Quote Originally Posted by Drew451 View Post
The 45 was a big departure from other Diana's of the period and is very well designed and engineered as you rightly say, Dave. The 34 countered with a simple but effective design that makes good power. I've always thought a polyurethane piston sealed Original 45, resprung to suit, would edge the 34. As it stands, I think there's little or nothing in it.
I like the stock, particularly the earlier version. The butt is not markedly lower than other models with raised combs and I think the gun handles nicely. Perhaps it's not quite as handy as a 34 or 35 admittedly.
Its worth mentioning that Diana brought out a later 45 based on the 34 so presumably the model was missed by some.
Yes, if it was re-released, all syntheticed up, I would definitely buy one. It would be a costly rifle though, considering it's relative complexity. That's what killed it in the first place.
Very very true. And I think that the gun exemplifies the effort Diana put into the project to bring out a gun that could compete with the FWB.and the 80. True, the 80 would more than edge it at the higher US power levels but as many will attest ut could compete quite favourably with other top.of the range German guns of the day.
I think in engineering terms the 45 was something of a high water mark for Diana in its break barrel efforts. And yet as you say it was also perhaps its undoing.
Maybe that's the bottom line, to produce it again at a standard demanded by the public would make it cost ineffective.