canuck1911
New member
I've been seeing a lot of their revolvers lately, and considering getting one. How does the quality and trigger action compare to the
S&W or Ruger?
S&W or Ruger?
Taurus any good?
- Thread starter canuck1911
- Start date
Quantum Singularity
New member
Taurus used to be junk. But, recently the quality has really improved to the point where most Taurus models can be called "good" quality guns.
That said, Taurus' revolvers are still not in the excellent category. If you want the best revolver, buy Ruger or S&W. If you are happy with "second best", go with a Taurus.
That said, Taurus' revolvers are still not in the excellent category. If you want the best revolver, buy Ruger or S&W. If you are happy with "second best", go with a Taurus.
I picked up a Taurus snub in .45 Colt. It's the stainless version, though they make it in utra-lite and titanium. I've heard some mixed reviews of Taurus, but this one's working great. The accuracy is excellent, esp. for a snub with fixed sights. They're obviously working very hard to improve their engineering and quality control. Plus, their political views are good. You can feel good about buying a Taurus.
------------------
GRH
--------------
My government is a 45/70
------------------
GRH
--------------
My government is a 45/70
Quantum Singularity
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GRH:
You can feel good about buying a Taurus.
[/quote]
Agreed, very true. In addition to making good guns, Taurus gives an NRA membership for buying their guns--I respect them for doing that.
You can feel good about buying a Taurus.
[/quote]
Agreed, very true. In addition to making good guns, Taurus gives an NRA membership for buying their guns--I respect them for doing that.
canuck1911
New member
GRH,
How was the recoil on the snubby with .45lc? Is it vented? I've thought about that gun, in order to get light weight, but I've been concerned about felt recoil.
How was the recoil on the snubby with .45lc? Is it vented? I've thought about that gun, in order to get light weight, but I've been concerned about felt recoil.
Gunslinger
Moderator
I have to disagree about Taurus being second best to S&W....and not because of the "agreement". I'm a Smthi fan through and through but the last few "late" Smith's I have handled/worked on have been pure junk. Not true to the Taurus. If you'll notice everyone here that talks about getting a new Taurus are impressed with the over all quality. Even it were not for the agreement if I were buying a new revolver I would strongly consider the Taurus over the Smith these days. While Taurus's quality control had improved over the last few years Smith has gone down.
------------------
Gunslinger
I was promised a Shortycicle and I want a Shortycicle!
------------------
Gunslinger
I was promised a Shortycicle and I want a Shortycicle!
I personally rate them just below Ruger and above S&W. THey used to be second rate. But now they have moved into the good bordering on great quality. The Semi-Auto pistols are ot high on my list but their revolvers are great. I have an 85UL and a Tracker in .357 Both are wonderful. I want to get one of the Titanium models in 44 but they are still a bit on the expensive side.
------------------
"Knowledge is a destination. Truth, the journey."
------------------
"Knowledge is a destination. Truth, the journey."
Quantum Singularity
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gunslinger:
I have to disagree about Taurus being second best to S&W....and not because of the "agreement". I'm a Smthi fan through and through but the last few "late" Smith's I have handled/worked on have been pure junk. Not true to the Taurus. If you'll notice everyone here that talks about getting a new Taurus are impressed with the over all quality. Even it were not for the agreement if I were buying a new revolver I would strongly consider the Taurus over the Smith these days. While Taurus's quality control had improved over the last few years Smith has gone down.
[/quote]
I agree that new S&W's have lost some quality. Taurus has improved quality. But, Rugers are still excellent revolvers. S&W is still on top of Taurus (though I do rank Ruger higher than S&W) I really regret selling off my Ruger revolvers (I did it due to a very heavy DA trigger). I am planning to trade my Glock 17 in for an SP 101 so I can have a Ruger revolver to complement my 686 plus S&W. With a good trigger/action job, I consider the Rugers to be the best overall revolvers out there. Also, I would buy a Taurus before a S&W due to the agreement.
[This message has been edited by Quantum Singularity (edited November 06, 2000).]
I have to disagree about Taurus being second best to S&W....and not because of the "agreement". I'm a Smthi fan through and through but the last few "late" Smith's I have handled/worked on have been pure junk. Not true to the Taurus. If you'll notice everyone here that talks about getting a new Taurus are impressed with the over all quality. Even it were not for the agreement if I were buying a new revolver I would strongly consider the Taurus over the Smith these days. While Taurus's quality control had improved over the last few years Smith has gone down.
[/quote]
I agree that new S&W's have lost some quality. Taurus has improved quality. But, Rugers are still excellent revolvers. S&W is still on top of Taurus (though I do rank Ruger higher than S&W) I really regret selling off my Ruger revolvers (I did it due to a very heavy DA trigger). I am planning to trade my Glock 17 in for an SP 101 so I can have a Ruger revolver to complement my 686 plus S&W. With a good trigger/action job, I consider the Rugers to be the best overall revolvers out there. Also, I would buy a Taurus before a S&W due to the agreement.
[This message has been edited by Quantum Singularity (edited November 06, 2000).]
Bullshooter
New member
I've owned a Taurus PT92AFS (a licensed copy of the Beretta 92FS), a PT945 and, most recently, I bought a Raging Bull in .44 Magnum. Each and every one of these handguns has given me a great deal of pleasure and have proven themselves to be accurate and reliable. I traded in a S&W Model 910 for the PT945 because it was so inaccurate. From 25 feet it would spray rounds into a man size target making it look like I was using a 12ga. shotgun. The quality and reliability (not to mention the lifetime warranty) places Taurus at the top of my list, along with Ruger revolvers (I don't care for their semi autos).
------------------
Drop by anytime at http://www.ohioshooter.com
------------------
Drop by anytime at http://www.ohioshooter.com
What People Won't Tell You About Taurus Revolvers (and yes, I have owned some):
Your chances are better with Smith/Ruger of getting a gun that won't need service.
1. If you ever want to get an action job on it, the action cannot be significantly improved, at least not to the extent of a Smith and Wesson or even Ruger (at least according to my gunsmith).
2. Taurus's Lifetime Warranty is not really that unique in the industry. Ruger and Smith have offered implied "Lifetime Warranty's" for years, but you don't hear about this because their quality has never been substandard in the past. I have never heard of either refusing to repair one of their guns, nor will they charge you. Smith and Wesson and Ruger customer service are excellent, never having charged me a dime to fix the nit-picky things I griped about.
In these cases, service was both timely and effective, which I cannot say for Taurus.
It is my experience that Taurus touts their warranty so much because frankly, you'll be needing it eventually. Of the 3 Tauruses I've owned (all NEW within the last 4 years), 2 had catastrophic failures due to simple lapses in quality control. They never could get my PT101 to work, and after 3 unsuccessful trips to the factory, I finally traded it off at a loss just to get rid of it.
And no, they never offered to replace it, either.
I HAVE NEVER, EVER HAD THAT PROBLEM WITH A SMITH OR RUGER REVOLVER, AND I'VE OWNED ABOUT 20 AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER.
Overall, quality and accuracy is better with these two IN MY EXPERIENCE, though like others I think Taurus is a close second.
3. Accessories (grips, speedloaders etc.) for Ruger and Smith revolvers are easier to come by.
4. As a dealer I have observed that people like the Tauruses so much because they're cheaper. Face it, if they were more expensive than Smith or Ruger, this discussion would be moot. Usually the person who can't afford anything better (and I've been there too) isn't going to be able to afford to shoot it much, if at all, so he may never encounter any problems in quality. However, it costs him nothing to get on one of these boards and tell everybody how great his Taurus revolver is.
Now I'm certainly not accusing any responder here of this, just making a general observation regarding discussion boards that "talk is cheap". Go to Gunsight or Frontsight or any shooting school of your choice and see how many folks are using Taurus.
If you just want something to shoot at the range for fun, or to plink, Tauruses can be alright guns.
Your chances are better with Smith/Ruger of getting a gun that won't need service.
1. If you ever want to get an action job on it, the action cannot be significantly improved, at least not to the extent of a Smith and Wesson or even Ruger (at least according to my gunsmith).
2. Taurus's Lifetime Warranty is not really that unique in the industry. Ruger and Smith have offered implied "Lifetime Warranty's" for years, but you don't hear about this because their quality has never been substandard in the past. I have never heard of either refusing to repair one of their guns, nor will they charge you. Smith and Wesson and Ruger customer service are excellent, never having charged me a dime to fix the nit-picky things I griped about.
In these cases, service was both timely and effective, which I cannot say for Taurus.
It is my experience that Taurus touts their warranty so much because frankly, you'll be needing it eventually. Of the 3 Tauruses I've owned (all NEW within the last 4 years), 2 had catastrophic failures due to simple lapses in quality control. They never could get my PT101 to work, and after 3 unsuccessful trips to the factory, I finally traded it off at a loss just to get rid of it.
And no, they never offered to replace it, either.
I HAVE NEVER, EVER HAD THAT PROBLEM WITH A SMITH OR RUGER REVOLVER, AND I'VE OWNED ABOUT 20 AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER.
Overall, quality and accuracy is better with these two IN MY EXPERIENCE, though like others I think Taurus is a close second.
3. Accessories (grips, speedloaders etc.) for Ruger and Smith revolvers are easier to come by.
4. As a dealer I have observed that people like the Tauruses so much because they're cheaper. Face it, if they were more expensive than Smith or Ruger, this discussion would be moot. Usually the person who can't afford anything better (and I've been there too) isn't going to be able to afford to shoot it much, if at all, so he may never encounter any problems in quality. However, it costs him nothing to get on one of these boards and tell everybody how great his Taurus revolver is.
Now I'm certainly not accusing any responder here of this, just making a general observation regarding discussion boards that "talk is cheap". Go to Gunsight or Frontsight or any shooting school of your choice and see how many folks are using Taurus.
If you just want something to shoot at the range for fun, or to plink, Tauruses can be alright guns.
canuck1911
New member
Grapeshot,
Thansk for the detailed feedback. While shooting at the range would be a primary use,
if the gun is inaccurate or troublesome or uncomfortable to shoot in .45lc, I would not be interested in it. I've been attracted to it because of the light weights of their small .45lc revolvers, and concerned because of possibly strong recoil and poor accuracy and trigger feel.
As an alternative, I've been considering getting a S&W 625 mountain gun in .45lc. I think I can locate one used or new. However, I've never used that gun, and wonder about the quality, recoil, etc. as well as the weight if I take it backpacking/hunting. Do you have any thoughts on that particular S&W model?
Thanks,
Canuck
Thansk for the detailed feedback. While shooting at the range would be a primary use,
if the gun is inaccurate or troublesome or uncomfortable to shoot in .45lc, I would not be interested in it. I've been attracted to it because of the light weights of their small .45lc revolvers, and concerned because of possibly strong recoil and poor accuracy and trigger feel.
As an alternative, I've been considering getting a S&W 625 mountain gun in .45lc. I think I can locate one used or new. However, I've never used that gun, and wonder about the quality, recoil, etc. as well as the weight if I take it backpacking/hunting. Do you have any thoughts on that particular S&W model?
Thanks,
Canuck
Grapeshot,
I bought a Taurus 445 before they came out on the dealers shelves. Read all the great reviews in several gun mags. Got my gun, it was real sweet. 44 special snubby, cool.
But, I had the firing pin spring break..twice. Both times Taurus repaired the gun, never explained WHY this had happened, I finally contacted a well known Nebraska gunsmith, asked him his opinion, he said "I won't even work on a Taurus, by a S&W"..
Having said all that, I've been tempted to look at a model 85 UL, but the quality thing is still in my mind...
Mike M.
I bought a Taurus 445 before they came out on the dealers shelves. Read all the great reviews in several gun mags. Got my gun, it was real sweet. 44 special snubby, cool.
But, I had the firing pin spring break..twice. Both times Taurus repaired the gun, never explained WHY this had happened, I finally contacted a well known Nebraska gunsmith, asked him his opinion, he said "I won't even work on a Taurus, by a S&W"..
Having said all that, I've been tempted to look at a model 85 UL, but the quality thing is still in my mind...
Mike M.
Quantum Singularity
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 38Mike:
Grapeshot,
I bought a Taurus 445 before they came out on the dealers shelves. Read all the great reviews in several gun mags.
Mike M.[/quote]
I assume you read the reviews in Guns & Ammo, Shooting times, or one of the other B.S. filled magazines? If you want an HONEST gun magazine that doesn't sugarcoat the truth, consider either subscribing or (borrow from friends) Gun Tests. IMHO, their reviews are the most reliable of all the gun magazines (they operate like Consumer Reports and don't take adds for companies).
http://www.gun-tests.com/
Grapeshot,
I bought a Taurus 445 before they came out on the dealers shelves. Read all the great reviews in several gun mags.
Mike M.[/quote]
I assume you read the reviews in Guns & Ammo, Shooting times, or one of the other B.S. filled magazines? If you want an HONEST gun magazine that doesn't sugarcoat the truth, consider either subscribing or (borrow from friends) Gun Tests. IMHO, their reviews are the most reliable of all the gun magazines (they operate like Consumer Reports and don't take adds for companies).
http://www.gun-tests.com/
Ditto the recommendation on Gun Tests, they're hard on EVERYBODY's guns, which I like.
Canuck, I'm glad to help you. I have a 625 Mtn. Gun in .45 ACP that has become my favorite revolver of all time. While I have not shot the .45 Colt version, based on my experience I would not hesitate to buy one. The recoil should be similar to my .45 ACP. I have a pair of Craig Spegel wood "boot grips" (from Dillon) on it, and so the backstrap is exposed ... but it doesn't seem to kick bad at all with defense loads. Recoil is more ... "quick" or "whippy", almost on the verge of being magnum-ish, but WITHOUT the blast and noise (it's a "gentle boomer"). I got Smith and Wesson to do a trigger job on it and put a Miculek Gold Bead front sight on it and frankly, it's sweet, being extremely accurate, pretty, and ... "fun" with 185 gr. SWC's.
Guns tend to come and go around here, but this one's going to my children some day. It is my all-around, jack-of-all trades gun.
The extra recoil of the light barrel is worth it when you consider carrying the gun all day. Is it light? Well, it's about as light as I would want a .45 to be considering I still want to be able to hit something with the darn thing and I don't want to be kicked to death. Personally, I think there is such a thing as being TOO LIGHT for the caliber. That being said, I use the 625 for home defense, CCW, and to carry while deer hunting or just bumming around in the woods, and I haven't been bothered by its weight.
One last thing about the Taurus - I don't think you can get one of their .45 snubbies without "porting"... some folks here like it, but I gotta tell ya, it supposedly makes the gun a LOT louder, and of course hot gasses and debris flying out the top of your gun can make the muzzle flash worse and can blow crud in your eyes if you fire the gun from the hip.
Hope this helps and good luck!
Canuck, I'm glad to help you. I have a 625 Mtn. Gun in .45 ACP that has become my favorite revolver of all time. While I have not shot the .45 Colt version, based on my experience I would not hesitate to buy one. The recoil should be similar to my .45 ACP. I have a pair of Craig Spegel wood "boot grips" (from Dillon) on it, and so the backstrap is exposed ... but it doesn't seem to kick bad at all with defense loads. Recoil is more ... "quick" or "whippy", almost on the verge of being magnum-ish, but WITHOUT the blast and noise (it's a "gentle boomer"). I got Smith and Wesson to do a trigger job on it and put a Miculek Gold Bead front sight on it and frankly, it's sweet, being extremely accurate, pretty, and ... "fun" with 185 gr. SWC's.
Guns tend to come and go around here, but this one's going to my children some day. It is my all-around, jack-of-all trades gun.
The extra recoil of the light barrel is worth it when you consider carrying the gun all day. Is it light? Well, it's about as light as I would want a .45 to be considering I still want to be able to hit something with the darn thing and I don't want to be kicked to death. Personally, I think there is such a thing as being TOO LIGHT for the caliber. That being said, I use the 625 for home defense, CCW, and to carry while deer hunting or just bumming around in the woods, and I haven't been bothered by its weight.
One last thing about the Taurus - I don't think you can get one of their .45 snubbies without "porting"... some folks here like it, but I gotta tell ya, it supposedly makes the gun a LOT louder, and of course hot gasses and debris flying out the top of your gun can make the muzzle flash worse and can blow crud in your eyes if you fire the gun from the hip.
Hope this helps and good luck!