mc5aw
Member
Continuing a recent post about the Taurus 445 ...
After three decades of collecting S&W revolvers, I went against my better judgment and purchased a non-S&W on a whim. Of the 100+ S&Ws I’ve owned during the last 30 years, this is only the third instance when I have strayed from the fold, (having owned a Colt DS years ago, and recently adding a Ruger Alaskan in .44 Magnum), and my decision was based almost exclusively on caliber. I found a lightly used DAO Taurus Model 445 in .44 Special (serial # 0G545xxx), and was intrigued by its CCW potential. As a long time S&W aficionado, I’m not unrealistic in my expectations and was prepared to evaluate the 445 on the merits, not on hearsay or urban legend.
After extensive research before and after the purchase, (with countless negative comments and reviews to sort through), I almost expected the 445 to break apart in my hands. Fortunately, the revolver felt solid, looked good, had no timing issues, and appeared to be free from obvious QC problems, thus making my foray into the Taurus line fairly comfortable. I took the 445 to the range this afternoon for some hands-on testing, and fired 50 rounds of factory HSM 240 grain JHPs in fairly short order. I had no FTFs, jams, etc., and the 445 held up well. Shooting distance was 15’, DAO fire was measured and controlled. [The photo shows my Shoot’n’See target with an acceptable grouping for self defense purposes. A second target had a wider grouping attributable mostly to shooter fatigue rather than any inherent weaknesses in the revolver.]
Fit & Finish: The bluing is excellent, and everything fits together seamlessly. Screw heads are clean, and there are no machining marks to be seen anywhere. Overall, a good looking and nicely assembled example of a Model 445.
Mechanical: The DA was crisp and not nearly as tough as expected. I’m uncertain if an aftermarket spring kit was previously installed, but trigger pull was not much different than the average S&W, nor did it have the grittiness that many people claim. I was unable to stage the 445’s trigger as I can with a S&W, and on three occasions the trigger didn’t feel like it reset properly, resulting in a short draw on the next trigger pull (and an unexpectedly fast follow-up shot).
The cylinder has no play or slop whatsoever, and spins freely when disengaged. Nothing came loose during or after firing. One additional note is that the revolver heated up considerably after 10 rounds. By the 50th round, the 445 was very hot to the touch, and hotter than any S&W I have owned.
The fixed sight has a wide rear channel and black front blade. It is easy to acquire, and gets on target immediately. I found it superior to an adjustable sight, and will test it next time out with point shooting.
Grip: The smooth rubber grip (with enclosed backstrap) absorbed recoil as well as any Hogue or Pachmayr, and has a thin concealable profile. After 50 rounds fired in under 30 minutes, I experienced no pain in my shooting hand or lingering discomfort. The grip fit my hand perfectly, allowing for a high hold and a very comfortable two-hand stance. (This rubber grip may or may not have been a replacement for a Taurus Ribber grip, as I’m not sure what originally came on the 445). This grip would be ideal for male/female shooters with average/medium sized hands.
Pros:
-Excellent value. For the price ($425), there are few offerings in the .44 Special CCW category that compare favorably (perhaps a good, older Charter Arms or Rossi 720). Used S&Ws in .44 Special are averaging twice what this 445 cost me.
-Perfect revolver for CCW. Make no mistake, the 445 is not a range tool, but a dedicated carry piece. The DAO design and K/L-sized snubby frame make it ideal for everyday carry. Weighing in at ~ 25oz, there is enough mass to absorb .44 Special recoil, while not being too heavy for CCW. In comparison, the lightweight S&W 296 weighs ~ 19oz and is a beast to shoot, the alloy NGs are close in weight, while the all steel S&W 696 is nearly identical to the 445 (albeit with a 3" barrel). I have seen Taurus titanium models in .44 Special, but I'll stay with the all-steel frame.
-Unlike new Taurus revolvers, this 445 has no key activated safety mechanism on the hammer spine. (I have not pinpointed the exact mfg date on this 445, but assume it to be early-mid 2000s). This is a big plus for the anti-IL crowd.
Cons:
-Like the S&W 696, the 445’s forcing cone and cylinder chamber walls are very thin. This is not as big an issue for a moderate use revolver, but I wouldn’t be any more comfortable with the 696 for heavy usage.
-The extractor star failed to forcefully eject spent casings, leaving two hanging pieces of brass (out of five) each time, but this is a minor concern since the brass was easily dumped or pulled out by hand. Not once did I experience a casing lodged deep in a chamber.
-The Taurus reputation is a big obstacle for potential buyers, and nearly prevented me from purchasing this 445. Did I get the lone diamond in the rough? Perhaps, but I’m happy that there were no QC problems that arose during the 445’s inaugural range session.
Overall thoughts: I am pleasantly surprised at how comfortable the 445 is to shoot, and its solid construction. After 50 rounds, I came away very impressed with the 445 as a medium-frame big bore CCW revolver. While today’s work won’t be mistaken for precision bullseye shooting, the 445 showed itself to be very capable at 15’, putting every round on target. There is no doubt that the 445 would do sufficient damage against two- or four-legged predators at similar distance. Though I don’t have enough trigger time yet to confidently stake my life on the 445 as I do with my various S&Ws, the 445 performed well enough that I wouldn’t hesitate to bring it along as a back-up to anything else I’m carrying. From all the negative reviews of Taurus products I had read, I expected the 445 to rate as a 2/3 out of 10, and no better than a 6 if I got lucky. Instead, I have a 445 that rates as a strong 8 after its first outing. I’m hopeful that future range work will be as positive.
The crux of the matter: The Taurus 445 fits the CCW niche perfectly ... easy to carry and shoot, large caliber, steel construction, DAO, and moderately priced on the used market. Ironically, the 445 was discontinued as were it's S&W counterparts (296, 696, and Night Guards), leaving this corner of the CCW market wide open. It is everything that S&W should be producing to take advantage of the growing number of CCW holders, and I think the Mother Ship is missing an opportunity. Yes, I know the Night Guard line was a great idea that didn't sell, but I believe it was due to the high price point rather than public interest. I eagerly awaited the NGs, but when I finally found them at the LGS I was put off by the $900 tags. If S&W could produce an all steel 445 model of its own in the $750 range, it would be a potential home run. Taurus produced a sibling to the 445 (the 455) in .45 ACP, which would make for another attractive offering by S&W. Forget the alloy guns for CCW ... they're too expensive for most folks ... and forget another .38/.357 model. Two dedicated big bore CCW snub revolvers built on the K/L frame at moderate prices would be welcome additions to the current S&W catalogue. The 445 is almost identical in dimensions to a 66/686 snub, and has less recoil than a J-frame with +Ps. What's not to like?
After three decades of collecting S&W revolvers, I went against my better judgment and purchased a non-S&W on a whim. Of the 100+ S&Ws I’ve owned during the last 30 years, this is only the third instance when I have strayed from the fold, (having owned a Colt DS years ago, and recently adding a Ruger Alaskan in .44 Magnum), and my decision was based almost exclusively on caliber. I found a lightly used DAO Taurus Model 445 in .44 Special (serial # 0G545xxx), and was intrigued by its CCW potential. As a long time S&W aficionado, I’m not unrealistic in my expectations and was prepared to evaluate the 445 on the merits, not on hearsay or urban legend.
After extensive research before and after the purchase, (with countless negative comments and reviews to sort through), I almost expected the 445 to break apart in my hands. Fortunately, the revolver felt solid, looked good, had no timing issues, and appeared to be free from obvious QC problems, thus making my foray into the Taurus line fairly comfortable. I took the 445 to the range this afternoon for some hands-on testing, and fired 50 rounds of factory HSM 240 grain JHPs in fairly short order. I had no FTFs, jams, etc., and the 445 held up well. Shooting distance was 15’, DAO fire was measured and controlled. [The photo shows my Shoot’n’See target with an acceptable grouping for self defense purposes. A second target had a wider grouping attributable mostly to shooter fatigue rather than any inherent weaknesses in the revolver.]
Fit & Finish: The bluing is excellent, and everything fits together seamlessly. Screw heads are clean, and there are no machining marks to be seen anywhere. Overall, a good looking and nicely assembled example of a Model 445.
Mechanical: The DA was crisp and not nearly as tough as expected. I’m uncertain if an aftermarket spring kit was previously installed, but trigger pull was not much different than the average S&W, nor did it have the grittiness that many people claim. I was unable to stage the 445’s trigger as I can with a S&W, and on three occasions the trigger didn’t feel like it reset properly, resulting in a short draw on the next trigger pull (and an unexpectedly fast follow-up shot).
The cylinder has no play or slop whatsoever, and spins freely when disengaged. Nothing came loose during or after firing. One additional note is that the revolver heated up considerably after 10 rounds. By the 50th round, the 445 was very hot to the touch, and hotter than any S&W I have owned.
The fixed sight has a wide rear channel and black front blade. It is easy to acquire, and gets on target immediately. I found it superior to an adjustable sight, and will test it next time out with point shooting.
Grip: The smooth rubber grip (with enclosed backstrap) absorbed recoil as well as any Hogue or Pachmayr, and has a thin concealable profile. After 50 rounds fired in under 30 minutes, I experienced no pain in my shooting hand or lingering discomfort. The grip fit my hand perfectly, allowing for a high hold and a very comfortable two-hand stance. (This rubber grip may or may not have been a replacement for a Taurus Ribber grip, as I’m not sure what originally came on the 445). This grip would be ideal for male/female shooters with average/medium sized hands.
Pros:
-Excellent value. For the price ($425), there are few offerings in the .44 Special CCW category that compare favorably (perhaps a good, older Charter Arms or Rossi 720). Used S&Ws in .44 Special are averaging twice what this 445 cost me.
-Perfect revolver for CCW. Make no mistake, the 445 is not a range tool, but a dedicated carry piece. The DAO design and K/L-sized snubby frame make it ideal for everyday carry. Weighing in at ~ 25oz, there is enough mass to absorb .44 Special recoil, while not being too heavy for CCW. In comparison, the lightweight S&W 296 weighs ~ 19oz and is a beast to shoot, the alloy NGs are close in weight, while the all steel S&W 696 is nearly identical to the 445 (albeit with a 3" barrel). I have seen Taurus titanium models in .44 Special, but I'll stay with the all-steel frame.
-Unlike new Taurus revolvers, this 445 has no key activated safety mechanism on the hammer spine. (I have not pinpointed the exact mfg date on this 445, but assume it to be early-mid 2000s). This is a big plus for the anti-IL crowd.
Cons:
-Like the S&W 696, the 445’s forcing cone and cylinder chamber walls are very thin. This is not as big an issue for a moderate use revolver, but I wouldn’t be any more comfortable with the 696 for heavy usage.
-The extractor star failed to forcefully eject spent casings, leaving two hanging pieces of brass (out of five) each time, but this is a minor concern since the brass was easily dumped or pulled out by hand. Not once did I experience a casing lodged deep in a chamber.
-The Taurus reputation is a big obstacle for potential buyers, and nearly prevented me from purchasing this 445. Did I get the lone diamond in the rough? Perhaps, but I’m happy that there were no QC problems that arose during the 445’s inaugural range session.
Overall thoughts: I am pleasantly surprised at how comfortable the 445 is to shoot, and its solid construction. After 50 rounds, I came away very impressed with the 445 as a medium-frame big bore CCW revolver. While today’s work won’t be mistaken for precision bullseye shooting, the 445 showed itself to be very capable at 15’, putting every round on target. There is no doubt that the 445 would do sufficient damage against two- or four-legged predators at similar distance. Though I don’t have enough trigger time yet to confidently stake my life on the 445 as I do with my various S&Ws, the 445 performed well enough that I wouldn’t hesitate to bring it along as a back-up to anything else I’m carrying. From all the negative reviews of Taurus products I had read, I expected the 445 to rate as a 2/3 out of 10, and no better than a 6 if I got lucky. Instead, I have a 445 that rates as a strong 8 after its first outing. I’m hopeful that future range work will be as positive.
The crux of the matter: The Taurus 445 fits the CCW niche perfectly ... easy to carry and shoot, large caliber, steel construction, DAO, and moderately priced on the used market. Ironically, the 445 was discontinued as were it's S&W counterparts (296, 696, and Night Guards), leaving this corner of the CCW market wide open. It is everything that S&W should be producing to take advantage of the growing number of CCW holders, and I think the Mother Ship is missing an opportunity. Yes, I know the Night Guard line was a great idea that didn't sell, but I believe it was due to the high price point rather than public interest. I eagerly awaited the NGs, but when I finally found them at the LGS I was put off by the $900 tags. If S&W could produce an all steel 445 model of its own in the $750 range, it would be a potential home run. Taurus produced a sibling to the 445 (the 455) in .45 ACP, which would make for another attractive offering by S&W. Forget the alloy guns for CCW ... they're too expensive for most folks ... and forget another .38/.357 model. Two dedicated big bore CCW snub revolvers built on the K/L frame at moderate prices would be welcome additions to the current S&W catalogue. The 445 is almost identical in dimensions to a 66/686 snub, and has less recoil than a J-frame with +Ps. What's not to like?
Attachments
Last edited:
.
