Okay I was in the market for a 357 and I wanted your input on what you think. I would like a stainless steel Smith Model 65. I also saw the Taurus Model 65 and I was like hmmmm.... Mighty attractive I do have to say... So thats what I am looking at now. I can get an older Smith Model 65 for over $400 in decent USED shape or I can get the Taraus brand NEW for about $350. No factory warranty on the Smith but the Taurus you do have the warranty. I have no k frame Smith parts and accessories but I have a lot of medium frame Taurus parts. I dont like the Taurus internal lock system but the Smith does not have that. Also the Smith is a way better shooter. I would like stainless steel but the new blued Taraus revolvers are beautiful! With that being said a used blued finish Smith 357 might be under 400 dollars maybe... I also saw the Taurus Model 66 and it has a 7 shot cylinder for under 400 bucks! Mighty tempting on that too... What do you think? What other pluses and minuses of the two makes am i not seeing here??? Thanks!

I would rather have the Taurus lock than Smiths lock. If you can get a Smith with no lock for under $400 or $500 in good shape, you better buy it.

__________________
Two Handguns every day

The big plus will probably be if you ever go to sell it. An extra round isn't big tome. Stainless is much more worry free and easier to touch up well if you pack it around and get holster wear, little dings etc. I don't hate Taurus, but I would always pony up another $50 if that's what it took to get the S&W I really wanted.

Some people hate Taurus guns and have had bad experiences with them. I have a 431 which is about a K framed sized gun that is a 5 shot 44 special. I liked it but, it wasn't a Smith, and when I found a deal on a 696 no dash I got it. Joke is I shoot the 431 as well as the 696. It is very nice gun. But, it is going to be going down the road soon.

I think you really want the Smith. You won't be disappointed.

__________________
Some collect art; I shoot it!

Guns are no different than anything else in life - you usually get what you pay for. I've never owned a Taurus revolver but did buy two stainless steel Taurus PT1911s for my son and myself. They looked like so much gun for the money that I couldn't resist.

Then when I got them home, reality started to set in. The finish on the stainless steel looked "dirty" compared to my S&W revolvers and 1911s. The triggers were a lot stiffer and rough. The ambidextrous safety levers were so much larger than those of other 1911s that grip panels had to be altered to fit. But they were "only" $600...

Twenty-five bucks each later, the triggers were less hateful. Both guns shot below the point of aim and pretty far to the left but the rear sights were only adjustable for windage so the low POI couldn't be addressed. I came to learn that absolutely no sight company makes an adjustable rear sight for the PT1911. Finally, most makers of .22LR conversion kits state in their advertising that their products are not compatible with a PT1911.

In other words, Taurus guns began as cheap copies of S&W revolvers and at least their 1911s apparently continue that tradition. They've improved some but they're still not of S&W quality. If/when you go to sell one, as I did with those two PT1911s, you'll learn that most people don't hold them in high regard.

Buy the older Smith & Wesson. You'll never have to explain why you bought an inferior gun and as far as it not having warranty coverage, there's a good chance you would never have to use it and if you ever would, plenty of local gunsmiths can work on an S&W. I had to talk to multiple gunsmiths before I could find one who would work on those PT1911s.

Ed

I would buy the smith. I've had two Taurus revolvers and well they aren't smiths. You get what you pay for. I probably won't ever buy another Taurus.

__________________
No gold. Only lead. Bobby

Couple of things:

The new Taurus "blued" is a matte black finish. So make sure you know what you're getting before you order online (disregard if you saw in person).

Second. I have a Taurus 2" model 65 blued, early 90's model. Very nice gun. Smooth, great finish, decent trigger. Fires a little low, but it's just a range gun that's fun to have and fun to shoot.

I have a Smith and Wesson model 66 6", early 80's. The trigger is night and day compared to the Taurus. Cost a little more. But it is a lot better than the Taurus.

I like the way the Taurus strips down better.

The trigger and accuracy on my Smiths (even the J Frames) is substantially better than the Taurus. But I knew what I would be sacrificing when I bought the Taurus. Got it fairly cheap.

If you're looking at a price difference of $350 for the Taurus and $400 for the Smith, I would get the Smith. I would even look at one of the police trade in's and get a 4" 64.

I think you will be happy either way though.

Yes awesome input thanks! The Smith would probably never break and so no real need for the warranty plus you can get parts anywhere for the Smith. The resale value will always remain for the Smith too! Interesting thing I have to add about Taurus so far from waht I have seen in my experience and from other Taraus owners is this. The Taurus factory warranty service is really good! They seem to take care of there customers. The Taurus semi autos I have seen are not that great. I sold a PT -145 with out blinking an eye even though I think they only made that one for one year! I dont care for the Taurus semis but the revolvers seem more to be there diamond in the rough.

Thats interesting so how is the Taraus better to break down than the Smith? I never took any Taraus revolvers apart before.

I hate the new Smith internal locks! Its like throwing a monkey wrench in a finely tuned machine in my opinion.

I have one Taurus revolver, Model 617, it's been a decent serviceable revolver; not great but not bad either. Understand Taurus firearms have little resale value, and repair work, if needed, can be slow and spotty.

__________________
Always Stay Strong!

Forget the Taraus. Save up your money and get a Smith Model 66 from the 1980's. It has everything you need and nothing you don't. Pretty gun for a SS too. I paid just a tad over $500 plus sales tax for this one last week. The M65 has just never appealed to me much.

Attached Images

M66-2 1983 Altamonts.jpg (130.3 KB, 72 views)

__________________
Dr. B

I wanted to add that I do have a Taraus Model 82 in 38 special. It an older model and in stainless steel and its a damn fine weapon for the money! So how does the old ones stack up to the new ones? I noticed there is some differences.

I do like those! have you owned a Taurus?

I do like the Smith 65 a lot! I noticed that the older models have recessed chambers and pinned barrels and i think the new models dont have this anymore. Is this true? Also can anyone tell me if the recessed chambers is good or bad? Seems like a good thing to me so why did Smith stop doing this?? I might have my info wrong here so forgive my ignorance.

Why do you like the 66 over the 65? Adjustable sights? Also what about the model 13s?? I might be able to find one of those for under $400. I am not really fixed on a certain gun. Just best quality at a good price.

Friends don't let friends buy Taurus

__________________
NRA Benefactor Member

I want the Smith.
So I can't possibly recommend anything else for you.

__________________
NRA LIFE MEMBER

I'm not so sure that a lot of the bad Taurus rap isn't spread just because someone said it was so. I don't currently own a Taurus, but have had a few in the past and they weren't bad guns. I do own a number of S&W's and even S&W puts out a few lemons.

Cheap vs quality is a decision that comes up in many products. It he Taurus were more expensive, the decision would be easier. But the Taurus is a budget line product vs the Smith which is considered higher quality.

You really never go wrong paying a little more for a higher quality piece of merchandise.

The Model 65-3 pictured in post #4 does not have the recessed cylinder or charge holes, which was stopped after the 65-2, I think. Not sure when the pinned barrel stopped. I much prefer the sleeker look of the recessed magnums (notice the tighter fit to the recoil shield) and the indication of bygone machining practices before it became a pricey and expendable feature. That said, the recesses make for an extra step (or 6) in cleaning the back of the cylinder. They shoot the same. Collectors lean toward the older guns, but shooters shouldn't care. This gun is wearing what I believe to be aftermarket Eagle grips which happen to provide a superb fit to my hand. Equally superb SA and DA trigger.

__________________
Some collect art; I shoot it!

So what is the real advantage of having a recessed cylinder ? Anything very significant?

Here is another monkey wrench to throw in the mix. I think the Colt revolvers were more expensive and superior to other revolver makes. They were more expensive to produce and more precise work and more parts put in them but yet I would go with the cheaper less quality Smith and Wesson revolver. To be honest I dont even want to mess with the Colt revolvers mostly because they are way to expensive and hard to get parts. I think more expensive is not necessarily the best.

I'm under the impression there is no advantage to recessed cylinders. Not from any shooting standpoint. It's just a .... pleasing detail. Pinned barrels are a completely different discussion however.

Just once it would be nice to have a thread about revolvers here without it degenerating into a discussion about the internal locks. The damned things don't do anything and the guns function exactly as if there was no lock.

A handgun is a very personal thing. If the OP really likes the Taurus over the Smith, by all means go with the Taurus. Me, I would take a Smith & Wesson over a Taurus every time. The difference in price is a couple of boxes of ammo. The Smith is a better gun and S&W is a better company. You get what you pay for with firearms and long after you have forgotten about the modest price difference you will have the revolver.

My $.02.

__________________
Army veteran, NRA Life Member

I think everyone has me wrong here I would much rather have a Smith revolver but the new Taurus is an attractive deal also mostly because it would be new. New is nice because you know exactly what your getting and it has a warranty. I have bought new firearms that were broke right out of the box. Recently I bought a Mossberg shotgun that would not cycle shells. Mossberg sent me a new shotgun immediate with no questions asked! I also had an issue with a new Charter Arms revolver and they had it sent back to me in perfect working order within a couple of weeks! But I recently purchased a used Smith revolver and the hammer broke off the first time shooting it. Contrary to popular belief Smith and Wesson parts are not always easy and cheap to get. It cost me over $100 dollars to drop in a new hammer. That sucked! I guess the question here is to buy used on a Smith for more money that might be better quality and take a gamble or buy the Taraus new for less and know exactly what your getting.

Push a tight cleaning patch down a new Smith and a new Colt revolver bore. There is a huge difference.

We can't get Smith parts any more, either, at least not for the pre mim guns. Just try to get a hammer mounted firing pin for, say, a 66-1. Ubobtanium.

Also i want to add it would be an online deal because Taurus and Smith revolvers are hard to come by around here... I guess know one around here sells there 357 revolvers??? I know my mom loves her Taurus 357 and she will not part with it trust me I tried to convince her on a trade. lol

I dont really like buying used on the internet but there is not much of another option for me for a used Smith and Wesson. I would rather buy used on something I can put my hands on first. There is a local gun shop that is selling some used k frame Smith revolvers but the guy wants way to much for them and they look like they were pulled from the bottom of the Titanic and then used as baseball bats...

This is so true! I cant really find some of there Smith revolver parts anymore! What is up with that??? I had a real hard time finding a hammer for a model 36 that I recently bought. Really??? They made thousands of those! I should be able to pick a j frame hammer off a tree but the stupid little thing cost more than 100 dollars and it was new old stock. It was the only hammer I could find from some old timer that was hording Smith parts

Okay Im going to really put a monkey wrench in things now. That Ruger GP-100 though! Daaaayum!

Not to ditch the bull or any other revolver but I'd prefer a nice S&W to any of them (ruger, colt, etc).
But this is the S&W forum.

Perhaps blasphemy on this site, but my favorite medium framed .357 Magnum revolver is the Ruger Security Six line. Unfortunately, they can be hard to find at a decent price. I'm lucky enough to have two of them, one blued steel, and one in stainless steel - both have 4.0 inch long barrels.

Regards,

Dave

In a word, no.

If you ever look at a cutaway cross section of either a 38 spl or 357 mag case, you will see that there is a lot of solid brass above the rim in both. The notion that a recessed cylinder provides any significant additional case support is a quaint but incorrect notion.

From a practical perspective, I actually prefer non-recessed, since it eliminates one more place for fouling to inevitably build up.

Lou

__________________
NRA Certified Instructor & RSO

Forgive me but Im not following your thinking here. I would think that the recessed chamber would help with cycling and shooting poor quality ammo and also help extract the casing easier. But I never had experience with one that is recessed but I have had plenty of revolvers that I have seen NOT recessed and have cycling problems due to having cheap steel cased ammo and such...

I like the security 6 but I dont think they make that one any more plus I hated the ergonomics of the gun. It was the worst to shoot full magnum loads through compared to all the others I have shot IMHO

I don't think there is any contest. I'd MUCH rather have a Smith revolver than a Taurus.

When I was looking for a .357, I could buy a Ruger, but I bit the bullet and got a 686 and I'm glad I did. I hear that Taurus customer service is pretty awful. That's just what I've read so somebody correct me if I'm wrong please.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Yeah I agree with that I prefer the Smith in fact Smith and Wesson is my favorite make for all older revolvers and semi autos. I dont care for the new Smith stuff... The Ruger and the Taurus are hard to beat for the price though. For example some of the new Ruger revolvers in my hands feels like what Smith used to be like. To be honest a new stainless Smith feels like a stainless Taurus with just an itty bitty little nicer trigger pull to it. That to me does not justify the price they want for a new k frame revolver. Its like the same thing as a new Harley Davidson. Yea its a nice bike but your paying more for the name than you think and the Honda in some ways is a better quality bike over the Harley. But hey dont forget that resale value! The Harley trumps all other bikes in that department. Same goes with the Smith and Wesson. I would go with the Smith on a used gun but the Ruger or Taurus for a new gun.

Did you buy new??? That Ruger though! Its hard to beat new for that price. I think I could take a new stainless GP 100 and shoot a million full magnum loads through the piece of junk and than use it as a hammer to build Noahs ark with the thing and it would never break..

A used Smith & Wesson beats new Taurus ANY DAY..

Most likely TWO new Taurus'

The dimensions of any chamber (recessed or not) should be identical if they were machined to SAAMI specs (which each style of chamber should be). Therefore there is no practical difference in chamber dimensions between the two styles that would affect the gun's ability to chamber out-of-spec or "marginal" ammo.

Ease of extraction can be affected by chamber dimensions and finish quality, not whether it's recessed or not. It's also highly dependent on the ammo itself, which is the other half of the equation. (ammo variables include ammo case dimensions, case material, case coating (relevant for steel), powder charge, etc.)


Lou

__________________
NRA Certified Instructor & RSO

The Smith. Every time. Tauruses (Taurusii?) just aren't as refined as even latter-day S&W revolvers.

There's also the economy of it. Let's say you buy a used Smith and Wesson for $450. We'll call it an even $500 by the time we're done, just for the hell of it.

When you go to sell it, what's it going to be worth? Well, even if you buy poorly, probably $400. Owning the gun really only cost you $100.

Now let's say you get that new Taurus for $350. I'll be really generous and say that $350 is the out-the-door price, with taxes and transfer fees and God-knows-what-else included. What's a Taurus going to be worth a few years down the road? Personally, I think you would be quite lucky to get $250 for it. I know at least one shop owner who won't take them in trade, they're simply too hard to get rid of.

So at worst, the S&W costs exactly as much as the Taurus. Conservatively it could end up costing less.

One of the reasons why I enjoy guns, btw--they hold their value if you do your homework.

Can't really consider this as relevant to the discussion as this was a long time ago and I think Taurus's QC might have improved while maybe S&W's has declined, but I'll share anyway.
A long time ago when I would setup at local gun shows on a regular basis, I noticed that the vast majority of handguns that individuals were bringing to the shows to sell or trade were Taurus. Their story was always pretty much the same; there's nothing wrong with it but just wanted something else. I could tell that most guns were LNIB but for some reason the owners were ready to sell/swap for something else. IMO, most were first time buyers and were shopping bottom line price only. I don't recall ever acquiring one as they just had no resale value or appeal. This was a long time ago though.

Well, I wouldn't sweat the choice between say....a Ruger or a S&W, but I wouldn't own any more Taurus's, I MIGHT consider an old Rossi....but I have owned a few Taurus's and ALL of them were junk. Revolver, semi...didn't matter. Had to basically give them away for a fraction of what was paid.....they have a bad rep on just about every aspect from customer service to quality of almost every part on them. And I'm sure there are some nice ones, but none ever came my way. So never again. But some things you need to find out for yourself, so buy what you like! You may get a winner in the Taurus, but you won't even have to think about any issues if you buy the S&W. Sure, they can have issues too, I've had Rugers and S&W's with issues but all fixable either by the factory or local gunsmiths. Just know that that Taurus at $350 new is the PEAK of it's value, good luck getting $200 for it later if you ever decide to sell it! Good luck with the decision!

I would have to agree for the most part. At least in my limited experience.
Maybe someone from the Taurus collectors assn. will chime in.

Back in my first post to this thread, I mentioned that disposing of those Taurus PT1911s I bought was not easy. It also was costly - guns I bought for $600 (plus sales tax, of course) took a month to sell for $450. I know that anything used being sold while new ones are available will not bring as much as the seller would like but when I decided to sell my Kimber 1911s after replacing them with S&Ws, they all sold quickly and for an acceptable amount.

That is one of the reasons I always recommend that people buy the best item they can afford. Not only will they probably receive better service from a better product, selling it if that ever becomes desirable is so much easier. I bought one set of Lee carbide dies because no other brand was available in that caliber, used them once and put them up for sale. It took several months to find someone who would take a $38 set of dies for $20 and then only if I including the shipping in the price.

I didn't mean to stir up the Lee lovers but thems the facts.

Ed

A lot of places will let you make payments. For the money and if limited to one gun I would buy a snub nose stainless Ruger. I have shot several but never owned one.

I haven't. Troubleshot plenty of them on the range for others, though . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

There's a Taurus Collectors Association????

Just Googled the answer. There is, but I'm a GM guy.

I think the S&W 65 3" is the best carry .357 ever built and I do currently carry one... so I am quite biased. I would buy the Smith, no question.

On that note, my only experience with Taurus revolvers is that I had a Taurus M85 .38 snubbie in the 1990s as a backup gun for work. It functioned great, not a hitch and had great trigger (for a snubbie). It was as accurate as any S&W snubbie I've owned since and the fit and finish were actually really nice for a $225 BNIB gun. I have nothing bad to say about it and I regret selling it.

Ok, new guy here (who has lurked for a while)...For me...S&W over a new Taurus to be sure. My wife got herself a Taurus model 85 (5 shot .38 spl/+P) and the first time I shot it I remember thinking how annoying it was to shoot and that I would likely never shoot it again. The double action pull and feel was just plain horrible (IMHO). I had some trigger work done which has surely made it more acceptable and fun to shoot but my Smiths (Both 686's) shot very nice right out of the case. Frankly, if I was a young guy on a budget I would be tempted by price but I am at a point in my life where I would much rather shell out more cash to get a higher quality firearm. Before I bought my Smiths I shot my brothers older GP100 and I loved it so much I bought a GP100 Match Champion (4.2" bbl) which is a nice gun and a decent shoot but it does not shoot like my 686 Smiths (3" Talo and 4" Davidson's GOG Exclusive). Now, that said, I paid a bit extra for the Smiths to get the forged hammer and trigger and the GOG exclusive has a "Hand Stoned Trigger, Hammer Foot & Rebound Seat, Reduced Rebound Spring" with the work supposedly being done by the PC folks at S&W. Will I keep my Ruger? Heck yeah, it is still one heck of a tank with a top strap and frame that will spit out constant magnum loads and just keep on shooting and I am probably not being fair because this model does shoot pretty nice even though I give the edge to my 686's.