Colt Diamondback(2-1/2" chambered in .357 & .38 special)?
- Thread starter boa2
- Start date
Tripplethreat
New member
The Diamondback was only produced in 38 spec. and 22 long rifle.
I looked exactly like a scaled down version of the Python.
I looked exactly like a scaled down version of the Python.
Sir William
New member
To my knowledge there were none made at the factory. 2.5" is a non-standard barrel length for Colt. Diamondbacks were 22s and 38 Special only. A 2.5" barrel would have to be aftermarket or custom modified to my knowledge.
Dfariswheel
New member
The Diamondback had standard barrels of 2 1/2", 4", and 6".
The Colt factory never chambered ANY "D" frame revolver, like the Diamondback, Detectived Special, etc in any caliber more powerful than .38 Special.
It wasn't until the mid-1970's that Colt even authorized the "D" frame for .38 +P ammo.
Any "D" framed revolver in .357 is NON-Factory, and I can assure you that alarms would sound and sirens would blare in Hartford if Colt actually got one back for repairs.
IF in fact, theere really is such a gun floating around, it's likely something on the order of the infamous .41 Magnum Python's you see from time to time: A totally unauthorized non-factory conversion, that's unsafe to fire.
The Colt factory never chambered ANY "D" frame revolver, like the Diamondback, Detectived Special, etc in any caliber more powerful than .38 Special.
It wasn't until the mid-1970's that Colt even authorized the "D" frame for .38 +P ammo.
Any "D" framed revolver in .357 is NON-Factory, and I can assure you that alarms would sound and sirens would blare in Hartford if Colt actually got one back for repairs.
IF in fact, theere really is such a gun floating around, it's likely something on the order of the infamous .41 Magnum Python's you see from time to time: A totally unauthorized non-factory conversion, that's unsafe to fire.
dfariswheel:
I actually saw this(NIB)2-1/2" Colt Diamondback today. it had the stamping of .357 &(Just before the normal .38 special stamping, on the barrel)! The cylinder was unturned! The box was the two piece cardboard box(Red/white and possibly black also?)with a brown top(Slip over lid)and on the end of the box, was the marking for a 2-1/2" .38 special caliber. But, with .357 & .38 hand written in under the .38 caliber, printed on the box! Inside this mint box, was a note from whomever owned this Diamondback, that this gun was rare and that it was(Theretically)made by Colt's? Also inside this box was a Colt's warranty card dated 1967?
Would this gun be considered to be "Worthless"-or, is there even a "Remote"possibility, that this gun was some sort of a "Prototype"(Or experimental test gun?)etc.? There is a high price placed upon this Diamondback? Please comment again?
I actually saw this(NIB)2-1/2" Colt Diamondback today. it had the stamping of .357 &(Just before the normal .38 special stamping, on the barrel)! The cylinder was unturned! The box was the two piece cardboard box(Red/white and possibly black also?)with a brown top(Slip over lid)and on the end of the box, was the marking for a 2-1/2" .38 special caliber. But, with .357 & .38 hand written in under the .38 caliber, printed on the box! Inside this mint box, was a note from whomever owned this Diamondback, that this gun was rare and that it was(Theretically)made by Colt's? Also inside this box was a Colt's warranty card dated 1967?
Would this gun be considered to be "Worthless"-or, is there even a "Remote"possibility, that this gun was some sort of a "Prototype"(Or experimental test gun?)etc.? There is a high price placed upon this Diamondback? Please comment again?
Sir William
New member
D'oh! You are correct, I was thinking J frame Trooper due to the 357 chambering. Brainfade. I still think this is NOT a Colt factory or custom shop production. I would rate it worthless.
Boa,
Having owned a 2 1/2" Colt Diamondback I know they made them only in .38 Special. Having said that, I don't doubt you saw what you describe, however.
Did you inspect the markings carefully?
If "no" to any of the above, I'd be highly suspicious. I'd insist on getting it lettered by Colt as was suggested.
The BIG question is -- will it accept a .357 Magnum round in the chambers?
Having owned a 2 1/2" Colt Diamondback I know they made them only in .38 Special. Having said that, I don't doubt you saw what you describe, however.
Did you inspect the markings carefully?
- Markings are of the same depth
- The same "typeface" was used for 357 as for 38
- The spacing between the calibers looks even
- The numerals 3 5 and 7 are lined up (upper & lower) with 38.
- The spacing between 3, 5 and 7 look correct compared to 38.
- Does the word "Magnum" appear on the barrel or frame?
If "no" to any of the above, I'd be highly suspicious. I'd insist on getting it lettered by Colt as was suggested.
The BIG question is -- will it accept a .357 Magnum round in the chambers?
BillCA:
1)Although this Diamondback looked good, I was highly suspicious! And, I didn't get a chance to highly evaluate this gun-so, I first decided to consult the forum to at least determine if there was any knowledge about a 2-1/2" Diamondback, ever being made by Colt's chambered in .357(And, with barrel markings like this gun had?)?
2)I'm now going to go back to thoroughly investigate this Diamondback, get the serial number, and then, to contact Colt's to see what they might have to say? I'm also going to take my magnafying glass with me, so I can(Read)and, scrutinize all of the markings on this gun-and, I'll write everything down, to give to Colt's and to report back here for further observation of this data?
1)Although this Diamondback looked good, I was highly suspicious! And, I didn't get a chance to highly evaluate this gun-so, I first decided to consult the forum to at least determine if there was any knowledge about a 2-1/2" Diamondback, ever being made by Colt's chambered in .357(And, with barrel markings like this gun had?)?
2)I'm now going to go back to thoroughly investigate this Diamondback, get the serial number, and then, to contact Colt's to see what they might have to say? I'm also going to take my magnafying glass with me, so I can(Read)and, scrutinize all of the markings on this gun-and, I'll write everything down, to give to Colt's and to report back here for further observation of this data?
Person of Interest
New member
I'd have to check to be sure, but I believe the D frame cylinder is too short to allow use of the 357 magnum cartridge. The factories do and did turn out experimental things so who knows?
Dfariswheel, in 1940 Colt advertised the Detective Special as being able to use the 38-44 Hi-Speed ammo. This load was much hotter than current +P loads so it wasn't the gun that made them wishy washy it was the lawyers. I would not hesitate to use ANY factory ammo in a D frame gun with a steel frame.
Dfariswheel, in 1940 Colt advertised the Detective Special as being able to use the 38-44 Hi-Speed ammo. This load was much hotter than current +P loads so it wasn't the gun that made them wishy washy it was the lawyers. I would not hesitate to use ANY factory ammo in a D frame gun with a steel frame.
Dfariswheel
New member
When I was in business, I had to be responsible legally, (and morally, which was more personal) about what I advised people.
While the .38-44 was ONCE OK'd for use in the "D" frame revolver, COLT later said "No", which a smart owner heeds.
Pleading "But they USED to say it was OK" doesn't wash.
I know the lawyers have taken over, but NOBODY knows more about a gun than the people who made it.
Ignore their specific instructions, and you're on your own.
For examples of what can happen when you do use hot ammo, see Jerry Kuhnhausen's book "The Colt Double Action Revolvers: A Shop Manual, Vol. One".
Shown are pictures of Detective Special's blown to bits by shooting as little as a single round of +P+ ammo.
Again, you're on you own.
Getting back to the subject of this post, anyone who would rechamber a Colt "D" framed revolver to .357 Magnum is insane.
While the .38-44 was ONCE OK'd for use in the "D" frame revolver, COLT later said "No", which a smart owner heeds.
Pleading "But they USED to say it was OK" doesn't wash.
I know the lawyers have taken over, but NOBODY knows more about a gun than the people who made it.
Ignore their specific instructions, and you're on your own.
For examples of what can happen when you do use hot ammo, see Jerry Kuhnhausen's book "The Colt Double Action Revolvers: A Shop Manual, Vol. One".
Shown are pictures of Detective Special's blown to bits by shooting as little as a single round of +P+ ammo.
Again, you're on you own.
Getting back to the subject of this post, anyone who would rechamber a Colt "D" framed revolver to .357 Magnum is insane.
Person of Interest
New member
Well, as late as the 1970s Speer was duplicating the 38-44 load with no warnings about D frames. Or J frames, for that matter. Of course Colt says don't use hot loads. Their lawyers prefer you never shot the gun at all. I don't fault you for being cautious but there had to be something wrong with a gun that blows up on a single round. The problem with these warm loads is wear and tear not an explosion. Something wrong with that one, for sure.
Although, I'm suspicious of this Diamondback, being marked on the barrel as having been chambered in .357 & .38 special, it does look to be as new as if it was just built yesterday by Colt? And, it appears to never have been fired(As well as the cylinder not even having been turned)? If someone did(In fact!?)rechamber this Diamondback in the more potent .357 magnum caliber-then I'd certainly question the "Sanity" of that person? On the other hand, in view of the mystery of this revolver, I can't help but to wonder(What if?)this could have been some sort of an Colt "Prototype" that could have belonged to an Colt's employee or otherwise(In some way(Although unauthorized!)?)ended up in the hands of the public? If so, wouldn't this gun then be somewhat valuable as a "Collectible" Colt Diamondback?
OK, I understand your attraction; I am also intrigued........BUT - even IF it is a "collectable prototype", wouldn't it have been AT LEAST proof-fired??? Evidence of such being lacking, I remain EXTREMELY suspicious of authenticity, and at this point unconvinced by anything EXCEPT authentication by Colt...........YMMV
Dfariswheel
New member
That number comes back as a 1967 make.
The numbers started off that year at D2600 and went to around D14399 by year's end.
The ONLY way you'll be able to resolve this is to contact Colt.
They will give you the year made over the phone, but no other info.
What you'd have to do is pay for a Colt Historical Letter, which costs around $100.00.
I can pretty well assure you that it will come back as a standard .38 Special Diamondback.
One more time: Under NO circumstances did Colt ever chamber a "D" frame revolver in .357 Magnum, even as an experiment, much less allow such an unsafe gun to ever leave the factory.
The key here is the double stamp of the caliber.
If someone removed the .38 Special marking, then restamped it with the Magnum stampings it would have been immediately obvious that metal had been removed and would quickly ID it as a non-factory hack job.
By stamping ".357 Magnum" under the original marks, it can SEEM to be at least possibly a factory job.
Fair warning, and I'll say no more: This IS NOT a factory job, and it's grossly unsafe to EVER fire.
It has NO VALUE, as anything other than a firearms curiosity since it's can't be fired.
The person selling this thing to whatever unfortunate who actually fires it, is WIDE open to a whopper of a law suit.
The numbers started off that year at D2600 and went to around D14399 by year's end.
The ONLY way you'll be able to resolve this is to contact Colt.
They will give you the year made over the phone, but no other info.
What you'd have to do is pay for a Colt Historical Letter, which costs around $100.00.
I can pretty well assure you that it will come back as a standard .38 Special Diamondback.
One more time: Under NO circumstances did Colt ever chamber a "D" frame revolver in .357 Magnum, even as an experiment, much less allow such an unsafe gun to ever leave the factory.
The key here is the double stamp of the caliber.
If someone removed the .38 Special marking, then restamped it with the Magnum stampings it would have been immediately obvious that metal had been removed and would quickly ID it as a non-factory hack job.
By stamping ".357 Magnum" under the original marks, it can SEEM to be at least possibly a factory job.
Fair warning, and I'll say no more: This IS NOT a factory job, and it's grossly unsafe to EVER fire.
It has NO VALUE, as anything other than a firearms curiosity since it's can't be fired.
The person selling this thing to whatever unfortunate who actually fires it, is WIDE open to a whopper of a law suit.
FALshootist
New member
More than likely this gun is nothing more than a mis-stamped barrel from the factory that got by quality control. Its unlikely that the gun will chamber a 357, and would of course be unsafe to fire if it did chamber.
However, there should be no prblem using 38 specials in this gun.
Although mis marked guns are rare they usually won't bring a premium as most people see this as an indication of possible quality control problems in other areas of the particular guns manufacture.
However, there should be no prblem using 38 specials in this gun.
Although mis marked guns are rare they usually won't bring a premium as most people see this as an indication of possible quality control problems in other areas of the particular guns manufacture.