I know Taurus is a dirty word around here, but...

Disclaimer: I have many S&W revolvers and love them all. But I've also had very good luck with "brand X".

Question: It seems to me, the Taurus trigger return spring is not only a better idea than the S&W rebound slide, but has far less friction and is much easier to work on.

What are your honest opinions?

Attached Images

Taurus-XSSights_38.jpg (102.4 KB, 179 views)

I examined a T brand 44 spcl snub to find it required a working transfer bar to complete hammer action to the fire pin. A tiny, tiny stud sideways out from another part raised said transfer device. It looked frail and breakable. I researched and could not fide a replacement. Seemingly a S&W will still fire if the hammer block fails to engage.

__________________
"Don't Give Up the Ship"

Thanks for the prompt reply. As is usually the case, what seems simple on the surface usually turns out to be more complex if examined.

That's why I call myself an "amateur"

Taurus, better…….. sorry that you were banned from this forum after only 8 post.

I dearly love S&W revolvers and have collected them for over 40 years. However, as bad as S&W's QC has gotten in the last few years, if buying brand new, I'd go with Taurus.

Now we're BOTH banned!

Taurus revolver action better than that of S&W? I don't know that I would go so far as to say it's better, but it is very different from that of the S&W.

__________________
VCDL, GOA, NRA

Bear in mind that Taurus copies many design elements from the S&W lockwork, but uses a transfer bar mechanism, and not a rebounding hammer. Thus they have no need for a rebound and can have just a trigger return spring. The S&W rebound slide both serves as a trigger return as well as automatically lifting the hammer and hammer nose away from the cartridge. The rebound slide mechanism was quite an invention around 1902, but other methods have been invented since.

Very interesting, and I had not thought of that. I've done amateur gunsmithing on both for over 35 years, and, while the Taurus is an easier gun to work on, I find the S&W quality of parts better.
Thanks for the input!

While I am quoting one individual, I do not mean to single anyone out, as, I believe, this is simply a commonly held misconception.
No disrespect intended, but this is, objectively speaking, a narrow view of the revolver market based on two assumptions.
1) Revolvers, or guns in general, must be priced within a certain narrow range. And, that range must be a fixed set of numbers that does not allow for inflation or devaluation of US currency.
2) Customers presumably must accumulate as many revolvers as possible, depending on their needs (whims?).

What might be considered an example of S&W’s best work?
Let’s go with the pre-war “Registered Magnum” for argument’s sake. This is widely regarded as, perhaps, S&W’s finest example of revolver production. Priced at $60 retail, during the height of the depression in the 1930s, is it possible that for those customers who were able to buy one that it represented a major personal investment on their part? With all of the interest in the “RM” here on the forum, I don’t recall any accounts of someone who “collected” them back when they were being made.
Generally speaking, it seems that if you bought one, you cherished it.

Maybe, today, we can look at it the same way? Maybe, the current marketing and offerings by S&W, whether you are a happy customer or not, have a lot to do with them being forced to price products within a range that simply does not allow for the manufacture of a modern day equivalent to, say, a Registered Magnum or a Fourth Model .44 Target?
Another line of thinking might be, “I’m gonna sell off a few things I don’t shoot, save my money, and buy (just as an example) a Korth or a Manurhin revolver, and be happy with that.”
Instead of dozens, or more, revolvers, you might just own one or two really fantastic examples?
Admittedly, this is a line of thinking that falls well outside of the mainstream. And, I’m not suggesting it’s a “better” line of thinking. Just an alternative….

Or, couldn’t you just buy a Colt or a Ruger?

Addendum: Just for comparative purposes, I’ve added a picture of the lockwork currently used by Korth.

Attached Images

IMG_1315.jpg (129.6 KB, 95 views)

At the risk of straying a bit off-topic, that Korth lockwork looks pretty straightforward compared to that of the High Standard Crusader, for which at rest the hammer didn't contact the firing pin, but in the course of working the action was lowered by means of a geared cam so that it could then strike it.

Attached Images

Crusader Lockwork.jpg (120.2 KB, 84 views)

__________________
SWCA #590
"Colligo ergo sum"

I have been a S&W revolver man for 50+ years. That is why I tried to like the lame autoloaders they put out.

Anyways Ruger or Kimber before the t - word for revolvers.

Buy OLD S&W revolvers. I've never been disappointed. I'd buy a Ruger revolver....maybe. And I'm ok with Taurus semi-pistols. I've known some people that are very happy with their Taurus revolvers. Others not so much. But then, I've also heard people complain about their S&Ws, especially when they have been sent back to the factory and the owners are told that they are 'in spec'.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Well, I can that the Taurus rimfire versions triggers are the worst out there. You can polish all you want, and it still takes a gorilla to pull the trigger. If you install a lightened hammer spring, it won't reliable fire in double action. S&W's triggers can be improved on the 22LRs.

I really want to love my Taurus 941 in 22mag, but that trigger makes it hard to love.

Those same trigger spring kits work fine in the centerfire 85/605 frames.

Rosewood

__________________
"I don't really care Margaret"

I have only had 3 "T" revolvers over the years. An Mod 85(?) 38 Special that continually failed to fire after three trips back to the factory. A 357 Mag Ported ?? can't remember the name, that I shot about 75 rounds through. At 25 yards couldn't get better than a 6" group. It went to an auction. A .22RF I won in a raffle, and I sold without ever firing it.


My overall experience was unsatisfactory. NOW, this was all 15 to 20 years ago, and "hopefully" the quality has improved.

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

I like the look of the T design shown, so long as that pin stays stuck into the trigger and doesn’t misalign.

Astra has a great design for the mainspring that makes it user-adjustable tension!

__________________
Uvidíme se později, aligátore.

Not long ago, older S&W revolvers were all over the place. Same with Nikon lenses. Now it is hard to find either. One is obsolete, the other is coveted. I never see Taurus revolvers.

__________________
"Don't Give Up the Ship"

I haven't handeled a Taurus in many decades. Having said that I really did anything with new S&W revolvers either. Not because I have anything against either of them but I'm mainly interested in 3rd Gen Smith autos and older Smith revolvers. I think back in the 80s when Smith and Taurus were owned by the same parent company it sure looked like both companies were sharing ideas. Taurus had better looking guns when they split. I think a huge difference was in quality of materials with Taurus. I remember a lot of broken parts in Taurus revolvers and their autos. I've heard Taurus has come a long way from then. I think the Smiths will hold their value better. As to which guns are better I really can't give a educated answer. My personnel preference runs to Smith.

Probably because everyone who owns one, loves it to much they won't sell at any price!
-

__________________
Just Say No - To Social Media

This is an interesting thread, so I'll chime in. My youngest son recently purchased a Taurus Model 627 Tracker with 4" bbl. He knows my lifelong penchant for S&W revolvers, but he's his own man and has his own opinions and budget. Of course I've had to disown him and exclude from my will. LOL, just kidding!

He did quite a bit of revolver research before making his purchase, and had narrowed his choices down to the Taurus and a S&W Model 686 Plus. The Taurus is built on an N-frame and is slightly larger than the L-frame 686 Plus, but it's actually a few ounces lighter. Both hold 7-shots and are well made stainless steel revolvers. His Taurus Tracker has a ported barrel which he likes, and it was a couple hundred bucks cheaper than the 686. To me the action isn't quite as smooth as a Smith, but then again it's almost brand new and has only had a few boxes of .38 Spl. and .357 run through it. I can't fault him for choosing the Taurus Model 627, it seems to be an accurate and dependable revolver, and the price was easier on his wallet. I think I'll stick with my 686 Plus, but he's happy with the Taurus, and apparently a lot of other folks are too.

Attached Images

	3754372403620634867.jpg (79.7 KB, 14 views)
	IMG_0908.jpg (118.7 KB, 12 views)

I have 3 Taurus revolvers. A 445UL in .44 Spl, a 905 in 9mm , and a .327 Fed Mag. None have failed me.
I like the fact they make less common revolvers for a reasonable price.

__________________
Who are those guys?