Any known problems/design defects in the Taurus Judge?

D

defjon

New member
I know this model is almost universally derided on this forum, and I get the criticisms. It can't match accuracy of a dedicated 45 lc or 44 mag, the 410 doesn't get much steam, etc.

I'm curious if there have been lots of the same reported problems with the model, any defects. All of the flak aside, I just think it would be a ton of fun at the range. I'm considering a stainless model.

Also, about how much should I expect to pay, and do they have the model that will chamber 3'' shells out yet? Thanks all!
 
I've had a Judge since the end of last year (November, maybe?) and have had few issues with it. Some 410 shells I have run through it have been hard to eject, but different ammo has solved that problem. I have shot it at 50 feet with surprising accuracy with the .45colts. All in all, it has proven to be a fun little gun, if impractical. Its fun to toss clays and shoot them with it, though.

I think they are running $450-500 for the 2.5" chamber. A 3" is available, but I don't know how much they run; they are a bit harder to come by. Since I have one already, I haven't been checking the ones at my local shop to see what chambering they were.
 
I have kind of been reading here on them, and there are two types of posts, in general:

1) "Hey! I just got a new gun. I'm so happy!"

and

2) "Disappointing range trip with Judge. I'm so angry."

Do a search and you'll find them.
 
I'm curious if there have been lots of the same reported problems with the model, any defects. All of the flak aside, I just think it would be a ton of fun at the range. I'm considering a stainless model.

Also, about how much should I expect to pay, and do they have the model that will chamber 3'' shells out yet? Thanks all!
Click to expand...

How about you send me whatever money you're going to spend on a Judge, and I'll send you an ugly old clapped out .357 that's going out of time and has a rotted bore. You'll be very happy as it will consistently outshoot the Judge, will be lighter and smaller, and give you an extra shot with which to dispatch snakes. Despite the fact it is loose as a goose and going out of time it will probably still last longer and be more reliable than most of the Judges out there.

Really, the Judge does nothing better than a regular revolver, in fact it does almost everything worse, and is ridiculously large and heavy with spotty QC to boot. Why mess with the thing?
 
I had a 6" Judge for about six months. A friend of mine wanted something larger while he was on Kodiak. I wouldn't feel safe around those bears with any handgun, however he wanted something larger than his .40 Sig. He never had to use it for bear protection but he was satisfied. While I had it my friends and I had a great time shooting both .410 and .45 Colt rounds through it. At 50ft it was accurate. Once or twice there was an issue dumping the .410 hulls out of the chamber but it was no big deal. The standard 240 gr loads out of the Judge were "power puffs" compared to the .410 shells.
 
Avoid cheap .410 shells (like RIO) and stick with Remington STS or Winchester AA. Cheap shells are hard to load and eject and may have loose primers that when fired will lock up the gun. Looking at how thin those cylinder walls are I wouldn't be shooting any super heavy duty .45 Colt through them.
 
My wife found a Judge a while back. She wanted for horse back riding. (we live in snake country). I was relutant at first but I bought it to humor her.

Got it home and started playing with it. She really liked the ideal of the 410 shells for a carry gun in her car.

I've seen the clips, (videos), and tried it. It looked impressive. We shot it a lot and I found that the light (7 1/2 - 9 shot) wasnt so hot in penitration. We tried #4 shot and it seemed to work.

THEN I started reading all the neg. comments about the judge, and being concerned for my Wife's safty, I took it out and shot the Heck out of it, both in 45s and 410s.

My target backing is 3/8s plywood. At 7 yards the 410 w/# 4 shot rips a chuck of the plywood. The 45s, though note a target round in this gun, can be kept in the A Scoring area ISPC metric target at 15 yards all day long.

I went through a lot of rounds, (not hot 45s as my wife is small and has three rods between her shoulder blades from breaking her back an cant take the recoil).

I found zero problems with her Judge.

The Judge is not a combat pistol, its a defensive pistol. My wife works nights and has to make a bank deposit at 3 AM. This concerned me so I followed her one night, While in the car she has her judge in her lap, then carries it to the depost slot at the bank. I wouldnt want to rob her. A load of #4 shot in the face at close range would discourage bad behavier.

In my Womens CC classes, I like to do a panic drill, having the student, turn an shoot at the ISPC target (7 yards) giving them very little time to get on the sights. The judge with the #4 shot is the most effective in getting shots on target. Maybe not killing shots, but I teach TO STOP, not to Kill. Bird shot in the face does have a tendency to stop bad behavier IMHO.

So here comes people to tell us the judge is junk, 410 shells dont work, Etc etc, My Advise is to get one and try it. I think you'll be supprised.

Yeah I know, nothing beats Training, and hours upon hours of practice, but if you are honest, you'll admit most women who carry a defensive pistol will not take the time and effert to train and practice. Thats where the 410 comes in.

Later I'll dig up my camera, and post some pictures of the Judge and 410 #4s on target.
 
Our 2.5" chamber - 4" model has performed flawlessly with .410 and .45 LC ammo, and is surprisingly accurate.

The 3" is out and we've seen a few in stores. One local gun shop has a blued, 3" chamber, 6" for $450.

It's not a tack driver, but plenty accurate for the distances it was designed for. It's kinda comforting to make a target look like it has the measles from 15'. A face full of #4 will stop just about anyone - at least long enough to let me shoot again with .45 LC JHP or grab something else to ruin his day with.

It's well balanced and shoots easily in DA. SA is very light. Recoil is moderate - more with .410 than with .45 LC, but controllable with either. One-handed shooting is possible.
 
Well, I must confess to having owned three of them. My first, a 3" blued steel, I sold because I thought I was moving to an urban area where there were no snakes. I didn't move so I found and bought a 3" ultra-lite and bought a pancake holster by Simply Rugged in Wasilla, Alaska. Then, on a whim and wanting to compare the ballistics, I bought a 6" blue steel. I found that I got better shot patterns out of the 3". Accuracy was about the same with .45 Colt and .410 OOO buck. The rifled slug is a waste of time since it's so light. Never had any problems with any of them except when I shot cheap shotshells as I noted in my posting above. The ultra-lite is as comfortable to shoot as the all steel ones... I don't find recoil to be a problem at all. I imagine it would be a good man-stopper loaded up with the larger shot sizes (like #4 as you mentioned). A lot of people **** and moan about them but they are a great gun and fun to shoot IMHO. :)
 
poor quality and repair experience here

I've had a stainless 6.5" for several months.

The good news -- It's fun as heck to shoot. It's not as accurate as other handguns I own, but it's accurate enough to enjoy shooting .45LC out of, and certainly accurate enough for SD purposes. Shooting clay pigeons with a revolver is an absolute blast. They have to be pretty close in, but it'll bring a smile to your face every time. I've also carried it while rifle hunting - loaded with either shotshells for rabbit or with .45's for a secondary weapon. I don't consider it unwieldly or heavy. It's a different shape because it's a different revolver, that's part of the deal.

The bad news -- as other have indicated, loading/unloading .410 shells can be a pain. In my case, the hard loading of .410 shells may have led to the cylinder retainer breaking. Imagine my surprise when the cylinder slid out and fell into the dirt when I tried to load it with Winchester AAs. Since the revolver locked up on the round fired just previous to that, it is possible that the retainer broke first, I'm not sure.

I sent it to Taurus with a detailed note. I asked them to fix the retainer, and give the firearm a QC check. I noted that the cylinder was locking prior to it falling out, and asked them to check that. I also noted that the fit and finish were poor (the barrel looks like it was finished by my 5 year-old), and wanted to be sure that the revolver met Taurus' specifications.

I received the revolver back in a few weeks, with a note outlining exactly everything that Taurus checked and did per my request. Here is the complete reply from Taurus:

"Missing parts replaced."

No mention of what parts exactly were missing, and no word on the remainder of my request. Also, the stainless revolver came back with small spots of surface rust. I live in AZ, the revolver was serviced in FL. Pretty sure I know where that came from.

Regardless, I was happy to have my gun back, and went for a shooting session not much later. The first time I tried to load it with .410 shells, the cylinder fell right out again (into my hand, not the dirt this time). No parts came out, so I backed the retaining screw out, and replaced the cylinder just to see if it would fix it. The cylinder still comes out, and has no stop now, it spins freely in the frame.

I need to call Taurus before sending it in again, bend their ear about their lack of effort, and see if they will cover shipping for a problem they supposedly fixed already (I am pretty sure they will refuse, but I have to ask). At 70 bucks a pop to ship it, this thing is getting expensive. For the price I paid, which wasn't bad, plus potentially 140 bucks in shipping, I'm now regretting the purchase. To answer the original poster's question -- Taurus' customer service alone may tread their product line into the "known problems" waters.

I did not intend it for SD or primary hunting weapon duties when I bought it, but we all know that "dance with who brung ya" situations arise. It is not the style or capabilities that will keep me from being comfortable with this handgun as an SD choice. It is the reliability and subsequent confidence in the particular specimen that lowers its worth to me.

I'm not a brand snob. My CCW piece is a Taurus 85, and it has never had an issue at all with fit, finish, or shooting. I love that little gun, and will carry it until it's replaced by something that has proven itself more reliable and carryable. I am, however, loyal/disloyal to how I am treated as a consumer. Depending on how Taurus treats me with their second (and last) chance, this may be the last one I buy.
 
kraigwy said:
...I teach TO STOP, not to Kill...
Click to expand...

I don't agree with this philosophy at all. In fact IMHO it is a dangerous and irresponsible thing to be teaching to anyone.

Firing a gun is using deadly force and before the trigger is pulled the decision has to have been reached that the only way to stop the person attacking is to kill them. Carrying .410 shot-shells with the intent to shoot someone in the face to stop them is setting yourself up for a major lawsuit when the person who was blinded by the shotshell sues and claims that your only intent was to permanently maim them. You might save the $1000 that was being deposited but you'll lose everything else you own in a lawsuit.

It would be very easy for even a mediocre attorney to show that a) use of firearm is deadly force and b) by having your gun loaded with a round that would maim but not kill you intended to maim and c) because the ammo would only maim, not kill, your use of deadly force (shooting any gun a person is using deadly force) was not justified. There is a bit of circular logic here but the person shooting to maim with shot shells comes out on the losing end of it.

The only reason to shoot someone with a gun is to kill them because you honestly believe that not to do so will result in them causing egregious bodily harm or death to you or someone else. If you feel that you can shoot to wound them then you haven't reached the point where deadly force is needed, yet by firing the gun you are using deadly force. Do you see the problem here?

If you are teaching people to use deadly force to permanently maim someone and they do you can bet that when they are sued they will sue you for having taught them to do it in the first place.

Shooting to stop the threat doesn't mean shooting to kill though. It means you keep shooting until the threat is ended but each shot you make should be one where you are trying to hit them in vital areas that will shut them down. If you shoot someone once and they stop what they were doing then you stop shooting. Hopefully it turns out they aren't going to die (only a small percentage do).


I like the way ShadoWalker says it, "The important thing to realize here is the intent is not to kill the bad guy, only to stop him. Also realize that the bad guy is in complete control over how much force is used, if he surrenders or quits when the gun is drawn he wont be shot at all, if he gives up after he is shot the first time he will not be shot again.

So although the end result of shooting to stop the threat and shooting to kill may happen to be the same the reason and the intent are entirely different. In shooting to stop the threat he will not be needlessly pursued or finished off while someone who is shooting to kill must do exactly that to be successful." http://www.shadonet.com/2008/08/shooting-to-wound-to-kill-or-to-stop-the-threat/
 
I don't agree with this philosophy at all. In fact IMHO it is a dangerous and irresponsible thing to be teaching to anyone.
Click to expand...

Then you're flying in the face of about 99.5% of all the CWP instructors and written laws on the books of most states.

Are you a lawyer, sir?

You took the idea of a face full of shot from one of my posts. If you go back and read the whole scenario, the shot is to delay long enough for me to get aimed properly from a dead sleep.

Alternatively, if you shoot and the BG is down/wounded and no longer a threat, and you continue to shoot, you might find yourself up for manslaughter or even murder 1.
 
Although we're getting a bit off subject here, I have gone through Arizona CCW classes and their refresher courses. They teach that the primary goal of self-defense is to STOP, not KILL an assailant. It also sounds better if you end up in court. If you have to kill a bad guy to stop him then so be it.
 
Keltyke said:
Then you're flying in the face of about 99.5% of all the CWP instructors and written laws on the books of most states.

Are you a lawyer, sir?

You took the idea of a face full of shot from one of my posts. If you go back and read the whole scenario, the shot is to delay long enough for me to get aimed properly from a dead sleep.

Alternatively, if you shoot and the BG is down/wounded and no longer a threat, and you continue to shoot, you might find yourself up for manslaughter or even murder 1.
Click to expand...

I think you need to reread my post. Especially the quote at the end. I never advocated shooting someone who was no longer a threat. What I'm advocating is not purposely shooting someone with ammo designed to maim, not kill.

I've been through the CCW license course for three states (received permits in all) and have never been instructed to shoot to maim someone.

I took the part about shooting someone in the face from the this post

Kraigwy said:
The Judge is not a combat pistol, its a defensive pistol. My wife works nights and has to make a bank deposit at 3 AM. This concerned me so I followed her one night, While in the car she has her judge in her lap, then carries it to the depost slot at the bank. I wouldnt want to rob her. A load of #4 shot in the face at close range would discourage bad behavier.

In my Womens CC classes, I like to do a panic drill, having the student, turn an shoot at the ISPC target (7 yards) giving them very little time to get on the sights. The judge with the #4 shot is the most effective in getting shots on target. Maybe not killing shots, but I teach TO STOP, not to Kill. Bird shot in the face does have a tendency to stop bad behavier IMHO.
Click to expand...

I took the part about shooting someone in the face from this post by Kraigwy. Not from any post by you Keltyke. In neither of the scenarios described is there mention of someone shooting from a dead sleep. In the scenario with the wife it clearly advocates a wide awake and aware person using a disfiguring facial shot as the method to stop the attacker.

I'm not a lawyer. Please cite for me which state laws or self-defense experts recommend shooting to maim. If, as you claim, 99.5% of them do so some citations should be very easy.
 
Last edited:
Anyone who takes a shot should be looking to stop the threat, not kill... death may result as it is one way to effect a stop.

Some threats will stop with the presentation of a weapon while others must either have their CNS or circulatory system disrupted to the point that they are no longer a threat due to being physically incapcitated for further mayhem.

For self defense we generally hope for the first option above but plan with an eye towards the latter. For this reason carrying around a large revolver with 410 shells loaded with #4 is a fools paradise in my opinion as it's largely impossibly to effect a physical stop with this load unless you are talking muzzle contact range.

Furthermore even shotguns can miss... it's a fact.
 
I'm not a lawyer. Please cite for me which state laws or self-defense experts recommend shooting to maim. If, as you claim, 99.5% of them do so some citations should be very easy.
Click to expand...

I said nothing about "shooting to maim" I said shoot to stop the threat.

That is the goal of self protection, TO STOP WHAT EVER IS THREATENING YOU or YOUR FAMILY.
 
The idea of having a revolver in .410 and .45 long colt seems to be a rather novel one and to use a phrase often used "... an answer in search of a question." If you remove the why and what to do with it, you just have a revolver that shoots a variety of choices without being called an SBS. The inherent flaw that I see in the Taurus Judge, as well as in the Thunder 5 and others is this:
It's a small revolver, so it doesn't have much of a sight radius.
As a .45 long colt in a .410 chamber, that bullet has a long ways to go before engaging lands and grooves. In order to get a shot cup through the cylinder gap I would think that the forcing cone would have to be rather large. Couple that with what the bullet is doing before it even gets there might make bullets come out of the barrel crooked.
As a .410 shot. Rifled barrels don't shoot shot well and if you are contemplating shooting .410 slug, then why not just shoot .45
 
If these thngs would handle 300+ grain Ruger-level .45 Colt loads, I'd be tempted to give it a whirl.

That 'cylinder fell off in the dirt' thing, though, is a real appetite killer.;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top