Question on MIM, S&W, and Taurus

[Oldsoul]

I got the S&W bug earlier this year and now own a few S&W snubbys.

I see alot on the use of MIM parts by S&W and was wondering why I am paying the extra cash for a S&W when Taurus is less expensive.

If they both use MIM 24/7 and with the revolver basically a simple firearm that never fails. Why the extra money?? Name alone? Past glory and history?

Almost as if Walmart made guns these would be it.

No history lesson required. I understand past S&W models all machined parts and what not are awesome. I'm talking today.

 

[Tyrod]

The name certainly is some of it. Presumably skilled workers in Sprinfield vs low pay farm hands. Some might say S&W's materials are better. I've owned a few Taurus'. Including 2 Model 85s. They work great but fit & finish left something to be desired. For a basic revolver at a reasonably low price Taurus ain't bad especially the steel ones. Although, the price point on new aluminum framed S&W J frames are pretty competitive with the Taurus.

 

[Maximumbob54]

Use of MIM to compare the two is like saying a Ford and a Ferrari are the same since they havr four wheels and a wind shield. Same thing, right?

WRONG

I own and enjoy both brands, but they are as different from each other as you can get in many small ways. Fit and finish in how they look and feel shoulf be pretty obvious. Mechanics of the internals are another. But if you want a listing then that would be an essay unto itself. But at the end of the day, it flat out costs more to make a product here than it does in Brazil.

 

[hdguy]

On the J frame size guns there just wasn't enough difference in price to attract me. The Smith 642 or 442 can be had for less than $20 more than the Taurus. Even when comparing the Taurus knock-off version to the Beretta 92 there was only about $65 difference. If the Taurus's were half the original I might take a shot but why take a chance for a 5% to 15% savings. Also, down the road I would imagine that the Taurus would have less resale or trade value compared to the Smith.

 

[hdguy]

To be fair to Taurus I suppose I should say that there are some models of Taurus's that are noticably cheaper than their Smith counterparts. The one that comes immediatly to mind is the .357 J frame size revolvers. The Smiths are pretty high in this area although, they do enjoy an impressive reputation.

 

[18DAI]

To be completely fair, Taurus at least has realistic asking prices for their cheaply made guns. Regards 18DAI

 

[AveragEd]

Two years ago, my son and I were at a gun show and he was drooling over a new Taurus stainless steel PT1911 in .45ACP. His birthday was coming up and after looking at the gun and all the features it includes for a $600 street price, I bought it for him.

Two months ago, I bought myself a Kimber Stainless Gold Match II for $1,339. My son was ribbing me about how I could have bought two of his for that money and had the same thing. But the differences became noticeable when we were shooting them that day and later, when we cleaned them.

When we were shooting, the Taurus tossed its empty cases everywhere but left - up in the air, to the right, back over the shooter's head and even out into the range. The Kimber quite politely ejected them to the right and slightly rearward. I have a contraption I made from PVC pipe and mesh cloth for catching empties from my Kimber - it was useless with the Taurus. The Taurus' trigger had been worked on by a gunsmith and while no longer hatefully high in pull weight, the gunsmith told us it was as good as it was going to get without replacing parts. By comparison, the Kimber's trigger broke cleanly and without overtravel out of the box. In fact, 10 subsequent checks with my digital trigger scale showed it broke at four pounds, 12 ounces nine of the 10 times and the one oddball was four pounds, 11 ounces. And the Kimber is more accurate.

The Taurus' matte-finished surfaces required a toothbrush and solvent to come clean while the Kimber's did so with just a solvent-wetted cloth. The polished surfaces of the Taurus would not come as clean-looking and weren't as smooth as the Kimber's. The interior of the Taurus was littered with tool marks; the Kimber's hidden surfaces were not.

Even my son now admits that yes, you do get what you pay for.

Ed

 

[gaspipes]

I have found out in life in general you usually get what you pay for.

I had a Taurus model 85 passed on to me. I'll hold onto it because it came from my grandpa but was just a cheap pistol he had stuck in the night stand. Still had the sales receipt, he paid $199. I can not make out the date but the gun is all steel with wood factory wood grips. I think the gun was purchased mid 90's.

To a non gun person or someone without a lot of experience as far as telling what is good or bad about guns, there is a huge difference between a Taurus and S&W. As mentioned above, fit and finish, the quality of the internals and how they are fitted. A S&W is smooth as butter. This Taurus, at least the one I have sure is not. It works, it's functional and I guess for $200 it is better than a high point ***. But it sure is no S&W.

I go buy the principal of BUY ONCE, CRY ONCE when it comes to firearms purchasing.(and most other things) If there is absolutely no way you could ever afford a S&W then by all means a Taurus is better than nothing. But for me, better to just save another couple months or however long it takes and get the best.

 

[Ashlander]

Amen on S&W quality, but that comes with the caveat -- before you buy that beautiful S&W at the local gun store -- look it over closely. Make pretend it's used and really go over it. For example, we've had a lot of "canted barrel" complaints lately on the forum. Not every S&W is as good as every other S&W -- if you know what I mean (if they were they'd cost a lot more!).

Also in comparison to Taurus, Ruger makes a much better gun -- and they're made here in America. I have 5 S&W revolvers and one Ruger Speed Six -- the Speed Six holds its own in that good company.

 

[snubbiefan]

Like others posted here, I have owned both and did own several small-frame Taurus revolvers. When the price on some of the comparable Smith no-locks came within my range....I eventually "rotated" out to all Smiths.

From my personal experience, you can make a very nice shooter out of a Taurus revolver, but I EMPHASIZE make. Fully 70% of the ones I have purchased new have had issues that either I had to fix, or send it home. Mostly small things like rubs that generally cleaned-up with a good polishing in the affected area. Now, if you want a real treat, try and deal with Taurus Warranty Service. Yes...they are warranted for life no matter who owns them, but it can be a toss-up as to whether-or-not you can get satisfaction and you better have a spare gun handy. Turn-around times can be months....not days, or weeks.

Save the trigger mechanism, the Taurus lock-work closely resembles the Smith, but the Taurus uses a transfer-bar as opposed to a hammer block. I will say that you can smooth-out a Taurus trigger just as good as you can a Smith.

I will also say kudos to Taurus for coming-up with the IL in the hammer as opposed to drilling a hole in the frame of the gun. If Smith had the Taurus IL system....we would not be hearing all the continuous whining about the IL. Taurus also press-fits the cylinder on the yoke (which can be removed by the average gun-tinkerer), so there is no need for the cylinder to bang against the frame boss, or lug (like it does on the Smith) to prevent it from falling off. They actually have some very desirable features.

My 2-cents....you can usually get a Taurus for less and you can make a fine shooter out of it. It's just the coin-flip on getting a new one that works out-of-the-box on the first try and some of the machining looks like the finish you would find on a hay-baler...in particular the area of the recoil-shield and the back-strap. Generally, right out of the box rounds will drag in this area and bind the gun. It's not an end-shake or head-space issue...just terrible finish machining that leaves gouges, burrs and rough spots that you either have to shoot-out or polish off.

The very first thing one needs to do to a new Taurus revolver is remove the side-plate and clean-out any mill-shavings and especially the cosmoline, or heavy grease. Go ahead and yank out the hammer, polish the strut and lube-up the lock-work. Polish the top of the transfer-bar to prevent any burrs from snagging on the base of the firing pin. If luck prevails....you will have a good solid gun that will last a lifetime.

 

[MikeChandler]

Two years ago, my son and I were at a gun show and he was drooling over a new Taurus stainless steel PT1911 in .45ACP. His birthday was coming up and after looking at the gun and all the features it includes for a $600 street price, I bought it for him.

Two months ago, I bought myself a Kimber Stainless Gold Match II for $1,339. My son was ribbing me about how I could have bought two of his for that money and had the same thing. But the differences became noticeable when we were shooting them that day and later, when we cleaned them.

When we were shooting, the Taurus tossed its empty cases everywhere but left - up in the air, to the right, back over the shooter's head and even out into the range. The Kimber quite politely ejected them to the right and slightly rearward. I have a contraption I made from PVC pipe and mesh cloth for catching empties from my Kimber - it was useless with the Taurus. The Taurus' trigger had been worked on by a gunsmith and while no longer hatefully high in pull weight, the gunsmith told us it was as good as it was going to get without replacing parts. By comparison, the Kimber's trigger broke cleanly and without overtravel out of the box. In fact, 10 subsequent checks with my digital trigger scale showed it broke at four pounds, 12 ounces nine of the 10 times and the one oddball was four pounds, 11 ounces. And the Kimber is more accurate.

The Taurus' matte-finished surfaces required a toothbrush and solvent to come clean while the Kimber's did so with just a solvent-wetted cloth. The polished surfaces of the Taurus would not come as clean-looking and weren't as smooth as the Kimber's. The interior of the Taurus was littered with tool marks; the Kimber's hidden surfaces were not.

Even my son now admits that yes, you do get what you pay for.

Ed

The lower priced gun is finished to a lesser degree, sure... but...

$1339 - $600 = $739.00

For much less than that the entire ignition kit in your Taurus could be replaced with non MIM-parts by Wilson Combat, and you'd have a better and more reliable gun. Likewise the taurus can be polished up. The ejection problem can be fixed by either adjusting or replacing the ejector and also getting a better recoil spring. After all of which it would SURPASS the Kimber.

Kimber is not a Wilson or Les Baer, it's an imported Philipine frame, with finish machining done here, stuffed with MIM parts, and having an arguably unreliable safety modification (kind of like the Colt series 80 - see insert below), which make it unsuitable for carry or home defense IMHO though YMMV.

Value per dollar? Smart kids.

 

[MikeChandler]

Whoops, it would be wrong to post that and not chip in my .02 on the OP question, so here goes:

On you tube is a video of a man firing a Taurus 357 from a bench rest and the barrel flying off. The man was baffled and everybody sharply criticized Taurus. He walked away with his hands and eyes intact.

357 Magnum barrel blows off - YouTube

But later on it was posted that this range gave him reload ammo, and that they reload it there themselves. In my estimation that introduces a whole litany of potential issues. Rewatch that video of the first two shots before that final one, and notice how much burning appears to come from the cylinder face/barrel cone on the 2nd shot. Was there an issue with that bullet? One critical step missed and...

With lesser engineering that handgun could have been a hand grenade. Slow down the video and watch how perfectly that barrel ejected itself.

I've never owned a Taurus but I can appreciate a gun that destroys itself to save your fingers. My confidence in their products went way up, and I can only hope that my guns destroy themselves so politely should bad luck head my way.

 

[gaspipes]

I'm not a huge Kimber fan although I do own a couple. But to say it is an imported Philippine frame??? Kimber has forged in USA slides and frames.

To say that a Taurus 1911 is anywhere close to the quality of a Kimber is....well.....ridiculous IMO. No comparison. On the 1911 forum the Swartz safety issue is like the IL issue here. People don't like it, but generally they work fine. Sure people get new ones and they are not timed properly but once they are they work. And if you want to disable the Swartz, very simple. Install a series 70 firing pin from the manufacturer of your choice and be done with it.

The poster a couple up made a good point about buying a Ruger over a Taurus and IMO that goes for the 1911 as well. Ruger's new SR1911 is head and shoulders better than a Taurus.

Today, if you want a new gun with no MIM parts or castings, your choices are slim but mostly none. I have a 100% forged and tool steel 1911 from Wilson Combat. It's a $3000. pistol.(you get what you pay for) They are the only company that offers such a 1911. All others use some cast parts. Kimber, Colt, Springfield Armory, S&W and all the others big and small use MIM. Some do MIM better than others but those 4 do it well enough to not have a whole bunch of problems with the parts.

 

[AveragEd]

Not to be argumentative, but I prefer buying guns that are "good" from the get-go.

Let's say that your PT1911 that is chock-full of aftermarket goodies and has been massaged to perfection by a skilled gunsmith dirties its diaper and has to go back for warranty repairs - something that could happen years down the road, given its lifetime warranty. If Taurus' warranty service sucks on unaltered pistols, I'll bet they would REAL anxious to fix yours at no charge.

I was an auto dealership service manager for 38 years but you don't need that kind of experience to know how any manufacturer is going to handle that warranty claim.

I certainly don't mean to infer that Taurus 1911s are junk and Kimbers are the best. The PT1911 offers a whale of a lot of gun for the money when its features are considered but it cannot measure up to a Kimber. And while my Kimber has a few trinkets you can't get on a Taurus (adjustable rear sight, for instance), don't overlook the very real fact that I bought one of Kimber's highest-priced models. They offer a version equipped like the PT1911 for under a grand. Now, buy a new PT1911 for probably $650 today, put some better parts in it, have the finish improved and the internals cleaned up and you're probably darned close to that Kimber's price.

Ed

I forgot this very real fact that I wanted to mention. For some reason, Taurus 1911s are not true 1911 clones. If you buy a set of grip panels, they won't fit without the screw holes being modified. And their ambidextrous safety has a larger piece that extends under the right grip, so even if the grip is made for an ambi safety, you have to do some alterations to it so the Taurus safety will move. I wanted to buy my son an adjustable rear sight for Christmas. I can forward you emails from every known sight company saying that even though the PT1911 uses a dovetail mount like all 1911s, they either don't make a sight that fits the PT1911 or that it is possible that theirs may be able to made to fit by a gunsmith. My son bought a Cenier (sp?) 22LR conversion kit for his gun and while it would go bang, the slide wouldn't return fully to battery. The kit manufacturer said, "Oh, you're trying to make it work on a Taurus? Forget it." Kimber makes a kit but states right in its advertising, "Will NOT work on Taurus PT1911s."

I see that non-conformity as a problem.

 

[MikeChandler]

I'm not a huge Kimber fan although I do own a couple. But to say it is an imported Philippine frame??? Kimber has forged in USA slides and frames.

To say that a Taurus 1911 is anywhere close to the quality of a Kimber is....well.....ridiculous IMO. No comparison.

First off, sorry if I came of with a nasty tone towards either - I didn't mean to do that, and would like to extend my apologies for offending anybody.

My understanding is that Kimber buys the frame from S&W who imports the raw-forgings. There was some old article about that in the late 90s, on Kimber.

My statement that the gap between the two brands is marginal was in comparison to Wilson and other high-end 1911s, that are actually made for duty or EDC. In that regards I consider them comparable - both having extensive MiM parts, both having non-conforming parts.

All that being said, if you have fully tested your Kimber and have utmost faith in it to save your life, or your loved ones, then there's nothing more to be said; in the final analysis that's what it's all about.

 

[texasjarhead]

Interesting discussion, and in my case, timely. at a recent gun show I sold a M686-3 with a 4" barrel hoping to buy a S&W M-66 snub. When I returned to buy the S&W M-66, it had been sold. While looking around, I found two guns I was very interested in. The first was a Taurus M-66 snub (at $150 less than the S&W M-66 I had wanted), and the second was a S&W M686-4 snub (at $100 more than the M-66 I had wanted). The S&W just seemed better built and a better design. The one deciding factor on my choosing to pay more and get the S&W M686 was summed up by the previous poster- I preferred to trust my life and my family's lives to the S&W.

 

[m19fan]

My experience with Kimber has been superb. I purchased a Kimber Eclipse 5". I took it to a Gunsite class July of 2010. Course required 800 rounds. I cleaned the gun at the end of the first day about 150-200 rounds fired that day. I did not clean it again until I came home 4 days later and approx. 600-650 rounds fired and not one malfunction and I put no oil on except for the first cleaning. Would I carry it for self defense or use it for home defense? Dam straight, as I do everyday.
So to say Kimber is "unreliable" is a pretty bold statement from, I assume an individual that does not or has not ever handle a Kimber.

 

[snubbiefan]

Sounds like I am a defender....but I am not. I have cleared-out my Taurus and Rossi collection over the years and replaced them all with no-lock Smiths. You CAN find a very good stainless steel Rossi, or Taurus lying about out there in Pawn Shops for around $200. Just don't purchase a brand new one and expect it to work properly. As said earlier....my failure-rate with a new Taurus is around 70%, but it has never been anything that I consider a fatal flaw...just small things that an average gun enthusiast, or his friend that is can fix. If I run across another Rossi or Taurus 38-special/357MAG snubby under the glass at the Pawn Shop, I will pick it up, make sure it is well fired and definitely plop-down a $200 bill for it.

I would not like to be in front of the business-end of a Rossi or a Taurus betting it was not going to go bang when the other guy pulled the trigger.

 

[cass]

I retired my 640-1 carry arm with a Taurus 605. When new, the Taurus locked up tight on the third shot. I took it to my gunsmith, and one hour labor ($50) he had it just as good as a Smith. The original problem was the filth left behind during assembly, and some polishing.

 

[Bearcat]

Amen on S&W quality, but that comes with the caveat -- before you buy that beautiful S&W at the local gun store -- look it over closely. Make pretend it's used and really go over it. For example, we've had a lot of "canted barrel" complaints lately on the forum. Not every S&W is as good as every other S&W -- if you know what I mean (if they were they'd cost a lot more!).

Also in comparison to Taurus, Ruger makes a much better gun -- and they're made here in America. I have 5 S&W revolvers and one Ruger Speed Six -- the Speed Six holds its own in that good company.

+1 for Ruger on the quality/value equation. And in many cases, the new Rugers are better than the current crop of Smiths.....but any manufacturer will have the occassional QA/QC problems, especially today when they are cutting personnel everywhere.