I'll try to give everyone my honest opinion on Taurus firearms and others, not that anyone really cares, from my time selling firearms at a FFL with a live fire range.

I do not have love for Taurus. I've seen far too many come back for repairs for many different issues. I'm not talking a specific model. I'm referring to the entire product line. That being said I have also seen nearly as many Shield 1.0 brought in for repair as I have Taurus as a whole. I would account the fact that there are far more Shields out there being used that Taurus. I have heard plenty of horror stories from our range officers regarding Taurus along with the Shields.

From what I've seen for repairs/malfunctions I would personally not purchase:

Taurus Firearms
Ruger LCP 1.0
S&W Shield 1.0
Kimber Micro series pistols
Hi-Point (solely because you never know if you'll actually get a decent magazine)
Stoeger M3500
Browning A5 (new production)
Remington 770 or 783
Remington 870 (new production is incredibly poor quality)
AR-15s with Polymer lower receivers
Mossberg 702 Plinkster

Im sure I can keep going but these models really stick out in my mind for firearms I've either personally had issues with or seen requiring repair frequently or both.

Don't get me wrong I've seen almost every brand need repair or have a factory defect but some are much more frequent than others.

Off topic... I'm just curious because I currently own two 1.0 Shields (one's a PC model)... What issues were they having? I want under the impression that the 1.0 and 2.0 had basically the same internals...

I'm still waiting for you to tell me how many police departments in America trust the Taurus brand to protect their boys in blue. The fact that departments are just as inclined to use s&w as they are glock and sig, STILL says everything about why Taurus can't make the lineup.

I've owned 3 different Taurus trackers. Two of them in .44 magnum, one in .22lr. ALL OF THEM SPIT LEAD into my hands. ALL OF THEM had garbage triggers. Again, I was a rangemaster for several years, and I've seen twice as many Taurus owners leave unhappy as smith owners. If one of my officers brought a Taurus onto the range or into my PD, they'd be laughed all the way to the local academy. Your local law enforcement doesn't trust Taurus, and neither should you. We don't always do what we should do though, so do the best you can for yourself.

Buying a budget gun is equivalent to buying a budget motorcycle helmet. If you've got a $50 brain, the $50 helmet will work just fine. If you value your life more than that, spending the extra money is an investment in ones self.

I've seen many Shield 1.0s with FTF & FTE issues. The weirdest thing I've seen is that the slide over extends to the rear, due to the tilting barrel, the barrel wedges itself extremely tight in the barrel port(can't think of a better term) on the slide. I've seen it happen on nearly a dozen different guns. It locks up so tight that I've seen people have to hit the rear of the slide with a rubber/plastic mallet to free them up. Our range officers have seen more first hand than I have.

As far as the differences between the 1.0 & 2.0 go I'm not exactly sure. The slide is milled slightly different and the trigger was updated, I'm not sure about the rest of the internals. I've excused the 2.0 because it has only been out for roughly a year or two and I haven't seen many if any issues with them as far as I can remember.

Now they are making pretty decent guns, especially their semi autos. They aren't Barettas but they are decent.

The problem is that over the years they have had some periods of very poor quality interspersed with some of good quality. It's really hard to know in an older gun. I've heard people that loved them and those that said they were junk.

If I want a revolver cheaper than a Smith I'll go with Ruger.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Hey Smoke, that video was certainly disturbing, but I don't speak Portuguese and I'm wondering if it was something like "I took this from some idiot that fancied himself a gunsmith. He had just shot himself in the leg!"

__________________
Time wounds all heels

I thought I already addressees this illogical way of thinking. You choose to ignore it. American police departments carry Glock, Sig, and M&P mostly. Using you logic, does that relegate everything else they do not carry to being unreliable and unworthy? What is also illogical is thing that just because L.E. carry one or two particular models from one particular brand, that somehow every other make and model manufactured by that same company will also be just as reliable... Using your logic, just because departs carry the P320, I should be able to trust a P365 because police departments carry Sigs, correct?

Also, other politics and red tape go into L.E. contracts and why one company might get a contract while others do not that have absolutely nothing to do with whether the firearm is reliable or not. For one off the top of my head example, the Karh K6 was once issued by the largest police department in the U.S., the NYPD. During it's tenure, NYPD wanted Kahr to make the trigger 13LBs. Kahr was unable to oblige, so the NYPD switched to Glocks. At that point in time, Kahrs were no longer carried by any police department in the U.S (Dec 2011)... Using you're flawed logic and because Kahr no longer manufactured firearms carried by L.E., I guess at the very moment Kahrs became unreliable too? The boys in blue couldn't trust anything less than a 12lb trigger, so neither should we correct? On the other hand, If the NYPD still carried them till this day, all Karhs could be considered reliable?

As was pointed out to me in a S&W bashing thread, the M&P isn't used by any real military, and is going out of favor with police departments. From what I could find, only 5 or so departments still issue them. Glock reportedly makes up 70%-75% of the firearms issued by departments in the U.S. Sig is at approx 22% and rising. M&P is at only 3% and dropping quick. FYI just a few years ago, M&P usage was in double digits (15%+). From what I could gather, some of the hold out departments are keeping their M&Ps for financial reasons. In one case, S&W offered free replacements to the Columbus Police Department to keep them from switching. That saved the CPD $400,000... Otherwise, they would have dropped S&W as well.

Only 3% (and dropping) of L.E. and no military that I know of carry S&W Military and Police pistols, yet you made the claim that it was FACT that "departments are just as inclined to use s&w as they are glock and sig?"

To answer your question, no U.S. department carries Taurus firearms. As I pointed out, your correlation does not equal causation.Your logic is flawed. Departments do not issue and do not carry a plethora of the firearms made advalible to the public for various reason. To ignore this fact is willful ignorance. To only single out Taurus shows bias... No one plays the "military" and "police" issuance card with Ruger or any of the dozens of other firearm companies.

I answered your question, now please answer mine.. When the percentage of of U.S. police departments who issue the M&P drops to ZERO and the "boys in blue" stopped carrying them, will you be selling all your M&Ps? Your logic says you should...

My best Yoda~~ Your head over it went.

The whole point was how dumb, and silly it is to have hebejeebees over others choices. And to be so susceptible to others whims.

OTH being able to think for one's self is liberating.

Just for the record, I have a near perfect 50's era K-38 Heavy Masterpiece with everything except the paperwork. I also had a high-condition 6906, 28-2 and a 19-4 which my grandson now has. I had a like new HB 10-5 which my daughter now has. None have front sights that are off center or other problems being reported with later models. Very nice guns.
I bought three Shield 9mms. My nearly 94 year old arms or my daughter could never consistently rack the slide. I sold one and my grandson and great grandson have the others. They have a few rounds through them now and are OK but all had malfunctions until shot a little.
I bought the G2C because the fit and finish was good and the function turned out really good. They also were easy to rack and really fit my hand, as they did my daughters. They will outlast me.
If I wasn't so damned old I would be searching for a 27-2 and some others but I will leave that up to my grandson. And just to quit on a note that will make some of your already turned up noses go even higher, I bought a Hi-Point 9mm Carbine that also functions with no problems and shoots accurately. It did have a couple of malfunctions in the first three magazines but after that none.
I will leave it at that.

__________________
Mighty 90's,Trying 4 a 100!

Many years ago I went to my local gun shop to buy a Smith & Wesson Stainless Steel Chief's Special. They had one in stock.

However, the dealer showed me a SS Taurus Model 85 and said it was better.

First of all - $85 cheaper, plus it had a transfer bar which was much safer than the Smith. It was to be my carry, so I bought it.

At the time the $ difference was needed, since I had a young family and did not want to waste money.

Fast forward 25 years or so, and the old Taurus still shoots like a dream.

Now I have a lot of disposable income, and my collection includes 14, 17, 19, 41, 27, 39-2 and other Smiths, and yes, a Chief's Special.

The Chief's has a better trigger, and I suppose it has better accuracy, but as hard as I try, I still can't say anything bad about the Taurus.

My one and only Taurus experience has been with a model 970 in 22 lr, vintage year 2000. At that time, I just wanted a 22 plinker. I believe it cost about $250 or so. The new Smiths were at least twice that price back then. I don't believe Ruger offered a DA 22 at that time, at least I don't recall them offering one.

So, I got the Taurus over the Smith due to price differential, especially just for a plinker.

In summary, after thousands of rounds down the tube in the past nearly 2 decades, the revolver has never failed to function, in any way.

It is as accurate as I can hold it. And that's the chief con I have with this Taurus: although the trigger break is crisp with no creep, it is quite a stiff break - 5.5 pounds in SA.

I recently ordered some reduced tension Wolff trigger and hammer springs, and I'm hoping this lightens the trigger break. The hammer cock is also stiff, but the cylinder rotation is as smooth as my Smiths.

This model 970 Taurus sports a fairly large frame for a 22, and the cylinder exhibits zero end shake.

Pic:



Bayou52

__________________
Bayou52
NRA Life Member

Oh I definitely answered you, and I enjoyed doing it SO much, that I'll do it at least one more time for you...

Sig and Glock ALSO being used as well as S&W means that they are all acceptable firearms to use for law enforcement application. Taurus does not have a firearm that has EVER been deemed fit to use for an entire PD. Surely you can see that difference. When they get completely phased out (AS ALL FIREARMS EVENTUALLY DO, not just smith's), it will have served an American police force as a duty gun. Will that full size Taurus semi-auto? No. Absolutely not. Why you ask? Substandard performance.

Notice the lack of Taurus revolvers when you shoot IDPA and iCORE? They are nonexistent in competitive shooting.

You don't have to take my word for it. Take every every American police departments word for it.

__________________
Ban this man,
'89

I would never trust a Rolls Royce, after all no police dept uses them. They have to be junk. Decades ago no officer was allowed to wear sport shoes on duty, now many of them do. I don't think they issue Nike though.

Manufacturers like Ruger, and Taurus also refuse to stick it to their loyal customers to afford giving guns away to LE. Both Smith, Glock, and Sig sell their guns to government at drastically reduced prices, in Glock's case what they charged was below a cost of a new Hi Point. I have a problem with a company that will shaft the public for free publicity.

I'm 10 for 10 on Taurus firearms, both revolvers and semiautos.
They range from 1991 to 2007 manufacture dates.
Never a single problem.
I'd love to get another 431 and 65.

That said, yes my S&Ws are nicer, and my 3rd gen Smiths will cycle empty brass.

Then again, I've heard of people having problems with Charter Arms revolvers, and that has not been my experience.

__________________
What would Jim Cirillo do?

Oh okay, so if they phase the 1.0 out because they weren't good enough, and there on every pistol no matter what model, capacity, design, etc is good to go all based on the fact that L.E. choose to carry ONE particular model years prior? Doesn't make a lot of logical sense there buddy...

I'll point out the obvious. Taurus does not manufacture firearms geared for competition. Their focus is the home defence and carry market. Whereas Ruger and Smith do. Not that a Taurus couldn't be used, it just wouldn't be very competitive. Plus, aftermarket support is lacking for anything other than Glock, Smiths, and CZ which is why they're so popular...

Again, you seen to base whether a gun company makes a reliable product or not based on of they ever at any point in time had at least one model of their firearms carried by L.E. or used in competition. I base my opinion on personal experience as well as the consensus that I've seen, heared, and read from actual owners, not not from people who don't own and/or may have never owned said firearm..

You should read up on "causation does not equal correlation" because that's the fallacy you continue to base your argument on... There can be and is a number of reasons why many of the hundreds of firearm models on the market aren't used by L.E. or in competition. Many of which may have absolutely nothing to do with reliability. You want to ignore every other possible reason that doesn't support your basedless claims. You haven't even produced any evidence showing that Taurus ever even applied for a contract to even be rejected, and if they did, what was the reason for the rejection. You simply make assumptions and baseless correlation to support your argument..

I’m glad that you like the Taurus OP but if you’re yardstick is 250 rounds your bar is set pretty low. I understand that Taurus has come a long way in recent years but I’ll happily pay more for a S&W or a Glock every day of the week over a Taurus for my own piece of mind.

__________________
Some Might Say.

From the originator of the challenge

You can go over to Pistolforum and find a 42 page thread detailing people's results.

A noted gun reviewer Tamara Keel includes a 2000 round challenge with every gun she reviews

__________________
Retired Career Security Guard

I for one support completely your decision to buy the firearm you want. There is no reason to bash your decision, to do so would be extremely juvenile.

As far as THIS discussion is concerned if your opening statement is that this is "Just a info for Taurus bashers" I can't help but think that you started the thread looking for a fight and you really shouldn't be upset when people accommodate you.

__________________
Retired Career Security Guard

Just curious, but how many of your S&W firearms have you subjected to this level of abuse?

If the answer is "all of them" - or even any of them for that matter - then remind me never to buy a used gun you're selling. If the answer isn't all of them - or if it is none of them then - your argument is kinda irrelevant.

Well, you all have really got me curious now. I’ve never shot a Taurus but was given a little 2” 5-shot Taurus revolver today. It’s a .38 sp about the size of a j frame.
Trigger felt a little rough but it needs a good thorough cleaning and I haven’t had time to really look at it yet.
Can’t wait to shoot it and see how it compares to my other guns. Cost me nothing so nothing to lose!

__________________
SWCA #1917

I only have two Smith & Wesson firearms. I did a 2000 round challenge with the M&P I'm not doing one with the 4006.

__________________
Retired Career Security Guard

EXACTLY!!!
The post begins with the laughable title, then ends with the incomprehensible:
"Please don't come on with bad procedure, I know how."

At first, I thought it was a joke, but maybe it's just cantakerous antagonism?

It does not matter whether the title, the bashing always happens in any Taurus thread. The OP tongue in cheek used a little sarcasm knowing full well what would happen IMO. Personally I don't have a problem with that as the BS that comes is on the people laying that BS down.

But for the haters this thread has taken a turn they did not expect, support, and responding to the haters with confidence. I am sure those same haters are now going to cry foul. Always happens when a bashing puppy pile does not go as planned.

Heh. You guys are great. I love it when folks are so passionate about their firearms. Freedom, baby!
I'm also really thankful that we have as many choices as we do. Not many places in the world where folks can choose any make, any model, any caliber.
And finally, I'm glad I have enough confidence in my own firearms knowledge that I don't feel like I have to follow anyone's lead on what I want in my safe. The only "approval" I need is my own. I don't mean that as an insult to anyone, it's just fact.
Something that struck me just now is how folks on other brands' forums have the same discussions with different favorites and guns they wouldn't own. I guess it goes to show that opinions and a certain orifice really do have one thing in common.... everybody's got one. And God knows, I'm one opinionated you-know-what. Sorry about that.
I'm enjoying the discussion. Thanks!

In 2006, I owned a PT1911 that had such poor slide to frame fit, at about around 1000 rounds, it was sheering metal off the frame.

In 2010, I bought a new M44 and that massive timing issues, would not lock the cylinder on DA.

I do not own either now, nor will I buy another Taurus any time soon.

I have crawled through this whole long thread and find little actual bashing in it but mostly members expressing a negative opinion of Taurus firearms.
Those that do not like Taurus firearms have often stated their reasons, as did those that like them. Some have first hand experience, some don't.

We all have come to this forum because we have one thing in common, we are firearms enthusiasts. As everywhere else in life, there are different levels of firearms enthusiasts from novices to top performing competitive shooters. At competitions I have seen very few Taurus firearms used by advanced shooters, actually cannot remember having seen one used in A class.

Finally, we are not all alike in our expectations, nor in the level of our disposible income and if someone chooses a Taurus and is happy with it, it should be accepted. It should also be accepted that others have a different opinion and expectations of a firearm.

I have often enough been thrown into the class of old men with too much money and too little knowledge about firearms because I collect Korth revolvers, so why should somebody owning Taurus firearms fare better and expect to be hailed and celebrated for his choice?

I have never owned a Taurus so wont bash them. However I do own some S&W's, Colts and Ruger's and I am very pleased with them. I have always applied the logic of "Cheep things aren't nice and nice things aren't cheep" to my collecting.

Fun thread. I enjoyed reading both the bashers and the fans. I'm not loyal to any one brand. My pistols include S&W, Ruger, Bersa, Taurus, Sig Sauer, CZ, and TriStar. Of those a TriStar suffered a broken firing pin. A Sig Sauer suffered a sear pin that had backed out, and a Bersa suffered from a lost spring clip. The others have been perfect. Does that mean the Sig, Bersa and the TriStar are junk and the others are perfect? Probably not.

I'm not much into revolvers. I only have experience with three - a 15-2, a Taurus 82, and a Heritage 22LR. The Heritage suffered a broken hand spring. The Taurus and the Smith have been perfect.

The one I paid the least for was the Heritage. The one I paid most for was a Sig, but my favorite one to shoot is also one of the least expensive. It's the TriStar.

Edited to add: There is one thing I dislike about the Taurus pistol. It often bounces the brass from the last round in a magazine off the top of my head. It doesn't do that every time, but often enough to be annoying.

__________________
Or something like that . . .

Nothing germane to handguns, but the only Taurus product I own is their Model 63 .22 rifle, a knockoff of the Winchester Model 63. I have fired thousands of rounds through it without incident, and in all respects it seems to be well-made and functional. I can fault it only in regard to its finish, which is not up to Winchester's quality, especially the wood finish. I did refinish the wood myself, and at least it is now a little closer to that of a Winchester. I think I paid around $200 for it maybe 13 years ago. I already have gotten more than my money's worth out of it. I have seen several at gun shows priced in the $600 range (it's out of production by Taurus today).

Why all the hate? I have several Tauri, and have yet to have one fail me, after literally thousands of rounds. I also have way more others than I need, and sadly, the Smiths and Rugers have made trips back to the factory. They are keepers as well, and I carry ALL of them in my rotation.

Forget the haters, they know not what they do!

MHO

I'm the same exact way. I'm not loyal to one brand either. Since I got into firearms, I owned Phoenix Arms, Rugers, S&Ws, Sigs, Kel Tecs, DiamondBacks, CZs, Springfield Arms, Taurus, Kahrs, Remingtons, and Walthers. I like like guns, and it doesn't matter how much they cost or who makes them. All that matters to me is that it goes BANG when I pull the trigger.

With that said, I've noticed a trend. When people get one or two bad Taurus firearms of one particular model, does not matter if it was 30 years ago or 10 years ago, they'll swear off all Taurus firearms for life. It does not matter if the problematic gun is no longer being made, if the issues were fix, if Taurus improved, or how much time has passed. Taurus made an enemy for life, and they'll spend the rest of their lives sharing their misfortune as if it just happened yesterday.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with how a consumer reacts to a bad experience; however, I think there's a double standard. I know for a fact that there have been many people who have been burnt by S&W, Ruger, Sig, Colt, Glock, etc over the years, yet I do not hear many disgruntled owners claiming that they stopped buying all guns from that manufacturer. That since their S&W revolver had problems back in 1980 or 2000, and S&W didn't fix it, they've never owned a S&W since and never will again for example...

Sig P320 and the Shield 1.0 would go off if dropped, so a recall was issued. Walther just issued a recall on the PPS M2. The PPS M2 has barrel peening. The Sig P365 has/had a lot of issues. Springfield XDs had safety issues, so there was a recall. S&W forcing cones were cracking on their revolvers, they were sending out canted barrels, the lock reportedly was malfunctioning, and more. The S&W EZ just had a recall. God forbid if it was Taurus that had any of these issue. People look past these issues or just try and get a good one (like the guy in the video). They wait until the issue is fix, and then forgive and forget... For example, once the P365 is 100%, people will buy again. Heck, they're still lining up to buy them now... If Taurus had those same issues and fixed them, people would still never buy one and would go one a holy crusade to bash Taurus till their last breath... People would say "you get what you pay for," and "that's why I buy S&W, Sig, Ruger, etc and not Taurus!"

I'm not bashing S&W or any company. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy that goes on in the gun community and how all gun companies have problems.. Within the past few years when people have been complaining about QC, safety issues, and recalls the Taurus name has been noticeablely absent, yet they still get bashed the most....

Are you going after a straw man now? I never said anything about reliability that I can see. I said they filled a niche market for some people, you're obviously one; I'm good with that, you should be too. I ultimately said that one should buy a S&W instead; because they are better than Taurus. You've admitted all of that right? I'm para phrasing but, "Taurus hasn't ever had an American PD contract", and "Taurus does not manufacture firearms geared toward competition". Sounds like they make an inferior product... any gun can be converted for competition, there's a reason people don't do it with the Taurus brand; inferior product.

You are going to ride the 1.0 having issues into the dirt though. That's just one model. How many different S&W models have been contracted through American police departments. Wow... it would take us a while to get through that list.

I said it in my original post, I said it in the beginning of this post, and I'll say it one more time; Taurus fits a niche market, if it appeals to you good for you, but there are clearly better options.

If you aren't arguing that Taurus is better than S&W than you've already agreed with me.

__________________
Ban this man,
'89

Gentlemen,

in addition to my previous posts I want to clarify my point and add that wide generalizations on gun manufacturers are going to be widely inaccurate.

I had poor experiences with S&W revolvers from the 1980s and 1990 that needed work to reach their full potential. I had one Korth that had the forcing cone cut so poorly that it did not group at all; at 25 yards I had a spread of one foot, a little disappointing with a $6,000 revolver.

It has been established that there are Taurus revolvers that work well, as it has been established that there are lemons. That other manufacturers have guns that should not have made it past quality control is obvious and if you get a bad one and then have a negative experience with customer service - and that repeatably, makes it easy to understand why opinions vary and why there are many disparaging comments.

It is the history of disappointment that Taurus wrote itself by giving one of the worst customer services of the whole industry for decades and they will have to fight an uphill battle to remedy that.

See.. proved my point..

Interesting that a Taurus thread creates 80 some comments on a S&W forum... What is being done here is to justify the purchase of a lower quality firearm at a lower price. I understand there will always be a purchase point for lower priced items but you always get what you pay for... Just like the guy that buys a $100 scope for a deer rifle. Yes, it will get the job done until it doesn't any more... I don't want to be the guy without crosshairs in my scope or a failed Taurus.

Using your logic and litmus test, the mere fact that 75% of L.E. and most competition shooters use Glock is proof that Glock is superior to S&W, CZ, Walther, H&K, etc....

At this point, we're going around in circles. Again, I'll disagree with you and your premise that just because the L.E. are issued a firearm from a company that in itself makes that particular firearm and everything other firearm that company manufacturers better than every other company. It's an illogical line of though, and we will have to agree to disagree.

Sure, any gun can be converted for use; however, as I pointed out, some are better suited than others. Some models, like Glock, have more aftermarket support and parts availability they'll allow a Glock 19, for example, to be converted.

If you aren't talking about reliability, then what are you talking about? Taking reliability off the table, whether one gun is better than the other is a personal choice. I'll agree that S&W is more refined, but there are people that do not care about that and do not want to pay for that. They're content with just having a reliable gun that fits their hand and that they're accurate with.

If you are referring to customer service and warranty service, I'll agree that S&W is better. If Taurus had more aftermarket support and better warranty support, I'd prefer a PT111 G2 over the S&W Shield and some others. It fit my hand better, hold 12 rounds, and is a light weight package...

Sorry, but I wasn't looking for a fight. I was just trying to convince those who hate Taurus's so much that they really do make some decent guns. I am now sure that will never happen. I think it would be a safe wager to bet that most of those belittling the G2C have never looked at, held or fired one. Sorry for the post. I should have known better.

__________________
Mighty 90's,Trying 4 a 100!

Don't be sorry, posting experiences (good or bad) is useful to the rest us. What caught my eye in your review was that the Taurus is easier to rack than the other small 9mm pistols you mentioned. That is an important snippet for many.

__________________
Release the Kraken

Justify a purchase to a stranger? Now that is funny, though I doubt you intended to be. Thank the Lord I have better things to do than justify anything legal to a stranger.

This debate is like buying a new car vs buying a used one. Obviously the new car ( Smith ) is more desirable then the used car ( Taurus ) . Money or availability can both be a factor. Over my life I have bought close to a hundred Smith & Wessons, and a couple of Taurus and Rossi revolvers.I would never bash another brand who still makes guns out of steel.Or critique anyone who buys one.

As a fun gun if the price was right I might get a Taurus. For a carry weapon or on the nightstand no way in heck would I use a Taurus.

For years I was a RO and instructor at my club and many more problem appeared with the Taurus contingent than all other brands combined. That is my first hand observation, do with it what you want!

__________________
14 S&W Revs none with locks!

We are going in circles because you keep arguing with a straw man. My original post NEVER said anything about reliability. Your guess is as good as mine as to why you've gone on about it.

I've said this so many times that I'm quoting myself so you really understand my point from the first post I made..."Taurus fills a niche market". You are that guy. You belong to that niche market. There are others like you. I'm sure they make bumper stickers, and key chains; get you one. I'm sure there is a club, join it. It's okay. There is nothing wrong with buying Taurus. It is also okay to know that there are better firearms out there. If you have this knowledge and want to buy Taurus, cool. if you want to climb a mountain and scream about how much you love Taurus I support you; just be safe. If you want to straw man somebody on the S&W forum I'll even humor you for a few moments. I'm glad you enjoy your Taurus. Save up a little more dough next time and you can get yourself a more refined firearm.

__________________
Ban this man,
'89

IMO this particular dedicated S&W forum, has one widest and deepest streak of gun-snob attitudes of any gun forum on the internet that I have ever read. I have to admit I haven't frequented the Colt forums, and the snobbery may be just as strong there, I don't know.

BUT I do frequent numerous other gun forums, including at least one other dedicated to S&W. And none of them have the level of bashing on Taurus, or on any other brand that this forum does. Just my personal opinion and observations.

A couple of years ago I actually had a bunch of people here try to convince me I shouldn't by a Jovino Customs Terminator for $350 at a local shop. Why? Because it was built on an Astra platform instead of a S&W. The argument was that I should spend twice as much money and God knows how much time to find and buy a 3" M29 or M629 instead.

Reminds me of the Mercedes commercial tag line - "The BEST or NOTHING". Yeah, riiiiiiiight.
Anybody who can't afford a Mercedes, should just walk

There is a very good reason Taurus, and other brands such as Rossi, Llama, Ruby, Astra, etc. are reviled by customers and employees of Smith & Wesson.
These companies were all founded and built on the unscrupulous practice of theft of intellectual property, copyright protected innovations, and legally protected trademarks, all for the sake of undercutting more reputable manufacturers, with inferior knock-offs.
One of the reasons S&Ws are more expensive, and some of these other brands are cheaper are because:
1) S&W pays designers, inventors, and engineers for their time, effort and talents, and...
2) S&W pays their legal department a sizeable amount of money to defend themselves from unscrupulous crooks.
Some of the cases were just the most shameless and disgraceful stunts.
If you don't know this, you don't know your history. In 1971, it got to the point where it was simply cheaper for Bangor Punta (then the parent company that owned S&W) to purchase a 54% majority of Forjas Taurus rather than keep fighting them.

I don't care what they make today, or how they make it. I know the principles the company was founded on, and the integrity of the people who founded it.
Try to keep in mind that the "great deal" you might get off a Taurus has come, directly or indirectly, at the expense of many others.


Jim

And what was America founded on? Should you and everyone else be forever hated and blamed based on what those who are dead and burried have done? Should one demographic in this country hate the other forever based on what happened in the passed?

Please cite your information were Taurus has "stolen" or are knockoffs of s&w...

[Edit] still trying to find were 80 years ago Taurus violated copyrighs and trademarks... Not that it matters to me... The owners of S&W at the time sold out gun owners. Bill Ruger sold out gun owners. All the people that are accused of these indigestion are either dead or long gone. Any crimes or wrongs they've done have long been corrected... In this political climate, I'm not going to help take affordable firearms out of the hands of those who like them and choose to buy them or help put a gun company out of business, whether it be Taurus, Ruger, S&W, or Springfield Arms, based on what happened in the pass but is no longer happening now... That'll be a big win for antiguners and a lose for the gun community...

If it were up to many in the gun community, to the glee of anti-gunners, some of the biggest firearm companies in the world, S&W, Ruger, Taurus, and Springfield Arms, and Remington, would be out of business...

When you are behind the counter, you may have not personally have fired
as many rounds through a particular gun as another but you sure get the
blow back. If you are smart you won't sell brands that cause you head aches. You are going to get the odd lemon in any mass produced item. No
reason to get excited. Also if you don't stock it, don't order it for a customer. You can talk till you are blue in the face but when it fails its your
problem again. Problems with Taurus are at the level that isn't worth the
aggravation. I don't bring money into this. If a gun is undependable and
not accurate in a noticeable percentage I'm not interested. I could care less about other people liking them, makes more used S&Ws on the market that can be bought for the same or less.

Glass houses. Mauser should own Springfield, Remington, Winchester and even Enfield by now for their IP theft.

__________________
Release the Kraken

And there was that little Sigma issue with Glock.

LOL! NOW I SEE! It is all about an intellectual property rights issue now?

That is certainly a new twist on the debate.

I've really gotta' hand it to you for originality!