OP
Captain1201
Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2012
- Messages
- 8
- Reaction score
- 0
The point is that all manufacturers have made good products and all have made garbage.
I suspect that most of the criticisms are from well intended shooters, based sometimes on experiences from a time when Taurus first entered the market, and/or on their country of origin, and that's fine too.
But, just on the merits, I suspect that many have not given Taurus a new look in years, or personally evaluated their products recently, within the last 5 years. That doesn't diminish problems some may have had with them in the past.
I've been in the firearms business for 30 years. I have access to all the brands, and dealt with all the customer service departments, etc...I even have my own criticisms of Taurus, but none that exceed any of the other brands. My own evaluation of the internal parts and mechanisms of the Millennium Pro indicates that Taurus is producing firearms that are as good as anything else on the market. Warranty? Taurus has a lifetime warranty too, and I've experienced no difference in dealing with their customer service department versus any of the other manufacturers.
I don't mean to sound like some kind of advocate, because I have no affiliation with Taurus, or any particular allegiance to them. I just find a lot of the quality criticisms of Taurus to be short on technical justification.
With respect to reliability, my own Millennium Pro has exceeded the reliability of several other, more expensive, brands.
So, with all sincerity, and all due respect, I'd like to know...what are, specifically, the internal quality differences between the Taurus Millennium Pro versus all the rest of these supposed higher quality, better reliability polymer firearms, most of which cost considerably more? Perhaps other more expensive brands provide a higher level of longevity that justifies the price, but I don't see any difference with respect to reliability.
Last edited: