I expect Taurus bashing on a forum for any other manufacturer, so it's not surprising here.
But frankly, in my own experience, it's just not warranted.
I have 5 Taurus and Rossi revolvers, blue 2.5" and stainless 3" ,44 Special 431s from the 1990s; a new 9mm revolver, the 905 in stainless; a Rossi 462 2" 6-round .357 (the recalled one, more on that later); and a Rossi .22LR 4" model 511. I recently picked up a couple of their new poly pistols in 9mm, the G3c and the GX4. I also have a couple-dozen-plus S&W revolvers and semi-autos, both 3rd Gen metal and newer poly pistols, so I have enough to do my own "comparison" of the two brands.
Frankly, the Taurus guns in my safe are just as good as my S&Ws. Finish on all but the older 511 is every bit as good, and in the case of the blued 431, better than that of my blued S&Ws. The parts fit is precise, the mechanisms operate flawlessly, and they are very reliable overall.
We hear many folks complain about the overall difficulty of dealing with Taurus' customer service. I won't defend that, I've never sent anything in, so I have no personal knowledge. (And that brings me back to the model 462 .357 Magnum 6-rounder. Yep, there certainly was a recall a few years ago for "drop safety" concerns. I applied for and received a shipping label and a $50 cash card. But after looking inside the mechanism, the only thing I saw was a very obvious bent hammer block. Here's where Taurus/Rossi's "ripping off S&W's design" as one poster put it came in handy. I took a spare Smith block out, polished it a little, and after almost no fitting, put it in. Works just fine and I didn't lose the gun to their recall, just like I've done with many S&Ws over the years.) But Taurus states that they are making efforts to improve service, so I'll give them a chance to put their money where their mouth is before making an opinion. And on that topic, it's funny how folks forget the growing list of guns sent out by S&W that shouldn't have made it past QC.
Another thing about "ripping off" designs: Taurus was licensed by S&W at one time to produce revolvers using Smith designs - how is that a "rip-off"? And it seems some folks have forgotten the hot water S&W got in when it copied way too much of Glock's design. We should at least acknowledge that any company can make mistakes, it's how they respond and make it right that matters the most... an area S&W could use some improving on as well.
And although no one asked, the newest semis in the Taurus G-series are amazingly capable, well-designed and as reliable as any firearm costing twice as much. It's crazy, but I'm able to see that right in front of me. Sig 365? No thanks. I bought the two G-series Taurus semis for the price of one 365! They even give the Shields, of which I have a .9 and a .45, a run for the money. No comparison to my 3rd Gen semis, but nothing comes close to those, anyway.
Look, I'm absolutely not trying to convince anyone of "Taurus superiority" or anything like that. Many of you guys are honest-to-God subject experts on all things S&W, and I've appreciated your insight for years. I'm a huge fan of S&W and have been for decades, despite the IL or the reports of canted barrels and basic problems that made it out of the factory in recent years and nothing is going to change that. I think I can say with confidence that I have nearly everything I want in world-class guns with my collection of Smith & Wessons. But I began to look closely at these Taurus/Rossis because it was getting to the point where I could no longer justify the exorbitant prices for discontinued guns, like the 940 and 696 I've wanted forever, but found really close "clones" with the T-label, and find them to be acceptable replacements for my purposes.
Bottom line for me is I simply know what I've seen right here with my own eyes. IMHO the OP should get whatever he wants and not be ashamed of it for any reason.
