Are Taurus revolvers *that* bad?

I traded a Hi-Point C9 for an old Taurus Model 84 (38 special with 4" barrel and adjustable sights). One of us probably got cheated but we don't know which one it was. The both shoot reliably and accurately. I refused to consider a Taurus until I traded. Based on the old Taurus, I bought a new Taurus TCP. I have no problem with Taurus and I don't care what their resale is because I don't.
 
I had a Taurus once suffer an extended hang fire. It actually went off when I laid it in my left hand to try to figure out what to do about it. Some powder burns and torn skin.... so ever since I have steered clear of Taurus.

With that said the vast majority of firearms today are reliable and are capable of being more accurate than those shooting them. Begrudgingly Taurus included (though I am not owning another).
 
Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I think I'll probably end up going with either a Ruger or a Smith. Just seems like a luck-of-the-draw type thing, and I'll save up a bit longer and buy something that's more likely to save me a few headaches.
Click to expand...

In all honesty, had you posted the question "Do today's S&Ws have quality issues", you would have probably got the same mix of responses.

It's human nature. If a gun works fine, and as expected, nobody says anything. If it has a problem, they can't wait to tell the world about it.

I don't trust any new to me gun until I've shot it enough to determine it is reliable. At that point, the branding means nothing to me. I carry a Taurus 85 daily as though my life depends on it. It might. I just bought an Amscor M200 for my son. Shoots nice, and trigger for both single and double action is nicer than my Rugers. The finish is ugly as sin, but he uses it for a range toy, and not to stare at it. I wouldn't yet call it reliable, as that has yet to be decided. I wouldn't hesitate to try another Taurus. I'm not convinced that the extra few hundred dollars for the S&W buys any less chance of needing warranty service.
 
I had a Taurus once suffer an extended hang fire. It actually went off when I laid it in my left hand to try to figure out what to do about it. Some powder burns and torn skin.... so ever since I have steered clear of Taurus
Click to expand...

Last I checked, a hang fire is an ammo issue, not a gun issue. I can see it causing you to be soured on the ammo in question, but the brand of gun? Seems like the blame is being misplaced here.
 
I'm using the term wrong then. The hammer jammed part way down (concealed hammer where you have a small piece left exposed to cock). I had pulled the trigger and it just stayed just off cocked
 
I have owned 3 Taurus revolvers: a .44 Special Ultralite that I sold because it was impractical; a Model 65 (I think - the snubnose) with a ported barrel that was sold because its recoil was punishing; and a model 94 .22 that makes every range trip.

I was (am) happy with the performance of all three.
 
Good point, TimSR. Duly noted.

I asked the question because it seemed I'd heard/read more against the Taurus lineup than the other "Big Two." Lots of other reviews I'd read in magazines or online made mention of the bad reputation or seemed to make implicit statements about the questionable quality of some of their guns. In reviews of S&W or Rugers, quality just seemed to be taken for granted in a sense.

I'm also a new shooter, so I'm a little unsure of myself when it comes to evaluating the quality of different firearms.
 
I have hunted with a Taurus Raging Bull .454 for the last 4-5 years.
One BAD ASSS GUN!!
I also had a S&W .460. The Taurus was more accurate than the S&W,,no kidding.
I have killed plenty of hogs with the Taurus (Up to 100 yards)
I can shoot 4" (or better) groups at 100 yards. And I'm no pro.



Here is the 12" target back when I first put a scope on it and was setting it at 100 yards. The last two shots were almost in the same hole!

Ive never had a problem with the gun,,,but Ive had to replace the scope a few times,,Hahahaha.

 
Last edited:
The design is good.
The materials aren't bad.
The problem is the QC.
Of course, it seems everyone has a problem with QC these days.
The other problem is with the warranty work. There have been periods where people reported very long waits on guns getting returned from warranty service. At one point I saw claims they were being sent out of the country for work and that is why it was taking so long. Then guns were making multiple trips coming back with obvious problems persisting. I haven't heard much of that lately.

I would still cough up money for a Ruger. They have always been fair with me and sometimes a whole lot more.
 
The overlooked Taurus

The best Taurus revolvers, IMO, are the large-frame M607, M608 and M44. How good are they? Try and find one on the used market. They are every bit the equal of the N-frame S&W and recoil ported from the factory. The M607 and M608 have the added advantage of being able to accept .357 Magnums loaded to 1.725" in length.
My M607 seven-shot cylinder is chambered for the .360 Dan Wesson and has a second eight-shot M608 cylinder that not only uses the .38 Special and .357 Mag, but a rimless .357 made from .223 brass.
 
94 .22 LR

I have a model 94 in .22 LR, it's accurate and well made overall. I'm not a big revolver guy but the little 94 is a very decent gun.

My dislike? The double action trigger pull is atrocious but thumbing the hammer back gives a reasonably crisp single action trigger pull.

Word around the campfire is it's all about the frame size with regard to the double action trigger pull. Putting in lighter springs is an option, but reliability will suffer. It will never be in a designated self defense role so putting in lighter springs may be an option.

Not rough, not gritty, just heavy with regard to the trigger. Would rather have an S+W but for the price........I'm a happy Taurus camper. My 94 was made in 2012. Good value @ 250 bucks.
 
I had a M85 and to be honest, it shot well till it seized up sold at 250 rounds.

Any money you think you can save up front, in a case like mine, you will spend attempting to send it back to Taurus on your dime.

That isn't to say you can't get a good Taurus, but out of my 5 revolvers, Taurus was the only one I've had issues with.

I say look for a used Smith or Ruger and you'll be much happier.
 
I can comprehend the opinions of some, that a new Smith or Ruger might be more reliable than a new Taurus, even if I may not necessarily agree.

What I can't get my arms around is the suggestion that a USED Smith or Ruger will be more reliable than a NEW Taurus, if we are not the one who USED it.

Yes, new guns fail out of the box, and mfgs stand behind their products in varying degrees, but to suggest that the stranger at a gun show who hands you a "used" gun of unknown "use" in exchange for your money is less of a risk, just because it has "Ruger" stamped on it is insane to me. I would highly recommend against anybody who is not very knowledgeable about guns buying a used one unless it's from somebody they know and trust. At least if you have problems with your new Taurus, you have somewhere to go.
 
Last edited:
This is my favorite Taurus. It's a Model 689, the fancy version of their Model 66. The DA trigger is almost as good as my LCR. The DA and SA are so much better than my SP101 that comparing them is a mockery. I got it something like 15 years ago, used, for $200. It has never malfunctioned since I have owned it. The grips are some of those hardwood grips from Thailand that they sell on eBay.

Taurus357_zps9f7f3a5a.jpg
 
Just to keep blabbing... I once mentioned that my Taurus 689 had a better trigger and sights than either of my S&W revolvers.

I enjoyed the anger and disbelief. No one knew that both of my S&W revolvers are over 100 years old. They are fun to shoot, but their triggers are a bit stiff and the sights are tiny.

The best DA trigger I have ever felt is the one on my friend's well-worn S&W Model 66. He got it from his dad. That trigger is smoooooth!
 
Just bought a M66 4" stainless. Polishing with Mother's to give it a shine. I don't care for the Taurus luster stainless.

That said, the finish is nicer than the GP100 I sold and the trigger is at least 2x's lighter on the Taurus. Trigger reach is significantly longer than on the Taurus, which is the opposite of what you hear on the internet from people who haven't owned both together. Plus one extra round.

I did have to send an M66 6" back to Taurus from the very beginning because of timing. Came back perfectly fine, free of charge.

At 400 vs 600 + for a GP100 or 686? That's a lot of dough for I am not sure what improvements. Certainly none with the GP100.
 
When a glock fails...everyone on forums blames the user

When a taurus fails...everyone on forums blames taurus

I would love to see tests where users fire and use these guns but have no idea what brand they are...

Here is a test of single stack 9s. The taurus and glock did not fail when all of the others (SW, Ruger, Sig, etc) did. http://www.gunsandammo.com/handguns/compacts/single-stack-9mm-shootout/

My point here is that all companies products have a failure rate. That usually average 1%-5% depending on the industry. If it were more than that they go out of business or report major losses that quarter/year. ALL GUN MANUFACTURES PRODUCE LEMONS. But people like to give their favorite companies a pass. One guy who is a so called expert will tell you that taurus is terrible and the next guy who is also an expert will tell you he has never seen a problem with any of the ones he has sold...People don't want to believe that a gun that was in some cases half what they paid for theirs could possibly be just as good or better.
 
Right.

I admit Taurus may be a larger risk to perfect at the start, but with a warranty, I don't see the competition justifying "better" at 250+
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top