They may have improved but so what? If your a gun company with a long and storied history and have problems with 1 or 2 production runs that can be forgiven.
But a new gun company whose initial models are defect plagued and pathetically unreliable? I can't in good conscious give them another chance, unless they were under new ownership. An owner that will allow that stuff to leave the shop just can't be trusted.
The thing about guns is this, people buy them for SD. When they have to use them, they have to work, no exceptions, because you may die if they don't. When a gun company allows garbage to go out of there back door, to me they are risking the lives of everyone who buys one.
Sadly, unless you have some supernatural ability to see into the future, NO gun that you buy can be said to be 100% reliable, or durable, or even accurate. We practice with our firearms to determine what they are capable of, and to discover flaws in them. Nobody with an IQ over ice buys a gun, loads it with just any ammunition, and goes out into the world feeling safe. Those who qualify in the group that does so usually meet their end long before a self-defense scenario appears.
I have bought brand new guns, from highly acclaimed manufacturers, that, even after inspection, failed on the first shot. For me, that wasn't a matter of rick, it was a matter of a missed paper target opportunity.
I also call into question the idea that a manufacturer "with a long and storied history" means anything. I mentioned Glock, with a storied history of 32 years, has had multiple issues with virtually every model past the 17 and 19. Their response was to immediately blame the ammunition, or the operator. Then, they made "running changes" that solved the problem. Those who sent their guns in had the "running changes" put in as an "update". It would appear that
Glock is just as guilty of what you accuse Diamondback as anyone could be.
There's a certain amount of common sense missing here. Most people have learned to stay away from first-year introductions in almost everything out here. While many things have been tested to death, the one thing that is often missed is the creativity of the idiot. If the gun isn't supposed to be dry-fired without a magazine, and it's prominently mentioned in the Owner's Manual, you'll be assured that there will be the usual attempts to explain why that shouldn't be allowed. Usually by those too lazy, or simply too stupid, to read their Manual. Same with restrictions on shooting lead cartridges in polygonal rifled guns, the use of +P ammunition in some, or the use of bullet weights outside of those recommended.
Doing these things should be the result of a deliberate decision. It should also be accepted that doing so may result in less than satisfactory results.