My Taurus 709 slim worked flawlessly for 500 rounds, and was my EDC piece for almost a year. During one range session, the gun would FTE every other round. Taurus replaced the extractor and barrel under warranty. The gun supposedly meets factory specs and has run about 10 mags without an issue. I am hesitant to trust the gun as an EDC piece due to the failure. Would this bother other users as well, or do you guys trust factory repaired guns as much as ones that have never broken?
Faith in Repaired Guns
- Thread starter wmg1299
- Start date
I trust a repaired gun as much or more than I trust a repaired car; firearms are a much simpler machine after all.
That said, there are repaired Fords and Chevrolets and there are repaired Austins, Rovers, and Mahindra (And please, do not take this list seriously, I'm just using well-known names v almost unheard of names as examples. I WANT a Mahindra pickup diesel but it's not happening.
Where Taurus firearms fits on that rather elastic list is subject to debate.
That said, there are repaired Fords and Chevrolets and there are repaired Austins, Rovers, and Mahindra (And please, do not take this list seriously, I'm just using well-known names v almost unheard of names as examples. I WANT a Mahindra pickup diesel but it's not happening.
Where Taurus firearms fits on that rather elastic list is subject to debate.
If you trusted the gun from the factory when you bought it, why do you not trust the gun from the factory now?
I understand your hesitancy, but the gun is as good as it will be after a factory repair. The fact that you had a problem fixed shouldn't make you trust the gun less, unless you feel it is a fundamental problem with the design of the gun or the brand.
I understand your hesitancy, but the gun is as good as it will be after a factory repair. The fact that you had a problem fixed shouldn't make you trust the gun less, unless you feel it is a fundamental problem with the design of the gun or the brand.
machinist91
Inactive
I would not have any worries, I'm a gunsmith and I can tell you that Taurus care about there customer's safety cause I know first hand if it is a internal part that need be replaced they will not send us the part we have to send the gun in. Now the down side to that and this may not apply to everyone else but they didn't have a quick turn around time.
If the gun has been serviced by a factory gunsmith, you should be good to go. I believe it's important to have my EDC guns armored by my gunsmith at least once a year. I shoot my EDC's often but I never have firearm-related problems with any of them, occasional ammo related problems are another story.
Independent George
New member
Trust, but verify. Run a couple hundred rounds through it, plus some HPs, just to be sure, but I wouldn't anticipate any problems.
Depends. If the repair involved completely replacing a defective part and that part works fine after putting several hundred rounds through it, I'd have faith in it. If the repair involves fixing a broken slide or frame so that it "works" - I'd get rid of the gun ASAP and buy something else. If I have to keep replacing the same defective part (more than once) - I'd get rid of it ASAP, get something else and never look back.
From a psychological standpoint, faith it the gun will eventually be restored by frequent use. The term I learned for that in college was "extinction".
If a behavior is repeated a sufficient number of times with only positive outcomes (no failures to eject, etc.), the subject will eventually get over the previous negative experiences (failure to eject) that happened earlier...in other words, they will "get over it" or buy a revolver.
My advice would be to just get over it...you will waste less ammunition that way.
If a behavior is repeated a sufficient number of times with only positive outcomes (no failures to eject, etc.), the subject will eventually get over the previous negative experiences (failure to eject) that happened earlier...in other words, they will "get over it" or buy a revolver.
My advice would be to just get over it...you will waste less ammunition that way.
Blacktimberwolf
Moderator
I sent my H&K for changing some triggerparts to the factory a few years ago, it came back and it works fine for many years, so I trust that pistol 100%.
BigMikey76
New member
When I get a repair done on my car, I don't drive around worrying that it is going to fail again, the same ought to be true of a gun, or any other mechanical device. They break, we get them fixed, they work again. If you run a few boxes through it with no problems, there is no reason not to trust it. I'm betting you trust your life to you car far more often than your gun, after all - has it ever had to be repaired?
So no failure analysis? I was thinking about getting a 709 as a carry piece. I've heard good things, but some questionable ones too (like this). I'd be interested in knowing what failed after the rounds you ran through it. Doesn't sound like it would be a barrel problem, maybe extractor failed somehow?
If it shoots pretty reliably now, I'd trust it.
If it shoots pretty reliably now, I'd trust it.
g.willikers
New member
About the only way to feel confident in a piece of machinery is to have a plan in place in case it fails.
Or maybe that should be for when it fails.
For cars, it's having a cell phone, tow insurance, extended warranty and the phone number of the local taxi service.
For guns, it's mostly knowing all the ways to quickly clear a jam and keep it going, if possible.
And it's usually possible.
Or maybe that should be for when it fails.
For cars, it's having a cell phone, tow insurance, extended warranty and the phone number of the local taxi service.
For guns, it's mostly knowing all the ways to quickly clear a jam and keep it going, if possible.
And it's usually possible.
I find it interesting that, as I reported in an earlier post in this forum, the Taurus Model 709 Slim was one of only four single-stack, striker-fired pistols tested by members of the Guns & Ammo magazine (there were ten pistols tested total) that survived their 650 round reliability trial without experiencing a malfunction and only one of three that went 1,050 rounds without incident.
I agree with others in this thread that, after shooting the returned pistol a reasonable number of rounds to verify reliability, advise you can trust it just as you would have had it not failed the first time around. It's a machine and all machines will fail eventually if you use them enough, some just sooner or later than others.
I agree with others in this thread that, after shooting the returned pistol a reasonable number of rounds to verify reliability, advise you can trust it just as you would have had it not failed the first time around. It's a machine and all machines will fail eventually if you use them enough, some just sooner or later than others.
Well, having been to many LE armorer classes for a number of different firearms, my perspective is probably a bit biased from having been taught how to diagnose and correct or repair a range of problems. 
I've corrected or repaired more problems than I can remember over the years. There were a small handful of problems that required returning the guns to the company for repair.
Sure, sometimes it might take a time or two (or more) in order to completely diagnose and effect a repair or correction for some particular gun (especially if more than one underlying problem existed, or contributing conditions were involved).
The only personally-owned handgun I tired of trying to get to function properly was an early CA Bulldog .44 Spl. I think it was after the third attempt by the company to fix the same problem (cylinder seized during dry or live-fire), I traded the gun in at the shop who had been handling the repair shipping for me, and who apparently had a bored smith looking for a challenging project. I was younger then, and was probably a bit less patient when it came to letting someone try to solve and correct problems.
I've had no qualms carrying and using repaired guns since I'm been working as an armorer.
When it comes to confirming repairs, I've commonly heard from some of the big gun companies that they recommend test-firing to confirm normal function using anywhere from 1-3 magazine loads (for pistols).
As an armorer, if I have the time and extra ammo available, I like to give the issued user or owner the opportunity to test-fire up to 50 rounds to satisfy themselves that their guns have been repaired and restored to normal functioning. (That's after I've been satisfied it works, or another instructor/armorer has test-fired it for me.)
I often tell the user/owner that I won't knowingly return a gun to service until I'd be willing to carry and use it, myself.
It's probably also important to mention that a surprising number of "gun problems" actually turn out to be "shooter" and/or "ammo" problems, too. Those can sometimes be harder to diagnose and correct, especially if the shooter/owner aren't willing to accept they're somehow involved, or are fully responsible for the "problem".
Naturally, it can be annoying or frustrating when a new gun design/model turns out to have some quirks, defects or teething pains. More so if a gun eventually has to be replaced with a revised model, instead of just being able to be repaired with upgraded/updated parts. That can make some folks understandably a bit "gun shy".
I've corrected or repaired more problems than I can remember over the years. There were a small handful of problems that required returning the guns to the company for repair.
Sure, sometimes it might take a time or two (or more) in order to completely diagnose and effect a repair or correction for some particular gun (especially if more than one underlying problem existed, or contributing conditions were involved).
The only personally-owned handgun I tired of trying to get to function properly was an early CA Bulldog .44 Spl. I think it was after the third attempt by the company to fix the same problem (cylinder seized during dry or live-fire), I traded the gun in at the shop who had been handling the repair shipping for me, and who apparently had a bored smith looking for a challenging project. I was younger then, and was probably a bit less patient when it came to letting someone try to solve and correct problems.
I've had no qualms carrying and using repaired guns since I'm been working as an armorer.
When it comes to confirming repairs, I've commonly heard from some of the big gun companies that they recommend test-firing to confirm normal function using anywhere from 1-3 magazine loads (for pistols).
As an armorer, if I have the time and extra ammo available, I like to give the issued user or owner the opportunity to test-fire up to 50 rounds to satisfy themselves that their guns have been repaired and restored to normal functioning. (That's after I've been satisfied it works, or another instructor/armorer has test-fired it for me.)
I often tell the user/owner that I won't knowingly return a gun to service until I'd be willing to carry and use it, myself.
It's probably also important to mention that a surprising number of "gun problems" actually turn out to be "shooter" and/or "ammo" problems, too.
Those can sometimes be harder to diagnose and correct, especially if the shooter/owner aren't willing to accept they're somehow involved, or are fully responsible for the "problem". Naturally, it can be annoying or frustrating when a new gun design/model turns out to have some quirks, defects or teething pains. More so if a gun eventually has to be replaced with a revised model, instead of just being able to be repaired with upgraded/updated parts. That can make some folks understandably a bit "gun shy".
What caused it to malfunction after a flawless 500 rounds? Do you expect the problem to happen again after another 500 flawless rounds? These are rhetorical questions of course, but to be honest, for me the deciding factor would be that the gun is a Taurus, and based on my experience with Taurus, I would not trust the firearm to be reliable over the long run. Your mileage may vary.
sirgilligan
New member
Everything can fail, and guess when it will fail? When you are using it.
If the failure is caused by a design problem, then I would not trust it.
If the failure is caused by a materials problem, if new materials were used then I would try it out, if the same materials where used in the fix I would not trust it to run any longer than it did the first time.
If it was caused by a defect, and the defective piece was replaced with a non-defective piece I would give it a chance to prove itself.
In the semi-auto handgun world, this is the reason that the revolver survives. Just the other night I was at a heightened level of alert, I went for the revolver, not the semi-auto this time.
If the failure is caused by a design problem, then I would not trust it.
If the failure is caused by a materials problem, if new materials were used then I would try it out, if the same materials where used in the fix I would not trust it to run any longer than it did the first time.
If it was caused by a defect, and the defective piece was replaced with a non-defective piece I would give it a chance to prove itself.
In the semi-auto handgun world, this is the reason that the revolver survives. Just the other night I was at a heightened level of alert, I went for the revolver, not the semi-auto this time.