The reviewer was looking for a tiny pistol and bought a DB9. His review is at the link. Right out of the box, he writes, the gun jammed. He also notices that the gun works better with “premium” ammo. He concludes:
So would I recommend this gun? Yes, with a caveat. This gun fits a very specific role for me in that its size makes it ultra concealable. This was the primary selling point for me as I often worry that my Smith revolver is going to peek out of my pocket when Iâ€™m at work. If you choose the DB9, work with it: lube it up, run the slide and familiarize yourself with its occasional stubborn magazine drop.
I guess that’s where I differ with him because in my opinion, the whole purpose of a small, pocket gun is to have it ready and able in the worst possible situation. A pistol with suspect performance problems is the last thing I want my life to depend upon.
He already had an S&W .38 Airweight. I once had one of them and they are small enough for my purposes, and incredibly reliable (like all revolvers) and the photo he provides doesn’t show a significant difference (except in width, I guess) between the two. Plus, you don’t gain anything by moving from .38 to 9mm in terms of stopping power. Indeed, you’re probably lowering that factor.
The DB9 is a 6+1. The revolver he had held five-rounds. Okay, 7 beats 5, but not by much. If you’re looking for higher capacity then you really need a pistol that goes in a holster of some sort; you’re not likely to find it in a “tiny” and lightweight one.
Now, here I might draw some fire from a few of you. I agree that pistols and rifles get ‘better’ with use. I understand that. But, I am not of the opinion that a gun that doesn’t work properly when new just needs ‘breaking in.’ A firearm should be able to function as advertised and needed right away, if it was built properly. My 10/22 functioned perfectly when new. My Taurus 909 worked as expected — no jams, no stove-pipes, no errors — when I first bought it. Has anyone, anyone, ever bought a GLOCK that didn’t function flawlessly out of the box? If so, I’ve never seen mention of it. Anyway, that’s what I expect from a new gun.
Perhaps with a competition grade pistol, where you want the tolerances to be thisclose, fine; some early jams until it’s ‘broken in.’ But, never with a gun purchased for self-defensive purposes. Failures can be fatal.
Me? I like my pocket-sized Ruger LCR and am not looking for a replacement. I don’t fix what’s not broken.
10 Responses to “A Guns.com Review of the Diamondback DB9. Hmmm…”
Leave a Reply
(Be sure to answer the anti-spam question!)