brand and design superiority

B

Bezoar

Moderator
I have no care if this gets closed. none at all. Its more about thiking the internet debates over and having a polite discussion.

For years the boards have raged with smith versus taurus vs everything else. its a complete toss up until threads get closed, usually after a "everythig is better then taurus" post.

20 years ago, taurus made a K frame clone that didnt have the k frame forcing cone issue. they used a standard solide piece of steel for the barrel.

this year smith and wesson has made a new version of the K frame. super safe for all loads labeled 357. To do so, they had to use a two piece barrel, to allow them to have a forcing cone that was completely symmetrical for 360 degrees.

most reviews of the new 66-8 all claim new design and new steel but in essence its just reducing the thickness of the barrel until they eliminated interference issues.
 
Well, you are kind of talking about one single facet of a design to make your point. Seems like a valid point... somewhat.

It's not lost on the enthusiasts that you have left out entirely the irrationally famous and excruciatingly well-deserved reputation that Taurus has built for shoddy quality control, finishing and execution of the product that they ship. It's been that way since the first Taurus showed up in North America.

Over my years in handguns, I've been able to really shake out five examples of them. Of those, I personally owned four and the other remains in my family. Three of those were revolvers. I still own two Taurus guns... one is a revolver.

It's good "enough" for the money I have in it. It does have some issues. It also has some good points, no doubt.

There are definitely some positives and redeeming qualities about Taurus on the whole. But if you really want to pit Taurus revolvers directly up against Smith & Wesson revolvers, it's pretty much going to end exactly the way everyone knows how it's going to end:

only the guys that have owned precious few revolvers and a very limited number of Taurus revolvers (and with a LOT of luck in getting really good ones) or the guys who may own a handful of guns but simply don't put a heavy workload on any of them would even waste the bandwidth to suggest, on ANY level, that Taurus revolvers occupy any echelon other than one below Smith & Wesson.

If that offends someone, maybe we'll work hand in hand in getting your thread closed, just as you said. But it'll be no less true.
 
this year smith and wesson has made a new version of the K frame. super safe for all loads labeled 357. To do so, they had to use a two piece barrel, to allow them to have a forcing cone that was completely symmetrical for 360 degrees.
Click to expand...

Korth is using a two piece barrel design successfully since the inception of the first Combat model in their 28 series from the early 1970s. From the 30 series on all revolvers were built with the barrel shroud and there were no issues.

To me Korth revolvers are coming closest to perfection when it comes to D/A revolvers, with the MR73 following right behind.

imagejpg1_zps913144a5.jpg
 
I own both Taurus and Smith, and both have been excellent for me.

I can tell you that there is allot of psychology that goes into these type discussions, especially on the internet. This particular forum is the Taurus bashing capitol of the world, that is why many Taurus owners have left or don't join at all.

That said, the only one you need to impress is yourself. If you are happy with whatever you buy, that's all that matters. I wouldn't hesitate buying the new Smith for a second. Manufacturing processes have changed on almost every product on the planet, guns are no exception.
 
What kind of polite discussion are you looking for?

Are you claiming that the cheaper Taurus 66 is the equivalent in quality to the S&W 66?

As far as brand and design superiority, I'll throw out that MANY more competitors choose S&W rather than Taurus. My experience has been that people who compete want to win, and the top competitors will choose what they believe to be the best equipment regardless of brand name.

For instance, the latest IDPA Nationals equipment list I found (2012) shows 113 S&W's and 2 Tauruses (Tauri?).

Do you believe that 113 national level competitors voluntarily chose to handicap themselves?

http://www.idpa.com/blog/post/2012/04/20/Glock-and-SW-Make-Up-67-of-IDPA-World-Shoot-Guns.aspx
 
Last edited:
Dan Wesson has been using a 2-piece barrel for ever. (3 if you count the locking nut).
Its good to hear others are catching up!:)
 
There is a lot to consider with a talk like this. S&W has a lot of guns out there probably more that anyone else. I agree personal selection is really a strong point, and do most shooters really put enough rounds through the guns to make a difference. Competition really tests out a firearm design, look at the 1911, or the Ruger 10\22, tons of comp parts, tons of use and tons of breakage. In IDPA S&W is probably the most popular and S&W is catering to that, how many guns do they make that take moon clips over the years? That's a competition thing isn't it?

If any gun company wants to pass S&W in competition I would guess that's a pretty big challenge. I think that the market that other guns companies are trying to get in on with revolvers anyway is CCW. Big bore, small revolvers might be a bit popular today. Look at the popularity of the .380 auto anymore. A few years ago the "gun folks" would be telling you "yuck that's not a man stopper". No everyone makes a .380 cause its such a great CCW gun, that gun you have is better than the one you leave at home and all that.

Is S&W a better gun that Taurus, most people would say yes probably, is Taurus adequate? A lot of people think so. Most of the people that I have assisted or advised or just went to the gun shop with when they bought a handgun almost always ends up being price. Everyone starts out wanting a high end gun until they see the price and ends up compromising.

I bought a Sig 228 in 1991 (I think) and i cost me $700, my buddy who bought a gun the same day with me got a Ruger 9mm for exactly half that cost. Both guns are still up and running, difference is my 228 has about 70,000 rounds through it and his Ruger has about 500. Would his last that many rounds without a major breakage? I don't think it would, so maybe that's really the big difference.

If you shoot the crap out of your gun it would be a good idea to buy one that has a reputation for longevity.

Just my 2 cents.

Sorry for the long winded rant.
Ed
 
My 1924 F.C.A. De Armas Garantizadas 38 is just as good as any S&W Model 10.

For six shots. At three feet. ;)

DeArmasGar_15yds.jpg
 
Back in the late 1980s to early 1990s, some gunsmiths that I knew actually preferred starting with a Taurus revolver for making custom guns for the action pistoleros of the day.
They thought they were of better quality out of the box.
But that time was not the high water mark for quite a few name brand manufacturers.
 
FWIW: I recently shot a Rossi 46103 (.357 mag) and I was very pleased. The finish was very nice, comfortable grips, good balance and shot some really nice targets too. This gun was an Academy 3" special for $279. I saw nothing to complain about at all, I'd love to have one.
 
Back in the late 1980s to early 1990s, some gunsmiths that I knew actually preferred starting with a Taurus revolver for making custom guns for the action pistoleros of the day.
Click to expand...

jack Wiegand, I think, was the guy.
 
"Taurus Pistols are the best guns known to man. Clearly.

anyone who doesn't buy Taurus is stupid"

Hpoe that was a joke,, It's kinda fuzzy :D
Y/D
 
"... they had to use a two piece barrel, to allow them to have a forcing cone that was completely symmetrical for 360 degrees."

The larger L frame does allow a full forcing cone, but the use of a two-piece barrel is an unrelated issue. A gun can have one without the other.

Jim
 
34dlb1e.jpg


This is a Pic of my Taurus 66 7 Shot 357 mag...as good as any Smith I've owned..and Smiths are great great guns...


2lwvj3q.jpg


This is a Pic of my Model 12 Dan Wesson 357 mag Pork chop ..better than both..Taurus and Smith

11t8y7n.jpg


This is a Pic of one of my "S" series Ruger .it a Police Service Six ...these are my favorite...



Leejack is right about these little Rossi's ..6 shot 357 mag..built on a "D" size frame...3 inch barrel ..Round Butt ..one of the handi'est revolvers I own..

fxdh0.jpg
 
Last edited:
Well, you are kind of talking about one single facet of a design to make your point. Seems like a valid point... somewhat.

It's not lost on the enthusiasts that you have left out entirely the irrationally famous and excruciatingly well-deserved reputation that Taurus has built for shoddy quality control, finishing and execution of the product that they ship. It's been that way since the first Taurus showed up in North America.

Over my years in handguns, I've been able to really shake out five examples of them. Of those, I personally owned four and the other remains in my family. Three of those were revolvers. I still own two Taurus guns... one is a revolver.

It's good "enough" for the money I have in it. It does have some issues. It also has some good points, no doubt.

There are definitely some positives and redeeming qualities about Taurus on the whole. But if you really want to pit Taurus revolvers directly up against Smith & Wesson revolvers, it's pretty much going to end exactly the way everyone knows how it's going to end:

only the guys that have owned precious few revolvers and a very limited number of Taurus revolvers (and with a LOT of luck in getting really good ones) or the guys who may own a handful of guns but simply don't put a heavy workload on any of them would even waste the bandwidth to suggest, on ANY level, that Taurus revolvers occupy any echelon other than one below Smith & Wesson.

If that offends someone, maybe we'll work hand in hand in getting your thread closed, just as you said. But it'll be no less true.
Click to expand...

I've learned the hard way to at least try and stay out of the Taurus versus (insert brand here) threads, but after reading the above, I just had to say...thank you for this once and for all, absolute best response on the subject that I've had the pleasure of reading...and after having 7 of 9 Taurus guns that I've owned go back to the shop for out of the box issues, let me also say that I concur (even if I am a slow learner). :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top