Diamondback Sidekick .22 Revolver?

[Ben]

I've been talking to myself for like a year about picking up a little .22 revolver, thinking I would probably get the Ruger Wrangler. I just got a Sportsmans Warehouse ad where they have this Diamondback Sidekick on sale for $230, pretty much the same price as the Wrangler. Difference being that the Diamondback looks like a single action revolver, but is actually double action with swing out cylinder and comes with both .22 and .22mag cylinders. From reviews, apparently the DA pull sucks, but I do like the swing out cylinder.

Thoughts? Anyone know anything about them?

https://www.sportsmans.com/shooting-gear-gun-supplies/handguns/diamondback-sidekick-22-long-rifle-45in-zinc-alloy-pistol-9-rounds/p/1760381

[JTHunter]

Does the add show anything about how to change the cylinders?  Does it just slide on and off of the ejector rod?
I'm curious as I have a Single Six and I just pull the center rod, open the loading gate and dump it out into my hand.  It's almost like a speed loader - as long as I keep the loaded cylinder nose down. 

[tokugawa]

Had me fooled- Colt used to make a Diamondback .22 and .38.  Fit and finish just like a Python. $$$

[MillCreek]

So is it a legitimate concern that both the Wrangler and Diamondback use Zamak frames?

[dogmush]

My understanding is Diamondback pistols are pretty universally known as pieces of *expletive deleted*it.  The one DB380 I've seen in person certainly was, although looking at their website that was several gens ago.  The Diamondback AR's they sell all over FL don't strike me as anything special either.

As a general rule of thumb if my choice was between an aluminum Ruger revolver and a zinc revolver from a Saturday Night Special company, I'd probably go with the Ruger.  I admit though I've never seen a Sidekick in person.

[K Frame]

Yeah... get yourself a Smith & Wesson Model 18 and be done with it.

I'd sell you mine, but, well, it's mine. And I don't sell Smith & Wessons.  I buy them. :)

[AZRedhawk44]

Ditch both.

Buy once, cry once.

.22's just seem to suck unless you pay proper centerfire money for them.  The only exceptions to this rule seem to be the Browning Buckmark and the Ruger Mk series automatics.

[MillCreek]

I have a stainless SP-101 in .22 LR, but I would love to find a stainless Single Six.

[Pb]

It's made of zinc.  How about you put that $230 towards a better gun?

https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/Problem-with-friends-new-Sidekick-revolver/5-2551895/

[Ben]

Noted on quality vs price. The thing is, I don't want a .22 revolver bad enough to pay (single sixs seem to be around $650?) what it would cost to build an AR or buy another combat pistol. I already have an old Ruger MK 2 that I hardly ever shoot. I just thought it would be neat to have a .22 revolver as a farm plinking gun. I guess the Diamondback is out, but if the Wrangler isn't much better, then I'd rather skip it all together.

[HankB]

Had me fooled- Colt used to make a Diamondback .22 and .38.  Fit and finish just like a Python. $$$

My Dad got me a .22 Colt Diamondback with a 2 1/2" barrel as an 8th grade graduation present. Nice little revolver.

[AZRedhawk44]

Dang it, now you have me looking for the Browning Buckmark Rifle they produced a few years ago and have since discontinued.  Always wanted one to go with my Buckmark pistol... but I bought their .22LR lever gun instead at the time.

[BobR]

Yeah... get yourself a Smith & Wesson Model 18 and be done with it.

I'd sell you mine, but, well, it's mine. And I don't sell Smith & Wessons.  I buy them. :)

That's kind of my philosophy. My wife has a new S&W 642 Performance Center edition. We are going to take it out and see how recoil sensitive she is with it. If it is too excessive for her I will probably get her a Model 43C (.22) or a Model 351C (.22mag). She/I would rather have her carry something, even a .22, than nothing.

bob

[Hawkmoon]

So is it a legitimate concern that both the Wrangler and Diamondback use Zamak frames?

I thought the Wrangler used an aluminum alloy frame.

Yep: https://ruger.com/products/wrangler/specSheets/2002.html

I'd buy a Diamondback in a heartbeat rather than a Heritage Rough Rider. I have a .22 cowboy revolver with a Zamak frame. Doesn't seem to bother it at all.

[K Frame]

My Dad got me a .22 Colt Diamondback with a 2 1/2" barrel as an 8th grade graduation present. Nice little revolver.

Add a zero to the tail end of the Zinc Diamondback's price and you're getting in the ballpark for what the Colts are bringing these days.

[K Frame]

Scout around on the gun boards and see if you can find yourself a Hi Standard Sentinel .22 revolver.

They shouldn't be that expensive and they are a pretty darned nice 9-shot .22 revolver.

I have a 6" that I've not shot in years.

Hell, if you were closer I'd let you shoot it and could very likely be convinced to sell it.

[Jim147]

I sold my Sentinel for $600 earlier this year.

[K Frame]

I sold my Sentinel for $600 earlier this year.

Well *expletive deleted*it!

[lee n. field]

That's kind of my philosophy. My wife has a new S&W 642 Performance Center edition. We are going to take it out and see how recoil sensitive she is with it. If it is too excessive for her I will probably get her a Model 43C (.22) or a Model 351C (.22mag). She/I would rather have her carry something, even a .22, than nothing.

I found the stock grips on my 642 to be not so much fun, recoil wise.  Fortunately there's a lot of options for j-frames.

[MillCreek]

I thought the Wrangler used an aluminum alloy frame.

Yep: https://ruger.com/products/wrangler/specSheets/2002.html

I'd buy a Diamondback in a heartbeat rather than a Heritage Rough Rider. I have a .22 cowboy revolver with a Zamak frame. Doesn't seem to bother it at all.

The Wrangler grip frame is Zamak. https://www.gun-tests.com/handguns/ruger-wrangler-no-2004-22-lr/

[Hawkmoon]

The Wrangler grip frame is Zamak. https://www.gun-tests.com/handguns/ruger-wrangler-no-2004-22-lr/

The article doesn't say that, they guess at it. Considering Gun Test's history of inaccurate reporting, I wouldn't bet on that being correct. They also list the frame as being "Zamak finished aluminum alloy" -- whatever that's supposed to mean.

But ... even if the grip frame is Zamak, what difference does it make in a .22 rimfire? There's no real stress on the grip frame. I don't care for the Wrangler because (a) I don't like the unfluted cylinder, and (b) I already have a Single Six, so I don't need to like the Wrangler, but it's an okay revolver. It's far better than a Heritage Rough Rider.

[Hawkmoon]

The Diamondback seems to get good reviews: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/gun-review-diamondback-sidekick-22-revolver/

And it also appears to be a proven design: https://unblinkingeye.com/Guns/HSD9/hsd9.html

[K Frame]

Zamak finished? Wut?

Zamak isn't a finish, as we all well know.

It's an alloy. It contains aluminum, zinc, copper, and something else, but it sure as *expletive deleted*it isn't a finish.

[Hawkmoon]

Zamak isn't a finish, as we all well know.

It's an alloy. It contains aluminum, zinc, copper, and something else, but it sure as *expletive deleted*it isn't a finish.

That was my point. I read that and my brain froze.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zamak

Zamak alloys are part of the zinc aluminium alloy family; they are distinguished from the other ZA alloys because of their constant 4% aluminium composition.[2]

The name zamak is an acronym of the German names for the metals of which the alloys are composed: Zink (zinc), Aluminium, Magnesium and Kupfer (copper).[2] The New Jersey Zinc Company developed zamak alloys in 1929.

The most common zamak alloy is zamak 3. Besides that, zamak 2, zamak 5 and zamak 7 are also commercially used.[2] These alloys are most commonly die cast.[2] Zamak alloys (particularly #3 and #5) are frequently used in the spin casting industry.

I rather like the concept of the Diamondback. The downside, however, is that the forward part of the frame is deeper than on single action "cowboy" style revolvers like the Heritage, the Wrangler, and the Single Six, to provide a place to anchor the crane for the swing-out cylinder. That means the Diamondback probably won't fit many holsters made for the aforementioned single action revolvers.

[Pb]

Well, if you want an inexpensive 22 revolver, you might look again at the Ruger Wrangler.  As mentioned by someone above, the grip frame is zinc, but it looks like the most of the frame is aluminum; perhaps it won't have the issue with flame cutting like the Diamondback I linked too. 

(The Wrangler isn't my kind of gun, but it appears to be better thought of than the Diamondback, I haven't shot either).

The Wrangler frame is machined from cast aluminum alloy, which is both lightweight and easy to manufacture. The barrel and cylinder are made from steel, of course, but the grip frame is cast from a zinc alloy.

https://www.gunsandammo.com/editorial/ruger-wrangler-review/364125