Four Possibilities...What say you?

[Captain1201]

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.

 

[mlk18]

I am going to second the buy American comment from up above. You can't go wrong with a Shield or an M&P. I have a lot of Smiths and they have never let me down.

I have only owned one Taurus auto, a PT709 slim, and while it was an okay gun it did have minor reliability issues. My LGS took it back in trade for something else and sent it off to Brazil (or wherever) for warranty service. He said he sells a lot of Taurus because of the price point, but he also has more complaints about Taurus than anything else. I just read a review of a brand new Taurus 24/7 and it too had reliability issues.

 

[accessbob]

Both of my brothers-in-law have owned Taurus and, both of them had their guns break on them (one on the first shot, and one after only about 50). So, as much as some people seem to like them and they work for them, I just can't get past that and will likely never own one.

That's my opinion.

 

[jackge]

Sorry, wayyyyy too long for me.

 

[NICKTHEFISH]

I have it narrowed down in my mind to two models right now, either a Taurus Millenium Pro, or the S&W Shield.

I HAD A TAURUS PT145 AND JUST TRADED IT ALONG WITH AN ASTRA 357 MAGNUM FOR A M&P45FS. I ALMOST GOT THE SHIELD INSTEAD BUT WANTED TO KEEP A 45 IN MY COLLECTION. OTHERWISE I WOULD HAVE GOTTEN THE SHIELD IN 40 FOR SURE!

I THINK I STEPPED UP A NOTCH AND I BOUGHT AMERICAN TOO!

 

[NICKTHEFISH]

AS A SIDE NOTE TO MY POST ABOVE, I HAD TO REPLACE THE FIRING PIN IN THE TAURUS...SCRATCHES THAT COULD CAUSE A LIGHT STRIKE.

 

[Storm40]

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.

All my Taurus firearms have been very reliable. It is funny to see the reactions at the range when shooters realize that I handed them a Taurus and they liked it. I have a Beretta 84F that the slide needed replacing two weeks after purchasing. Got it fixed and have been shooting it for 21 years now. A Ruger GP 100 locked up on me and got it fixed and no more problems. I have purchased several Beretta and Ruger firearms since then. A failure with one does not tarnish the company. It just means mine needed fixing.
The finish on my PT 740 is better than my M&P Shield and none of he two finishes compare to any of my Berettas, in my opininion. As I mentioned before they are all just tools and I only expect them to work which they do.
The major differences I see are simply name brand.