Would you consider buying Taurus?

[JR47]

I'm sorry, but why would someone actually spend hard-earned money on a cheap S&W or Colt? If money isn't a concern, there a a HOST of better, higher quality revolvers out here. Korth comes readily to mind, or Linebaugh, or the BFR from Magnum. In the world of quality revolvers Taurus, S&W, and Ruger are the Llama, High Point, and Astra of manufacturers.

You guys aren't really even in the same league with quality manufacturers.

[Tamara]

The BFR?! Puh-leaze!

[imatt]

I'll go one step further: Rossi. Made by Taurus, if I'm not mistaken.
Dad bought a snubnose .357 stainless Rossi, had great luck at the range so far.

[Silvanus]

A good friend of mine can outshoot everyone with his 6" Taurus revolver. I would definitely consider buying one.

[CGSteve8718]

I am considering buying a PT1911 and a Model 85, never held either of them but have been reading a lot on here. Seems to be a lot of the same, once bitten twice shy. Can't blame people who have had bad Taurus guns in the past though, I still won't touch any Charter Arms myself.

[Qwiks draw]

Speaking of Taurus 85s, there is such a short thread know at this board. That's a Taurus bread and butter gun.

Other forums as well as Taurus Talk and the other Taurus forum have many satisfied users and the PT1911s are perking along just fine.

[CGSteve8718]

Qwiks Draw, do you know if the Model 85 has any locking systems on it? I was reading something about a Taurus Security System. I don't know if this is just a coincidence in name or what because I couldn't find any mention of it on Tauru's website.

Thanks

[CajunBass]

I've owned three Taurus revolvers, and while I can't say I shot two of them a lot, all three seemed to be well made, and worked well, the little bit I did shoot them.

One of them, I did fire a fair ammount, but it was with 38 wadcutters. I don't remember the model number, but basically it was a Model 10 knock-off. The gun shot well, was accurate, and nicely finished, except for the grips, which looked like they were made out of a scrap 2x4 and had been checkered by someone using a pocketknife. (But that was about 25 years ago.)

Yea. I'd probably consider another if I was in the market for a revolver. I'm not too fond of the looks of the current offernings from S&W and Ruger.

[gunzrfunz]

My first experience with Taurus was a third gen PT111 last year. Bought new, it shot fine, but for a plastics-fantastics gun, it felt too plasticky whilst pulling the trigger. So, I sold to a friend who has been quite happy with it.
Second experience was with the PT22 22lr semi. Trigger was fine, but could not hit broad side of barn. Maybe I was expecting too much from a "belly-gun" but at 10yrds it was all over the place. Sold that away.
Finally, I recently bought an older, but practically new model 94. It has been very accurate with the bulk ammo paks from wallyworld.

Other then a ever-so-slightly-loose cylinder release latch, which cannot be tightened, and a very faint "grind" feel of the DA, I am VERY pleased with it.
So, my answer is yes, I would buy another Taurus. I feel I have experienced enough to give a experienced opinion on them. I don't feel the same about some others I have read who only have heard/read things about the company. To listen to them you must bend over and put ear to their rear pocket to hear them as they speak from their arse. It is their money and they can spend however they wish, but bashing a company with ZERO experience is assinine at best, and only adds to the nonsense. Ppl read these forums for advice from ppl with knowledge about certain things, and when idiots w/o first hand knowledge sling mud, it fuels the fire of juvenilistic unjustified bashing. It's this kind of unknowledged rumors that causes a person the other day at the range to say to me "Oh, I thought you were shooting a Smith...it's a Taurus. Hmmph" . Like I had a [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color] in my hand. I was hitting all my targets and he curled the side of his mouth with a distained look I'll never forget. He was impressed enough with the accuracy I was having to walk over and look, but once there he acted disappointed it was a Taurus.

[TWB]

I would never again consider buying anything made by Taurus. I have bought Tauruses, after being assured that they had resolved their (lack of) quality issues and reassured that their service would be exceptional. (...this was true. Service was so exceptionally bad as to literally be nonexistent.)

Then I go back to the days when I was a licensed dealer, and ordered several Taurus firearms for sales. Within one hour they were all reboxed, and within two hours shipped back to the supplier. I would have been ashamed to try to sell such garbage to my customers.

As you can see, I have nothing but the basest contempt for Taurus....to me, they've earned it.

There are folks who report good luck with Taurus. My view is that these folks are the statistically lucky ones.

Look around on the various forums. There are few, if any, manufacturers of Tauruses' size or larger, where there are as frequent and voluminous reports of bad experiences. Taurus is loved or hated, and there is little middle ground. Certainly the bad reports on quality issues and service issues equal or exceed the good reports. This proves one fact: Buying a Taurus is a crapshoot, at best. Their record is exceptionally spotty, at best. You might get a good one. You likely will not. Is it worth the gamble of saving a hundred or two dollars in the hope that you won't have to dump a POS on an unsuspecting buyer in order to help finance a purchase from a reputable and more reliable manufacturer?

twb

[gunzrfunz]

TWB
Then I go back to the days when I was a licensed dealer, and ordered several Taurus firearms for sales. Within one hour they were all reboxed, and within two hours shipped back to the supplier. I would have been ashamed to try to sell such garbage to my customers.

Wow! Within one hour all the Taurus' were unboxed, cleaned(because no intelligent person dealing in firearms would ever shoot a gun before first cleaning it )handled, test-fired, and ALL proven to be junk? I am impressed. That is really doing a great service to the community, really.
Thank you for underlining my point regarding irrational bias. Perhaps maybe if you weren't so narrow-minded regarding lower-priced(hence lower-quality) weapons your "days when you were a licensed dealer" wouldn't be a memory, but a present reality.

[redblair]

If, as you write, budget is not an issue. I'd go Ruger then either S&W or Colt. But that's just what feels best in my hand.

B

Dec 15,1791

[TWB]

Gunzerfunz,

How much crappy fit, finish and grinding of the mechanisms are YOU willing to pay for?

I hadn't considered it as a public service, but you make a point. I did better than I thought!

twb

[gunzrfunz]

TWB
Gunzerfunz,

How much crappy fit, finish and grinding of the mechanisms are YOU willing to pay for?

I hadn't considered it as a public service, but you make a point. I did better than I thought!

twb

As many have already stated, Taurus' are not meant to compete with S&W and the like. Their price reflects that point. To hold them to the standard of S&W, Colt etc, would be foolish, irrational and anal. This is what I suspect you and other naysayers of Taurus are doing. Expecting a gun that costs $250 to look, feel and perform like a $500 gun.
A person shooting competitively does not buy a Taurus. Nor does a range-roger who shoots 5k rnds a month buy a Taurus for that. A person who buys a Taurus shoots occasionally and for that, Taurus fits the bill.
If, as you have negatively stated in 6 of your 9 TFL posts, Taurus were such a failure on the level you state, they would not be in business, PERIOD. I have read the negative posts of others, but to say that if someone gets a good one they are in the minority of total Taurus buyers, that is totally misleading and WRONG. Every purchaser of Taurus does not come on forums to spread his good or bad experience with them, so these forums are in NO WAY a total measuring guide of their quality.
As far as your public service angle goes, you missed my sarcasm as you have missed the boat on the whole issue.

[TWB]

OneShot,

My apologies for the hijack. This will be my last intrusion.

Gunzetc,

Quote: "Budget and availabliliy is not considered."

The threadbearer would be better served to buy a better quality firearm.

You may be right. I did choose to have better guns than Taurus, and took, and still take pride in not scraping the bottom of the barrel. You are correct that Taurus is lower cost and cannot compete with the other guns listed by the threadbearer. Good, clean oats are expensive. What comes out the other end of the horse is a bit cheaper. If you want another Taurus to buy, I have a dandy one I'll be happy to sell you. It is everything a Taurus can be plus the gunsmith corrections they require.

I mean you no ill will with our disagreement on this firearm company. May the road rise to meet your feet and your travels be safe.

May all of your firearms be Tauruses, now and forever. I mean it.

twb

[gunzrfunz]

Gunzetc,

Quote: "Budget and availabliliy is not considered."

The threadbearer would be better served to buy a better quality firearm.

On that point, agreed.

I did choose to have better guns than Taurus, and took, and still take pride in not scraping the bottom of the barrel.

More of the same non-helpful, nonsensical, illogical b/s we've come to know from those w/o knowlege of the facts, or ability to see them.

May all of your firearms be Tauruses, now and forever. I mean it.

twb

twb/s,
Although it was conceived as a curse from your end, I do not feel or take it as such. I do own a Taurus, and am happy with it. I also own a S&W 686, a S&W model 64, and a S&W model 36, and am happy with those as well. Thank you for your well-wishes and may you someday see the point others and myself have tried to convey to you and your kind regarding this subject, but I doubt it.

[JR47]

Once again, I've had MUCH worse luck with S&W, Sig, and HK than I ever had with Taurus. It's not because I expect less from Taurus, either. S&W revolver that failed on the first shot, slide cracked Sig, and HK USP that patterned, not grouped. All bought NEW, and not the first run of any of the models.

We bought a Model 29-3 from a collector. It had been shot, but looked great. I pulled the yoke and cylinder out for cleaning, and noted that the yoke had more machining marks on it than most revolvers have all through them. It literally looks like it was machined to have rows of ridges in it, although they are of differing heights. The groove where the screw locks it into the frame is also of different widths. This is visible to the eye, and needs no tools to recognize.

I had thought that the cylinder had end-shake in it, now I believe that the yoke is the piece that has the movement. Great QC.

I worked with a one-man shop FFL in the early 1990's. I would drop by whenever he received the ordered weapons, to examine them with him, and clean them up as needed. I will say that we sent as many S&W revolvers back as Taurus. The only company that I don't remember sending revolvers back from was Ruger. Now, this wasn't a person who received revolvers in 50 gun lots, but he was a true 10% FFL, and ran a ton of weapons through his shop. Pistols, revolvers, rifles, shotguns, and Class 3 items were always being ordered. He also dealt in a lot of surplus weapons. The absolute WORST new weapons were the IJ-70 Russian Commercial Makarovs. Out of 10, eight would be rendered unservicable by trigger pulls beyond 15#, off-set sights, magwells that didn't fit the included mags, and terrible machining that resulted in slides that wouldn't.

Taurus has been around since the 1980s, when imported by Interarms as a low-cost weapon. They have dressed up their operation markedly. S&W has been an American Icon since the 1860's, and at one time virtually ruled the LEO market against Colt. That's a lot of history, though not all of it was one of first-rate quality. The feeling seems to be that S&W will "make it right" if you buy one with problems, no matter how long it takes, you're supposed to "give them a chance". The same people advise against the purchase of a Taurus, as it might have a problem. Hypocritical as it is, that's their stand.

Again, I've read, and seen, people who bought a weapon with obvious defects, but who then bashed the brand purchased relentlessly. If one lacked the knowledge to examine a weapon PRIOR to buying it, what makes them think that they're smart enough to articulate what's wrong with it afterward?

As to the statistical theory, we own TEN Taurus handguns, and have had no trouble with them in nearly 20 years that we didn't cause (shooting a steady diet of +P and +P+ in a blued Model 85 that wasn't rated for it). My single experience with Taurus Service was trouble-free, and the time frame was EXACTLY the same as with Colt, Sig, S&W, and HK. I would Imagine that owning ten of the questionable weapons should have set me up for a lemon, IF you actually buy into the theoretical BS being bandied about as fact.

In today's world of "Just-in-Time" delivery and marketing, it amazes me how such problems, if they actually exist on a scale as painted here, could result in increased sales every year, many at the expense of more expensive brands, and Industry Awards. Somehow, there's a disconnect between the view of the real world, and the ideas postulated here. Most shops no longer have huge inventories, as it isn't necessary when the distributors advertise 24 hour shipping from order. They cannot afford to be sorting through "entire orders" to find a suitable weapon for sale. Somewhere along the line a HUGE number of retail outlets are having much better results with Taurus products than the stated norm in this thread.

[gunzrfunz]

I'm afraid your preaching to the choir. The bashers will never listen to facts, just their own rants and those that chime in with them regardless of experience.
So, although it is great to hear other ppl with positive experiences with Taurus, 1000 ppl echoing your sentiment won't alter the rockheads' position or stop them from trying to get others to believe what is cemented in their heads.

[don't shoot it's me]

The only Taurus I ever owned was a Beretta 92 copy and it was a very nice shootin gun...it also had the 1911 style safety which I prefered to the one on my Italiancounterpart. I would also give their new 1911 a shot if I needed one since it seems like a lot of gun for the money...as for their revolvers, I have never fired one...they may be okay but I like the lines of Smiths better...and our dept. does not authorize them for off duty cary...only Smith, Colt and Ruger....

[IM_Lugger]

As many have already stated, Taurus' are not meant to compete with S&W and the like. Their price reflects that point. To hold them to the standard of S&W, Colt etc, would be foolish, irrational and anal. This is what I suspect you and other naysayers of Taurus are doing. Expecting a gun that costs $250 to look, feel and perform like a $500 gun.
A person shooting competitively does not buy a Taurus. Nor does a range-roger who shoots 5k rnds a month buy a Taurus for that. A person who buys a Taurus shoots occasionally and for that, Taurus fits the bill.

I would have to dissagree with that. Taurus guns (esp revolvers) are in direct competition with S&W and Ruger, and lower price* is just a bunus.

I also doubt that Taurus is supposed to be shot less than S&W, and to say that someone who shoots a lot should buy something else is just silly...


*Rugers and Smiths are made in US while Taurus makes their guns in Brazil; where I would guess laber is cheaper so you can make a quality product for less $$

[gunzrfunz]

I also doubt that Taurus is supposed to be shot less than S&W, and to say that someone who shoots a lot should buy something else is just silly...

I never stated someone who shoots alot should buy something else. I said :

A person shooting competitively does not buy a Taurus. Nor does a range-roger who shoots 5k rnds a month buy a Taurus for that. A person who buys a Taurus shoots occasionally and for that, Taurus fits the bill.

As far as Taurus being in direct competition with S&W and Ruger, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. My position is that someone buys a Smith or Ruger who wants top quality regardless of price whereas someone buys a Taurus who wants a gun at a substantially less price. Different target market altogether.

[IM_Lugger]

I never stated someone who shoots alot should buy something else

I don’t think what I said is any different from what you said originally: why would it be OK for someone who ‘shoots competitively’ or ‘5k rnds a month’ to buy S&W but not Taurus? You said 'A person who buys a Taurus shoots occasionally' which is just not true; my .44mag taurus has seen 1500+ rounds in a year and a half I had it - which is not that much; but I'm sure there are a LOT of people who have S&W or Ruger don't shoot it nearly as much.


I bought my Raging Bull not because it was cheaper; but because I liked the gun more than anything S&W or Ruger has to offer. Price had absolutely nothing to do with it, and I’m sure I’m not alone... I also don’t see how my gun is inferior in quality to S&W and esp. Rugers which to me always looked a bit rough and unrefined.


I don't think two products have to cost exactly the same to be in direct competition; Sigs and HKs cost more than Berettas and Glocks yet I would think it’s fair to say they all compete for the same market. It’s no different with Taurus Ruger and S&W.

If Taurus didn’t come out with .454 Raging Bull in ‘99 (the most powerful DA revolver) I bet S&W would’ve never made the X-Frame and/or .500S&W! It’s all about the 'I make the biggest gun' game. Now Taurus Chambered the RB in .500 so the competition continues… and if it wasn’t for Taurus coming out with all the different guns (esp. titanium) S&W would probably be making ½ the guns they make right now (if they didn’t have to compete with Taurus’ offerings.)

[gunzrfunz]

Somehow I have been pushed to the other side of this argument, where earlier I was defending Taurus as a decent gun manufacturer. And you are twisting my words to create an argument where there is none. Read carefully and s-l-o-w-l-y what I have said in prior posts. Your getting your panties all up in a bind over something you are creating in your own head.
I stand by what I said, though. People who buy Taurus(generally) shoot occasionally. You included. 1500+rnds in a yr and a half is not much at all. So YOU fall into that category, occasionally shooting your Taurus. I'm sure there are some who shoot their Taurus more then you, but none that I have ever seen. And yes, you are correct. I'm sure there are plenty of ppl who buy S&W or Ruger who rarely shoot theirs, so? It's not an all or nothing thing here. If you are looking to just prove whatever I say is wrong, then I'm sure you can dissect my sentences and come up with some obscure fact to make it false. I am speaking in general terms. Like I said, I have no problems with Taurus, I OWN ONE MYSELF. But if what you are saying is that Taurus is in same league(quality-wise) as S&W or Ruger, fahgetaboutit, YOUR WRONG!
Read this. I'm done with this thread.

[IM_Lugger]

“Taurus' are not meant to compete with S&W and the like”
“A person shooting competitively does not buy a Taurus”
“A person who buys a Taurus shoots occasionally”

that is just a bunch of nonsence! or am I twisting your words now as well?

and 44mag is not a .22 or 9mm, nor it costs the same, so 1000 of .44mag a yeah thu one gun is a little more than occasional shooting. and if it wouldn’t be for the cost I’d shoot twice as much...

[JR47]

1000 rounds of .44 magnum is, DUH, 1000 rounds of .44 Magnum. It is exactly the same number as 1000 rounds of .22 Short. The COST is different, but the number is no different. I suppose then, that someone who shoots his T/C Contender in .308 Winchester only needs to shoot 500 a year to make your point? Or is there a point here?

I have to agree that people will put whatever model of weapon they shoot against another manufacturers products. Whether it makes any sense or not, it's human nature. Those who like Taurus will state that their experience with them is that they are as accurate as more expensive brands. Bashers will state just as surely that "Brand-X", which costs seven times as much, is MORE accurate. Both are correct, but neither is right.

If BOTH of you like your Taurus products, let it go. That's exactly like one man who bought a S&W Model 10 because he liked the polish on it fighting with another who bought a Model 10 because they liked the caliber.

I purchase weapons to do specific things. I do that with just about everything. I don't buy Mikasa China for everyday use. Nor do I buy an Escalade because I'm going to haul flooring products for a business. It's like buying a Porsche Cayenne for mud bogging. It COULD do it, but why ruin a $75k + vehicle doing something that will only ruin it? Many people here routinely advocate buying nothing below a minimum value floor. Instead, they would rather you save a little more, and buy something that their nominal income regards the same as yours does a less-expensive brand. I've yet to see any of these conspicuous consumers recommend a Korth revolver as a CCW. I can afford them, so I guess, following their logic, I should be bashing anyone who buys cheaper.