.  It shot about like my S&W 317, with 3.5 (?) inch barrel.  A friend had a model 16 or 17 S&W in .22 and it shot about like The Trooper.  Overall, my single six shot as well or better than the rest.  BUT!

For best accuracy I like a Ruger  or Trailside semi-auto.

That .22 Trooper III was awful heavy to lug around.  Mostly I carried my early .357 Trooper with lighter loads.

[chim]

One reason Colts don't get a lot of press is because the company discontinued too many great guns.  Many people have no interest in guns that aren't in a current catalog.

Whether it was due to bad business decisions or union demands, the result is the same.  I have a few Colts and consider them some of the best revolvers ever made.  Here's my Diamondback with a no-drill mount I cobbled up so I could try some optics:

[jcn59]

That's a VERY nice looking revolver, Chim   How does it shoot?  Do you like the sight?

[Dand]

long time ago a friend had a 4 in Diamondback 22lr and it was very nice.  He and another buddy shot it enough that they could hit thrown wood blocks fairly often - was never with them when they did it but they sure had fun.  It was a very nice handling gun.  I just shot it rested at targets.

[chim]

That's a VERY nice looking revolver, Chim   How does it shoot?  Do you like the sight?

Thanks, it was always one of my favorites.  The Diamondback shoots well in single action.  It will keep up with my autos in slow fire.  The trigger is too long and hard for serious (accurate) double action.  There was a groundhog years ago who wouldn't agree with the DA statement, had he lived to tell.  But that's another story.

I like Doctersights because they are small and light enough for mounting on guns that would be overwhelmed by a normal tube type dot.  The dots are nice and round in appearance.  I've used them in bullseye competition, but prefer the tube type dots for that.  The main reason is for the capability of brightness adjustment.  Doctersights and most similar sights automatically adjust dot brightness based on ambient light.  Some ranges we use for matches are brightly lighted at the targets and the firing line is dim.  The sight then adjusts itself to a lower brightness than I'd like.

With regard to the speed of target acquisition, I'm slower with any of the "heads-up" sights.  I have a couple Doctersights, an Optima 2000 (aka J-Point) and for a brief time had an Ultradot L/T.  I can have the dot on the target faster with a tube type sight than with any of these.  There is something automatic about getting the tube pointed in the right direction.  I don't know if I could practice enough with heads-up sights to match the speed of the tube sights.

[jcn59]

I had an Optima 2000 several years ago.  It was difficult to use the elevation and windage adjustments with any repeatability.   I like the on-off switch more current models have.  Is the Doctor sight easier to sight in than the Optima?

[chim]

The Docter is as "user unfriendly" as the Optima when it comes to adjustments.  They are best sighted for a specific distance and left alone.