Bashing Taurus

Agree with ladder13. My $2k pistol given up to the poloce after use is insignificant. Perhaps the only valid argument that can be made is that it is not able to be pawned to pay for legal bills.
 
Sign me up

Pepi4 said:
I've owned one for years and IMO anyone that calls them junk is an idiot
Click to expand...

The two I have owned make me an idiot.The others I have been around and shot will keep me from making that mistake again.
For folks to compare them with Chevy, Ford or Ruger makes me smile. If any of these companies had quality control issues like Taurus they would have a like reputation.
I am sure some people have had good ones but a lot of their reputation is based on owners experience, mine is.
If they worked and held up better than they do they would have a good reputation. I bet most folks would overlook a few little fit and finish issues for a dependable, durable, performer. Taurus has the reputation that their products have earned them and not one that a bunch of gun snobs decided to make for them
Twice bitten and a idiot for buying the second one.
Thanks
Mike
 
I have owned one Taurus. I bought a Judge right when they first came out. That's when I was definitely an idiot. It had timing issues right out of the box. The machining looked like a kindergartner had done. I traded it within a month, and will never own another. I am an idiot, because IMO Taurus is just that, junk.
I keep having thoughts on this.
I wonder what they're saying over on the Taurus forum about S&W's? What is Taurus Collector's Association membership numbers up to these days? How do you go about lettering that vintage Taurus?
I won't ask the question that begs asking in consideration of absolute statements like "you're an idiot if.......".
 
Last edited:
Comparing Taurus to Ruger is not a fair comparison.......it is unfair to Ruger. The two are not even in the same ballpark.


Ruger cuts costs by using casting, and not making cosmetic issues a priority, but they have been building strong,reliable guns since the 1950's and have a very strong customer base. Taurus cuts costs by trying to make the guns look good on the outside, but leaving them roughly fitted on the inside.

I am on the fence with Taurus, I am not a fan, but if another $120 used Model 82 falls in my lap I would think about it. Bad or Good,whether it matters or not, but Taurus makes the only fixed sight 4" medium frame .357 on the market right now. The frame size for the 65's, 66's, 82's etc. falls somewhere between a K and an L frame. Smith dropped the 619 and Ruger dropped the fixed sight GP's for the most part except for the runs of 3" guns.

The pluses to Taurus are they have the "any owner lifetime warranty" but I hear it's a major hassle to use and it takes forever to get your gun back. Theoretically, you could buy used, beater Taurus' for next to nothing and have them fixed for free, but I would be wary of how well the warranty center actually fixes them.

I got burned bad by an Armscor 4" .38 revolver I bought a few years back..........$230 seemed a good deal for a NIB .38 I could use as a beater carry gun or a glove box gun. The thing went out of time after less than 200 rounds and out of the box it wasn't very good. Armscor says they will fix it,assuring me I must have got a "lemon" which means, I hope they just destroy my old gun, renumber me a new one and send me that one...
 
Last edited:
I have a handful of both of them....Smith and Taurus. I like some for some reasons and I like some for other reasons. Taurus makes some good shooters, but the part I like the most is.....the IL is in the back of the hammer and not the side of the frame on a Taurus.

I certainly do not think (as a general rule) that the Taurus line is as cosmetically aesthetic as the Smith, but they have their place. The real thing with the Taurus is that you may have to buy more than one to get a good one, or send it back-n-forth to Miami for warranty work and you may get it back in worse shape that it left. BUT....for what it's worth, they do have a lifetime warranty to whoever happens to own it at the time and it is not restricted to the original purchaser.
 
This is the ONLY Porshe that I like:
Porsche-904-GTS_1.jpg

And when I'm at a show selling and buying and someone brings junk up and ask me to buy it ---- I tell them that we don't deal in "JUNK". If the shoe fits - wear it :D .
 
snubbiefan said:
The real thing with the Taurus is that you may have to buy more than one to get a good one, or send it back-n-forth to Miami for warranty work and you may get it back in worse shape that it left. BUT....for what it's worth, they do have a lifetime warranty to whoever happens to own it at the time and it is not restricted to the original purchaser.
Click to expand...

Which is why I'd rather have my $700 Smith sitting in an evidence locker rather than me laying on a slab, down at the coroner's office. ;)
 
We whupped them Viet Cong into democracy because they tried to use Chinese junk and Nagant revolvers against our superior Colt weaponry. Those Afghans using those rough hand forged black market Kalashnikov junk rifles will soon be eating apple pie too and religious fanatics will be a thing of the past over there by next year.
Them junk users always learn their lesson sooner or later.
 
I like Taurus simply because it competes against S&W. If S&W didn't have the competition from a look alike product the cost of buying a brand new S&W would be prohibitive.

Taurus make great car guns. I'd prefer one of my classic S&W's riding along in my center console but when my car is parked in a public parking lot. I'm not going to be nervous worrying about a $200 357 being stolen that I bought used and paperless.
 
"There's a certain quality in quantity".
-Joe Stalin
Not only was he talking about weapons, he was also talking about people.
Them Viet Cong, and Chinese and what we like to call Afghans used inferior equipment because it's cheap and their fighters are expendable. Take a look at casualty figures for the Soviet Union and China in WWII. They make up about 70% of Allied casualties. The Viet Cong ceased to exist after the Tet Offensive in 1968. The North Vietnamese took 40,000 casualties as opposed to our 1000 in the same battle. North Vietnam never won a single major military engagement against the US. They defeated us politically. Which Afghans are you talking about? The Mujahadeen, the Taliban, Al Quaeda, Northern Alliance, Pashtuns, or Uzbecs....? Seems they defeated the Soviets with US money, and stinger missiles in 1979, if that's the "Afghans" you're referring to.
Although I do not think in terms of my old S&W's for tactical weapons, I do teach theories of insurgency and counterinsurgency at the graduate level.

cantpickone said:
We whupped them Viet Cong into democracy because they tried to use Chinese junk and Nagant revolvers against our superior Colt weaponry. Those Afghans using those rough hand forged black market Kalashnikov junk rifles will soon be eating apple pie too and religious fanatics will be a thing of the past over there by next year.
Them junk users always learn their lesson sooner or later.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
JC4013 said:
Just a passing thought since most of us are concerned with the need to protect ourselves with firearms if needed: If I use my gun in a shooting, the first thing I have to do is turn it over to the police as evidence. I'll get it back, if I do, months of even years later or perhaps never. The problems with Taurus seem to appear when they are shot a lot. I expect a gunfight to be over in a couple or three rounds. I don't expect a firefight. When I hand that gun over to the police, I would much rather hand over a Taurus that I paid a couple or three hundred dollars for and not a thousand dollar custom made work of art.
Click to expand...

If you need to shoot someone in self-defense, you had better have a solid, reliable firearm backing you and not some hit-or-miss piece of junk that you don't care whether you lose to the cops or not. A Glock 19 or 26 would be and excellent choice.
 
phenson said:
I have owned one Taurus. I bought a Judge right when they first came out. That's when I was definitely an idiot...
Click to expand...

Don't beat yourself up about it. When you get into firearms, unless you have a lot of good advice, you are going to learn a lot of things the hard way. I know quality, and I just couldn't afford it while I was in my 20s, so that led to a lot of dumb purchases--a Charles Daly 1911, total ***, an EAA Witness 9mm, utter junk, and a Taurus 669, also junk. You just don't realize all the ins and outs of these things until you experience them for yourself.
 
phenson said:
"There's a certain quality in quantity".
-Joe Stallin
Not only was he talking about weapons, he was also talking about people.
Them Viet Cong, and Chinese and what we like to call Afghans used inferior equipment because its cheap and their fighters are expendable. Take a look at casualty figures for the Soviet Union and China in WWII. They make up about 70% of Allied casualties. The Viet Cong ceased to exist after the Tet Offensive in 1968. The North Vietnamese took 40,000 casualties as opposed to our 1000 in the same battle. North Vietnam never won a single major military engagement against the US. They defeated us politically. Which Afghans are you talking about? The Mujahadeen, the Taliban, Al Quaeda, Northern Alliance, Pashtuns, or Uzbecs....? Seems they defeated the Soviets with US money, and stinger missiles in 1979, if that's the "Afghans" you're referring to.
Although I do not think in terms of my old S&W's for tactical weapons, I do teach theories of insurgency and counterinsurgency at the graduate level.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget to mention the Korean War where the Chinese often could only arm 1 out of every 10 men and would massively assault our troops carrying sticks carved to look like rifles and the men in the front carried the real rifles. As the BAR's would mow down the men in front, the stick carriers would pick up a real rifle and keep coming.
I have no wish to disparage the valor of the US military in any engagement especially on Memorial Day weekend.
Just pointing out that a cheaply made weapon that reliably goes bang will kill you just as dead as a S&W Performance Center gun will.
 
I must admit that seeing this thread's one degree of separation from Taurus' questionable quality to battling ill-equipped hordes of Communist heathen fighters made me laugh.
 
I own 4 Tauri. All were purchased at a too good to pass up price. They are all small frame revolvers and none have ever failed to fire. I own several Smith & Wesson revolvers, a handful of Ruger revolvers, one Colt Revolver, one Nagant, even a lowly H&R. None of them has ever failed to fire.
As far as Semi Auto's,I have a couple of Glocks, a couple of Kahr's, a Seecamp, a Makarov, a Sig Sauer, a Ruger, a few S&W's, a lowly Star and more.
None of these guns have ever failed to fire and I enjoy them all.
If that is what you somehow see as a lost argument, so be it.
If you want to hear something really heretical, I used to Have a Colt 1991 and sold it because I just didn't enjoy the 1911 platform.
Even worse, I once had a very clean S&W model 57 and traded it because I just didn't like shooting 41mag. That was over 20 years ago, before they were sought after like they are today.
And I would gladly drive a Volkswagen as well. In fact I do have a very clean nice running 1995 Volvo 850 that I am not too proud to drive. And like with guns, I don't limit myself to one vehicle, and I don't insist on having luxury cars only.
 
Well folks....there is plenty of pain to go around. S&W advocates won't own a Taurus because they think their junk. Even some S&W advocates won't own a new S&W for political reasons. Some don't like the hole and cottage industries have sprang-up all over the place to hide the hole. Some folks love the hole. Many folks don't like the MIMS parts. Taurus owners poo-poo S&W because of the cost. I don't think anybody wants a Charter....in some models anyway.....and on and on it goes. That's what makes the world go around I guess.

As I recall....the AK-47 that has probably killed more Americans than any other weapon (and still is) contains many stamped-out parts for goodness sake.

I really wonder how many of us actually own some of both for particular reasons, but just won't admit it? I do...I use my cheaper ones (that actually shoot well) as toss-away guns. If it gets lost or stolen...who cares. Big or small...I like them all (except a Charter) and each one has it's place.
 
Last edited:
I really didn't think of it as an argument, more of a debate, because beliefs aren't usually changed except by personal experience. I believe what I believe and you may believe something else. I did take exception to being labeled an idiot, however, for what I believe, without a valid argument to back that up. Looking back on my life, I may very well have been an idiot several times, but for reasons that have nothing to do with personal choice in revolvers. On second thought I probably shouldn't have even entertained it.
Actually, the AK47 and its variants have killed more people than any other weapon in the history of the world. The Soviets tested it to make sure it was idiot proof (Taurus bashers could disassemble and reassemble it quickly and without mistake). I won't go into what the real test consisted of here, but you can read about it, its totally non-PC.
I do own a Japanese Winchester 1885 Highwall in 45-70. One of the finest guns I have ever owned. I got told I was pretty much a non-patriot for buying a Japanese gun in that discussion. Makes one wonder.
 
Last edited:
"If you want to hear something really heretical, I used to Have a Colt 1991 and sold it because I just didn't enjoy the 1911 platform. Even worse, I once had a very clean S&W model 57 and traded it because I just didn't like shooting 41mag."

It would only be considered heresy if you said that you had traded that very clean S&W Model 57 for a Taurus. :)
 
I have about 7 Taurus guns.I think they are great guns for the price.I have a 45 acp model PT945 semi auto that I love,another 45acp,model Millennium Pro 145 semi auto,a Taurus Tracker revolver in 41 mag,a 4" model 44 in 44 mag, a 4" model 66 in 357 mag,a 3" model 65 in 357 mag,and a 2" model 85 in 38 special.I have never had any problems with any of them.All of the revolvers are used a lot,fishing,hiking,bathroom gun,nightstand gun and so on.Here are a couple of pictures of the blued revolvers minus the model 44.
IMG_3792.jpg

IMG_3787.jpg
 
mc5aw said:
"If you want to hear something really heretical, I used to Have a Colt 1991 and sold it because I just didn't enjoy the 1911 platform. Even worse, I once had a very clean S&W model 57 and traded it because I just didn't like shooting 41mag."

It would only be considered heresy if you said that you had traded that very clean S&W Model 57 for a Taurus. :)
Click to expand...

I actually traded it for a nice old 16ga Stevens Double Barrel that I still have. Back then Double Barrel shotguns were sort of in demand in this area, and used revolvers were languishing in gun shop counters unwanted during the wonder nine era.
I'm pretty sure that the 57 would sell for more than the shotgun today.
Edit: I just went and took the Stevens out of the safe. A nice clean gun in VG condition. The Standard Catalog of Firearms values it at $450 and dates it as 1955. The Model 57 would certainly be worth more today.
 
Last edited:
In 1989 I had a ss model 66 taurus copy that new out of the box shot way off to the left.my friend held paper on each side and it was throwing lead out one side of the cylinder gap.I shined a light down the barrel and you could see it was out of alignment. so I took it back to the gunshow that sunday and traded it for a model 10. then later I said I would take another chance and got a blued taurus beretta 92 copy.it was only $200.and now that was a sweet shooting gun. I liked it.but that was in my tradeing phase and it went months later.now I would own one of those again if I run across a old one. but that is my experince with taurus.I havent had one since they quit shipping them in the burlap looking box.I stay with S&Ws since then
 
Last edited:
I would rather buy a Charter than another Taurus.......if I buy a cheap gun, at least it's an American made cheap gun:D

People call my Rugers "cheap" but whatever, I have a pile of them right next to my S&W's.
 
I was looking for a second 9mm, and since I kind of enjoy revolvers a bit more than semi-autos, I considered the Taurus 905 (used S&W 940's were out of my price range...and rare.)

I have to admit, I was a little scared away by some of the things I read on line about the 905 (problems getting spent casings out of the cylinder.) Too bad...I liked the concept. I would love to have tried one out, but 9mm revolvers aren't exactly a big range rental gun around here.

I hate to judge the thing based on other peoples' opinion, but what else are you going to do?

I DO love my Rossi Model 88 snubnose, though. An unsung classic, with a pinned barrel and all.
 
for my next cheap beater gun I want to get another tokorev.they are sweet shooting guns.and better than taurus in my book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dp509
  • Locked
WTS-Assorted Handguns in Alabama Only
Replies
3
Views
1K
dp509
dp509

Latest posts

Back
Top