Colt Forum banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
807 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Did Colt's ever make a Diamondback(With a 2-1/2" barrel)that was chambered in .357 & .38 special(And was marked as such, on the barrel?)?

If the above was made by Colt's, approximately how many of these were made? And, were these limited production, custom made, experimental(Or, otherwise, what is the complete story regarding these revolvers?)? Or, was this just a "Rumor" going around? Please comment?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,653 Posts
Are you A.K.A. Slick 6 or is everyone finding these ?
I just read the same post on another board.


Jeff (GUNKWAZY)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
807 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Yes, I'm A.K.A. slick6 and, I made all of the other Forum postings!

[This message has been edited by Colt38 (edited 03-28-2005).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,064 Posts
It was not factory. The D-frame was never chambered in .357mag. The Magnum Carry was the smallest .357mag and the frame was then named the "SF".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
807 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Majic:

I need to be certain about this 2-1/2" Diamondback chambered in .357 & .38 special, because I have actually seen this gun, with the barrel marked .357 & .38 on the left side of the barrel! And, I have a chance to buy this gun, if it is in some way "Rare" or unique?
 

·
*** ColtForum MVP ***
Joined
·
14,906 Posts
I answered this on another forum, but:

This is no doubt a NON-factory conversion, in a similar manner to the infamous .41 Magnum Pythons that still turn up from time to time.

Colt NEVER made a "D" frame revolver in .357 Magnum, and such a conversion is VERY dangerious.

This is NOT a factory gun, and has NO collector interest except possibly as an example of an unsafe "Frankenstein's Monster" firearm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,308 Posts
Colt38: As others have stated, I have not heard of anything "factory" for a 357 Diamondback. You might look very carefully at the roll markings and to see if a 357 round will actually fit in the cylinder. Frankly, I would be afraid to shoot it if it does fit the 357 round.

I would be wary, but if you are into taking chances that it might be a Colt prototype, then follow your instincts. I usually loose money when I follow mine (unfortunately). It would make a lot more sense for Colt to use the 4" for a prototype then a 2.5" also. So, it may infact be a non-factory modification if the 357 round will fit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
807 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
dfariswheel:

UPDATE ON THE COLT DIAMONDBACK(MARKED .357 & .38 special CTG):

1)The barrel marking(On the left side of the barrel)reads exactly as shown above! The stamping, is very good, as all of the ".357 &" lines up evenly with the top of the factory stamping".38 special CTG" and, the font looks to be virtually the same! Also, the spacing is almost identical, except is just a touch wider, between the 3 and the 5(In the ".357" stamping)! Even the depth of the stamping of the ".357 &", is extremely close to the factory stamping of ".38 special CTG"! I looked(For a very long time!)at the barrel stamping and I had a hard time discerning any difference(However, the 3 and the 5 in the ".357" marking, could be just a touch deeper?)!

2)I measured the length of the cylinder, to be 1-9/16"(Or, exactly the same length as on a normal production Diamondback, in .38 special)! I also asked the gun Dealer, to try to chamber a .357 round in the cylinder(And, it did chamber properly)! I couldn't tell any reaming being done inside each cylinder chamber-since there was no burrs or anything that looked out of order(Except that in the frontal section(Of each chamber)it appeared to have been blued about 1/4" back inside each bore?

3)There is no spot bluing touch-up showing anywhere on this gun! It looks factory new! The only deviation that I found, is that the finish(Although close!)wasn't quite as "Lustrous" as another(NIB)Colt Diamondback, also in the gun case!

4)There were no other special markings of any kind on this gun! Only the serial number stamped as D2856!

5)There was a Colt warranty card(Filled out)with just the serial number shown and the card was signed by someone unknown?

6)On the left side(Rear)of the trigger guard, was a very small "U" stamping-and, I noticed that on the other Diamondback in the gun case, was a different letter, in the same place(I think it looked to be an "O"?)!

7)Based upon the above information, the only "Clue" that would suggest this Diamondback to be as a "Frankenstein Monster Gun" is the fact that nowhere on this gun, is it marked "Magnum" and the unusual marking on the left side of the barrel, which reads as ".357 & .38 special CTG", which I'd also agree doesn't seem to be the correct way, that Colt would have marked the barrel, on any revolver, that they would have chambered in .357 magnum?

[This message has been edited by Colt38 (edited 04-01-2005).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
807 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
22-rimfire:

No, I did not buy that .357 Colt Diamondback yet! I was hoping for dfariswheel to come back on here and make another comment, after my posting above where I had answered his previous question, regarding the exact placement of the stamping, ".357 &" on the barrel? This Diamondback, is still on hold for me, until I have gotten all of the facts, before I decide on buying it(Or, not?)? Once I receive a final word from dfariswheel, I'll then, feel more confident, in making the right decision about this Diamondback?

[This message has been edited by Colt38 (edited 04-08-2005).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,308 Posts
Colt38: I don't believe you are going to get an absolute answer to your question. Some things you just can't nail down totally. Ultimately, you will have to make a decision and live with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,971 Posts
I would be very cautious with that ".357 added on the front" roll marking!

[This message has been edited by diamonback68 (edited 04-08-2005).]
 

·
*** ColtForum MVP ***
Joined
·
14,906 Posts
Sorry, I didn't know you were waiting for an answer.

The fact that the "357 &" is added on the front of the caliber stamping and isn't centered below the "Diamondback" stamp is, in my opinion, proof positive this is a non-factory conversion.

To sum up:

1. Colt would NEVER have converted a "D" frame revolver to 357 Magnum.
Colt considered the "D" frame to be totally unsuited strength-wise, and just simply wouldn't do it, even as an experiment.

Why experiment with something you already KNOW isn't safe?

2. The clearly added on "357 &" stamp is something else Colt would never do.
Why do such a odd-looking stamp, when they could walk across the floor and get an unmarked barrel to do a proper stamp on?

This would be the first Colt revolver ever made that was stamped "357 & .38 Special Ctg".
If this was an experimental it would be stamped just with "357 Magnum Ctg".

3. The fact that Colt would allow an experimental to "escape" the factory is VERY unlikely .
Colt controls experimentals VERY closely.

To allow an unsafe conversion to leave the factory stretches credibilty way past the breaking point.

All this just shouts Non-factory conversion.

Unless you're willing to spring for a Colt Historical Letter, you're going to have to believe what you want here.

All the reasons listed in this entire thread very clearly say "WRONG".

In order to believe this is a Colt factory conversion you're going to have to accept ALL of the following:

Colt would convert one of their own pistols that they KNEW was unsafe and dangerous.

This is the only Colt revolver in history with such a cobbled-together barrel marking.

This is the only Colt revolver in history with a stamp reading "357 & .38 Special Ctg".

Colt would go to the trouble and expense of having a special stamp reading "357 &" made up JUST to stamp a one-of-a-kind experimental revolver.
As far as I remember, Colt has NEVER, EVER used the "&" sign on any Colt firearm marking of any kind.

Colt would allow it to leave the factory.

On this one, you're on your own.


[This message has been edited by dfariswheel (edited 04-08-2005).]

[This message has been edited by dfariswheel (edited 04-08-2005).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,308 Posts
Dfariswheel summed it up nicely. At the price you had mentioned, I would probably punt due to the uncertainty. Then you can tell your grand kids about the 357 colt Diamondback that you had a chance to buy.... A friend on mind always said... don't worry about it, there will always be another one (maybe not a "357 DB" though).

The Dfaris comment that struck home the most concerns the barrel... why would Colt do this when they don't have to... remember it is the factory and they have an unlimited supply of barrels. There is the safety factor too.

If you bought it, the next guy would have all the same concerns without a factory letter.



[This message has been edited by 22-rimfire (edited 04-08-2005).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
807 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
dfariswheel:

Thanks! And, based upon everything that you have listed(Above)I can see that this Colt Diamondback, just couldn't be "Genuine"! You have done an "Exceptional" job, in making everything "Crystal clear" regarding this revolver "Positively" being an "Unauthorized Colt conversion"!

You had me pretty well convinced before! However, I had agreed to buy this Colt Diamondback, in the event that it would turn out to be genuine, in terms of it's stamping of .357 caliber? The problem that I had, was in giving my word to the Gun Dealer holding this Diamondback, that I would make a major effort in determining whether or not this revolver was in fact, made by Colt's in(.357 magnum)? The result now is, that I feel that I have acquired enough "Proof" that this Diamondback, most certainly, is not safe(Or, "Genuine")!

I have always had a good relationship with this particular Gun Dealer-and, I didn't want to "Back out" of this "Potential" gun deal, unless I could be reasonably sure, that this Diamondback was in truth, just an "Unauthorized" conversion? I now have to relay this "Negative" information to this Gun Dealer-and, I'm sure that he will be in "Disbelief"(Because I know that he had given alot of $$ for this Diamondback, to resell at a much higher price!)and, since he has been a friend of mine, I know that he will be crushed upon hearing the sad truth, about this gun!)! However(In view of this gun being unsafe to fire!)I will have to try very hard, to convince him, that what I'm going to tell him about this Diamondback, is very true(And, I sure hope that I can make him to believe me?)! This is going to be "Difficult" since there was a "Huge" profit, that "Theoretically" could have been made(By him!)regarding this Diamondback(If it really had proved out to be an Colt's "Experimental" gun?)!

22-rimfire:

Thankyou, for all of your input on this Diamondback also! I also thank everyone else who contributed their input as well!
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top