Taurus vs S&W

[STAGE 2]

As much as I like blasting away and wasting ammo with the latest tupperware semi, the perfectionist/traditionalist in me demands that I add a wheelgun to my small but rapidly growing collection. I have narrowed my choices down to 4 particular guns. First is the 8 shot model 627 from S&W. The remaining revolvers are from Taurus, are all med frame, and are in .357 mag, .45 acp and .45 lc.

My primary question is with respect to the quality between these two makers. I'm familiar with S&W but not Taurus. Asidefrom that, I am pretty much neutral between each of these calibers (although it would be nice to kill 2 birds with the acp), but am looking for something with more than a 6 shot capacity.

 

[JohnK]

You could get a large frame 8 shot 357 from Taurus too if you like your revolvers with higher capacity.

Taurus can make some very good revolvers, but their quality control seems a bit spotty. Although reports seem to be that S&W and Ruger aren't what they used to be either. It seems, going by complaints here and other places, that Taurus has the most problem with their newest models. Their Titanium guns especially seem to be plagued with problems. You really don't hear to many complaints about their steel frame guns. I've owned 2 steel frame M85 Taurus and have shot a M65 extensivly without seeing any problems.

You can certainly get good quality guns from Taurus, but you should examine it closely before you buy.

 

[chaim]

I own both.

I had a Taurus 82 (medium frame, 4" .38spl). It was a good gun, not great but very good. Accuracy was decent, trigger was good, and it looked good. It was my first handgun and I did enjoy it. Really the only reason I got rid of it was that I really wanted a .357 (I should have kept it in addition). The newer ones I've handled are much improved over this was (I bought it used, it was probably about 10 yrs old).

I have a Taurus 605. Very good gun. Great trigger. However, I'll probably be replacing it with a Taurus 85. I don't like shooting .357s out of a gun this small and if I'll only use .38s with it I don't want to pay the price in the added weight. It is very well made.

I have a S&W 65LS (K-frame, 3" .357) and a 586 (L-frame, 6" .357). I love both. The 586 has the best trigger ever. Both are very accurate. Both are extremely smooth and well made. Both are great looking guns.

The S&Ws are better guns but I am always willing to recommend the Taurus revolvers. Usually, all else being equal I'd get the Smith. However, the price isn't equal and some Taurus guns are as good as, or better than, the equivelent S&W. If I was buying a medium frame .38 new I'd get the new Taurus 82 over the S&W 10 (when I looked over them recently the new 82 seemed every bit the equal of the new M10 and it was more than $150 less).

 

[jack pringle]

have a number of Smiths and Rugers in various calibers.

recently purchased a mdl 608 Taurus, a .357 in the large frame. seems they took the 6 hole .44 cylinder and drilled 8 of the .357 in it. small hole barrel of course.

have only a few hundred rounds through it so far, no probs that i can see. a heavy gun so is just a shooter for me, not a packer. if it and i gee haw, i will have my gunsmith do some trigger work. is decent now, smooth pull DA, good letoff SA. just a tad lawyer like.

it is not a Smith, but it aint bad.

 

[SteelyDan]

For years I've been reading that Taurus has improved its quality control, and that it's now producing a product virtually equal to S&W. This is something I really want to believe, for both the cost savings and the political issues. Unfortunately, the majority of the ones I've handled are just not near Smith's quality. The last one I looked at was a titanium .41, and the dealer just about popped an artery trying to "casually" open the cylinder before handing it to me; the thing was so tight it had no business being anywhere near a sales floor. So, I'm sure there are some very good ones out there, but it's really hard for me to get excited about them.

 

[Ala Dan]

I will admit, Taurus has come a long way with its
product's! But, I don't think it will ever come
close to matching Smith & Wesson revolver's in
quality. Grant it, any company can and will
produce a lemon from time to time. But, it looks
like Taurus leads the pack in this category? Just
recently, I read a thread whereas a Tauri revolver
was sent back for warranty repair; and after a
reasonable delay, the gun was returned to the
owner with the warranty work completed. The
owner seem very pleased with the out come;
and even posted that here at TFL. Let's just
hope that Taurus International keeps up the
good work?

*chaim- Sorry, but I was not impressed with
the Taurus model 82 that I had in my possession
a while back! That 25 lb double-action trigger
pull was terrible. I'm glad the proud owner of
that firearm now has it back in their possession!

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

 

[chaim]

Ala Dan,

The one I had was a good gun but it wasn't up to the quality of a M10 (especially an older one). The trigger was pretty good, but not great. I should apolygize for describing the trigger as good because I usually only shot it in SA mode, I don't remember the DA trigger that well (SA trigger was good, but, of course, I don't remember the DA trigger that well).

Now the new one I had the pleasure to examine seemed at least as good as the new M10 next to it. Lockup seemed very good. The SA trigger of one was a tiny bit better than the other (don't remember which one had the better SA trigger at this point, and it was just barely better) and the other one had a slightly better DA trigger (at about the same level as the difference in the SA triggers). Overall, I'd say the triggers were about as nice, both very good at least by today's standards (though not up to the standards of my S&W 586, or an older M10).

 

[Big Bad .45 Wolf]

Quality wise at 1st glance Taurus looks like it has the most attention to detail nowadays. S&W now uses some low budget parts, the triggers all feel like there is sand in the action, and they come filthy from the factory. The problem is Taurus has a real bad reputation for breaking, siezing, or parts just falling out, followed by a horrible custumer service department as well as the most ill repute repair service in the industry. Which is better? They both suck as well as Ruger and Colt's revolver lines when compared to older S&W's, Ruger's, and Colt's. :barf:

Prices for revolvers have never been this high, but mass producing and cheap parts, they have never cost this little to make.

 

[Ala Dan]

chaim- No apology needed Sir. You have every right
to your opinion. I was taught to respect other person's
opinion's.

Big Bad .45 Wolf- double action firing, as well as single
action firing could not be smoother than with my Smith
& Wesson 629-5 "Classic" .44 magnum. And heck, its
not even a DX model. Other persons, like myself who
are accustomed to the old Smith's really good trigger's
find it hard to believe; that this new model is so great!

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

 

[Brian Williams]

I have both S&W and Taurus Revolvers
S&W
mod 66 (no dash) 4", 65-2 4", 60-4 3", 13-4 3"
Taurus Trackers
357 6" 2years old, 45 Colt 2month old 4"

I have a smattering of S&W's and some fairly new Taurii

The S&W's have better triggers, but not by much.
The 45 colt Tracker has the heaviest trigger but it is still smooth
the trackers and the mod 60 stack cause of coil springs

Accuracy wise they are all in the same catagory
More capable than I am

All of the S&W's have great fit and finish.
The Trackers have great fit and a smooth bead blast over all

S&W #1
Taurus #1.5 A little clunky design, stiff triggers

I love shooting 45 Colt in a K frame Whooooooeeeeee!!!!

 

[NAVIGATOR]

Taurus as good as a Smith?? Someone may be smoking some "funny stuff" if they say and believe that!

The decision between the two is a "no brainer" as far as I'm concerned. I either save-up and buy a new S&W or buy a low-mileage used one for the same money, perhaps, as a new Taurus.

As with most things--you get what you pay for. (If you are lucky.)

 

[dairycreek]

Over the last 10 years............

I've owned six Taurus revolvers in 38 or 38/357. All were NIB when I got them and only factory ammo was used. Three of the revolvers had to be sent back to the factory for serious repair. Taurus did fix them but it took about six weeks per revolver. One had to be retured to the factory twice. Despite the stuff written about the Taurus improvement in quality control I am still very leery about buying another one. On the other hand I have never had a problem with a Smith & Wesson product. Sorry! I just won't buy a Taurus product any more. Good shooting

 

[omega5]

I've owned numerous Smiths and 2 Taurus'. A PT22 that was "ok" and a m85 that flat sucked. Cylinder would jam and when it didn't it wouldn't stage in double action for love or money.
Go with the S&W's.

 

[Frenchy]

I've never owned a Taurus but I've shot several. It certainly isn't a bad gun for the money. In my opinion, the fit and finish isn't quite up to the newer Smiths, and isn't even close to the older ones. This isn't a knock on Taurus, it's just that both brands are what they are.

 

[cslinger]

I have no experience owning a Taurus but...

It seems like for every 1 good report hear about Taurus I hear 3 or 4 bad reports. I realize this isn't exactly empirical evidence but as a rule the only thing bad I ever hear about S&W besides their politics centers around those God awful Sigmas.

Sure every once in a while I talk to somebody who got a bad S&W revo and more often a bad semi-auto but they are the exception to the rule. The big complaint is that S&W just doesn't make em' like they used to, but who does honestly.

I think you get a lot of gun for the money with Taurus and I really like their CIA series and that new .45 ACP but being the kind of person who hates sending anything back for work, I always find myself saying just get the Ruger or the Smith, as statistically speaking I think I have a better chance of getting a good one.

Now as for the PT92, the Beretta clone, everybody I have ever known to own one, simply loves them. I don't think you could go wrong there.

Chris

 

[Scarborough]

As has been mentioned, the firearms press since the mid 80's have reported that Taurus quality is improving. I have zero experience with the revolver line since then and I intend to maintain that position until I no longer read about ''improved'' quality. Be careful.

 

[Onslaught]

I had a Taurus 85UL (Ultralight .38) and my father has both a 605 (.357) and a 94UL (Ultralight .22).

None of ours have ever given us any trouble at all, and in fact, have been very accurate for a snubbie.

I do have to say though, Dad's S&W .22 Magnum (built on the K frame I believe... no longer in production) Is the sweetest, most accurate revolver I have ever seen! And that trigger is very nice indeed.

When I decide between the two myself, it will be based on overall dimensions, weight, and $$$ difference rather than quality concerns. I have complete confidence in the Taurus revolvers.

And yes, the 3 Beretta 92 clones in the family (PT92, 99, & 100) have been flawless as well

 

[adk]

Taurus seems more like Art than Engineering.

 

[john kilgore]

A .45 in a K-frame ?????

Tell us more !!

Who did work ??

With .45acp, 5-shots ?? Pressures shouldn't be a problem ???

 

[JohnK]

I think he's refering to Taurus standard 5 shot 45 Colt which is built on their medium (aka K size) frame. They make "K" frame guns in 45 Colt and 45 ACP.