1st Pistol Purchase .357 Taurus vs S&W

I've owned 5 taurus revolvers from the late 80's and 90's. ( A period in my life where $ was tight and I thought S&W's were over priced based on their name.) Of those 5, 2 were troublefree and decient shooters. 1 spent 1/2 it's life at the factory for repair of a barrel mounting problem. 1 got excessive cylinder shake after less than 500 rounds of target velocity .38.
The last? Here it is after it's first range session.

http://www.graybeardoutdoors.com/phpbb2/album_pic.php?pic_id=414
I was fortunate to get away unhurt.

I've since purchased near 30 S&W revolvers, most used, with zero issues.
To be fair, I can't say anything about new production Taurus other than that their reputation is still hit or miss.
Buy a used S&W ( for the price of a new Taurus) and you'll never regret the quality or have beg somebody to buy an off brand revolver from you for 1/2 what you paid for it. (Been there, done that. I lost $ on every Taurus I owned.)
 
I have to agree with the majority here. Buy a nice used S&W for what you'd pay for a Taurus new.
I have a dozen or so old S&W's, mostly P&R and other than one weak mainspring after who knows how many rounds, I've had no problems with any of them.

I do have one Taurus M-608 that's been an okay gun so far but without lots of shooting. I found it for $200.00 with less than 50 rounds through it and two deer killed with it. I couldn't pass up the deal on it but it won't be getting alot of shooting with the others I now have. I do understand they are known to have timing issues as well with the eight shot cylinders, hopefully I won't find out. :)

Don't be afraid of the used revolver market BTW as it's not like used vehicles. Once you learn what to look for in way of wear and timing it's pretty easy to find good ones. The ones with pretty blueing and nice stocks are sure to have seen little use and are more the sure bets.
I once bought an M-28 with mainly drawer wear, P&R, for $250.00 and many other unfired or very lightly used S&W's for less than your Tauras new price.

Good luck and for me, the finding is as much fun as the aquiring.
 
30 years ago I'd buy a brand new Colt or Smith handgun and expect it to work out-of-the-box.

By 25 years ago I'd learned not to buy a used handgun without doing a checklist like Jim March's over on The High Road's Revolver forum.

By 15 years ago I'd learned not to ever buy a brand new pistol without doing something like Jim March's checklist and to reject it if the gun wasn't up to standards.

And the last 10 years I've been buying ONLY used guns, preferably ones made prior to 30 years ago.
 
Just don't fall in to the "older is always better" mindset. P&R has no bearing on the function of the revolver. I have guns that have P&R and guns that don't. I don't have any S&W's with the lock hole. Not because they don't work but because they are ugly. I just traded for a S&W model 19-7. It is not P&R and has the firing pin still on the hammer. It has the best action of any stock S&W I have ever touched and the fit and finish is second to none. I think this gun was the last run before the frame mounted firing pin. Mid 90's maybe?
 
Go with the S&W.

Two glaring differences: Trigger smoothness is number one, which translates into accuracy and confidence in your weapon. Smith and Wesson is smooth and gets smoother over time. Taurus is rough inside, needs more final finishing of toolmarks, deburing, and polishing by a good gunsmith. This is how Taurus can do it for less, shortcuts on the internals.

Number two: You will get most of your money back or more with the S&W, if you ever sell it. You won't with the Taurus.
 
I do not disagree that Taurus revolvers have had issues in the past. However, the current line is not, IMHO, the worthless garbage some would have you think. Things change. The first Taurus I bought was a .38 snubbie of early nineties manufacture, and required a trip to the factory to correct a cylinder binding problem (it has functioned flawlessly ever since). I have another .357 built in the mid-nineties which has experienced no problems. Since then Taurus has reported major strides in QC improvement, with the ones I have handled recently ostensibly bearing out those claims. again, MHO.

As far as Smith and Wesson QC going in the other direction, I cannot speak to that as all my experience with them is with older specimens.

I can echo the sentiments of some earlier respondents in suggesting you take a look at the Ruger GP-100. If you are set on NIB (there are certainly reasonable arguments for that preference), then the Ruger will split the difference cost-wise between the Smith and Taurus, and will doubtless give more trouble-free years of service than both of those combined.
 
Last edited:
"then the Ruger will split the difference cost-wise between the Smith and Taurus, and will doubtless give more trouble-free years of service than both of those combined."

That is a bold statement. I have a 60 year old S&W that shots better than I can ever hope to shoot. How are you 60 year old Ruger's?

Doubtless? Hardly.
 
Aug,

First let me congratulate you on your 60 year old Smith. I'm sure it is, like all the Smiths I've had the pleasure to shoot, a wonderful gun.

"Doubtless" is a word of craft which I employed in what I thought was a transparently subjective tone. As a component of some obvious hyperbole, it was meant only as a statement of opinion; to display respect for what I see as a very robust and durable revolver design. I feel that I went to great pains in my post to establish that I was working from an awareness that the opinions that I was relating reflected my own subjective perspective. I apologize if my reckless use of adverbs and literary devices left you believing I was making a definitive proclamation. Please, AUG and anyone else to whom my intentions were unclear, rest assured that my statement was purely one of opinion.

FYI...Ruger was not founded until 1949, at which time they began production of the Standard Model .22 auto. They did not begin producing a revolver until 1953 (Single Six .22). So you see, it would be impossible, at this date, to own a 60 year old Ruger of any type.
 
Dave85 said:
FYI...Ruger was not founded until 1949, at which time they began production of the Standard Model .22 auto. They did not begin producing a revolver until 1953 (Single Six .22). So you see, it would be impossible, at this date, to own a 60 year old Ruger of any type.
Click to expand...

That was my point.
 
I see irony is as lost as hyperbole on the literal mind.:)

Look, I'm as enamored with Smith & Wesson revolvers as the next guy. They are rightly considered the standard by which all other revolvers are measured. My respect for the Ruger should in no way be construed as disdain for the S&W. I just feel that, because of it's design and construction, the Ruger has an edge when it comes to strength. And strength is just one factor among many.

As far as requiring that a gun last 60 years before you believe that it can last 60 years, think about this: I have a Winchester Model 1897 shotgun. It was built in 1906. Do you think that, because my example has been around for 98 years, that it is a more robust design than the (only) 54 year old Remington 870?

Let's see what other folks think:
Poll
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top