Found out why Taurus has such mixed reviews!

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

flycaster

New member
I had the "pleasure" of handling an unfired Taurus 94 (9 shot .22) yesterday. The trigger could have been the worst out-of-the-box trigger I've ever pulled. The D.A. was very heavy, and gritty. The S.A. was lighter, of course, but still way too heavy for a revolver- and, it was also gritty. O.K....I know that, after a whole lot of shooting, it might smooth out some. But no gun should be this bad from the maker.

Shoe on the other foot: I used to have a Taurus 85UL .38 snub. I sold it because I like to shoot a lot, and a 15 ounce .38 ain't a joy to shoot frequently. But- it was tight, locked up perfectly, and was accurate. A nice pocket gun. My point? Some folks rave about Taurus quality, while others scoff at it. My guess is that they're both right. Taurus just has a quality control problem. :rolleyes: They need to focus on that, rather than bringing out a load of new whiz-bang models every year.

Chuck
 
My experience with Taurus almost exactly except with me it was two identical revolvers--one practically perfect and one totally unreliable. I usually tell anybody that's contemplating a Taurus there's a 50-50 chance you'll get a very good weapon.
 
Every manufacturer...

Has problem guns. Except ruger and Smith :rolleyes: I haven't ever heard of one problem with any of these guns on these message boards. Especially the sp101, It's the most problem free weapon ever built.
Please excuse my sarcasm, but I have read about problems with every manufacturer in these forums. Don't just point the finger at Taurus. Please!
If a manufacturer is 50/50, then it would quickly lose the support of customers and gun sellers. They don't want to hear the complaints either.
 
My Taurus 94 had a very heavy DA trigger pull then I sent it out. Now with wooden grips and some tuning it's a very good revolver to plink with. Most 94's come this way. My Taurus 85 on the other hand has a smooth trigger and is very accurate out of the box. I had an SP101 which was a dog but my Redhawk is fantastic. It's not the guns but how willing the makers are to fix the problems.
 
I agree. I bought a .44spl and love it. It's one of the best snubbies that I've ever owned.

I bought a .357 snubby (sorry, not up on models and numbers and such) with the concealed hammer and the trigger was one of the WORSE triggers that I've ever pulled. I didn't like the fast pull to a "pause" then then a heavier pull to the breaking point. I fired 10 rounds and then sold it. If I get another .357 snubby it will most likely be an older SP101 (without the "key lock" stuff).

Wayne
 
I agree that all companies occasionally put out a problem gun. However, it's definitely rarer with some than with others. AND, how the problem is handled is certainly important. I'm a lot more willing to forgive the occasional problem gun for makers with EXCELLENT reputations for resolving issues. A bit less tolerant of companies who don't seem to be quite so responsive.
 
IMHO Taurus produces too many models which probably contributes to a quality control problem, if they indeed have one. They seem to be all over the place with what they manufacturer, instead of concentrating on a few GOOD revolver models and a few GOOD semi models.

IE Ruger...SP101, GP-100, BlackHawk, & RedHawk
 
Review the Ruger semi-auto, shotgun, and rifle line and say that again, Bullrock. :rolleyes: ;)

All manufacturers produce lemon gun - the better ones only produce few and stand behind (fix) the ones that do come out. Taurus ain't too bad in that area - Ruger, since we mentioned them, is very good.
 
Review the Ruger semi-auto, shotgun, and rifle line and say that again, Bullrock.
Click to expand...
I can't comment on the Ruger rifles, and shotguns, because I own Brownings, and Winchesters. The Ruger P series is the same gun manufactured in different calibres. The P345 is different, and better.

Staying with the topic, here are some of the revolver models Taurus makes.
Model 85, Model CIA 850, Protector 851, Ultra-Lite 817, Ultra-Lite85, Model 82, Model 650, Model 617, Model 608, Model 65, Ultra-Lite 66, Model 627, Ultra-Lite 941, Tracker 44, Ultra-Lite 444, Raging Bull, and Gaucho... ;) :rolleyes:
 
Merely pointing out that what's good for the goose is good for the gander here - Like I said review Ruger's catalogue if you think thier a better example. Ya didn't did ya, lol?

So -

1. Taurus's 85, CIA 85, Protector 851, Ultra-Lite 817, Ultra-Lite85, and Model 82 are all based on their small frame wheelgun design.
2. Thier Model 650, Model 617, Model 608, Model 65, Ultra-Lite 66, and Model 627 are all based on the same medium sized frame.
3. Their Ultra-Lite 941, Tracker 44, and Ultra-Lite 444 are based on the same large frame.
4. Thier reinforced large framed double action offering - Raging Bull.
5. Thier only single action revolver - the Gaucho...
6. Almost forgot the Model 94 - .22 revovler and it's variations.

A nicely rounded list if you ask me, especially when you consider the different materials each is offered in. (At least I think I got the separations right, not having memorized the Taurus catalog or looked it up farther than was mentioned... Taurus also has the semi auto line and a few long guns of course.) Don't let the different model numbers fool ya - a small frame DA revolver is still basically the same to a manufacturer despite different stamping, caliber, finish, material, or barrel length. Yeah to us it's more like a completely different gun - Yay I say!

To go on and ignore Ruger's wonderful list of various long gun and semi-auto handgun offerings as requested and concentrate only on thier wheelguns:

1. The small framed revolver (sp101) is made in several different variations including barrel comp, bobbed hammer, caliber, and barrell length variation.
2. The medium framed revolver (Gp100) same variations as the small frames.
3. The large frames (Redhawk) is availiable with a lot of the same variation and scope ring mounts.
4. The reinforced oversized revolver (Super Redhawk) same story and some monstrous calibers. Oh yeah add the Super Redhawk Alaskan.
5. Vaquero - now two different types, Old and new Vaquero, with various subfinishes, calibers, etc.
6. Blackhawk and Super Blackhawk - one more reinforeced, but both separate and distinct with thier own sub models and styles - probably should have been listed as categories 6 and 7...
7. (8?) Blackpowder variations - Ruger's still plugging away with it's Ruger Old Army model.
8 (9?) New Model Single Six - .22 varations. Also the Bearcat - probably yet another category itself, but close enough.

Besides - should have made my point by now - the position that Taurus is making too many different types of guns is foolish. Ruger is doing very well and makes some darn fine weapons. And they are doing more catagorically dfferent types than Taurus. 8 (or 9, maybe even 10?) to 6.

I wish more manufacturers made such a line full of variety as these two.

Sorry to go on so - but I love both my Ruger AND my Taurus guns - yep I have multiples of each. No problems with any. It's just that brand bigotry bothers me when it's position appears so plainly ignorant. :o
 
Last edited:
the position that Taurus is making too many different types of guns is foolish.
Click to expand...
Well I've been called allot of things on TFL, but foolish is a first. I first became foolish when Taurus came out with their new line a few months back. Would I buy their new Triad Series, No! Foolish, Maybe!!! Do I own Tauri? Yes! Do I own Rugers? Yes. Am I foolish in worrying about Tauri's quality control? Considering their history, that I am.

But has anyone EVER heard the old saying...Jack or ALL trades, Master of NONE???? Hhuuum? Then, there is foolish is as foolish does. When I put down money for any gun, I want to know what I'm buying. Foolish? Who cares! I'm not arguing this stupidity further!!! :eek:
 
You got a good point there, Yorec. Over the years, Browning has had a pretty extensive and diverse line of firearms and most would agree that they make high quality guns. I would say, though ,that if your quality control already has problems, adding more guns to the mix doesn't help matters much.
 
I have had 2 85's both great. In fact the only BAD gun I ever owned was a Seecamp. TOTAL piece of crap.Guess I got the bad one. Their customer service is 0.

Kevin
 
Taurus does seem to do a better job with some of their established models like the steel Model 85 and the PT 92 than do this with some of their more esoteric (and newer) models. Bullrock may have a point. My take (and advice) on Taurus remains that you have about of 50-50 chance of getting a good one (but the odds are considerably better if you stick to basic M85 and PT 92)
 
Funny thing juliet charley, I also have both and, I would would recommend both models. The Tracker line is also very good, but not as popular as it was, probably due to porting.

Thanks for helping with my point.
 
What point is that Bullrock? The one you refuse to argue any further? Lol.

Just remember, it is the position that Taurus is making too many different types of guns that I consider foolish, not you personally - seemed to me ya was starting to take things more personally then they were ment. I happen to agree with your practice of researching before buying and trying to make informed purchases wholeheartedly. That is wisdom... ;)

But since you were not seeing it that way I'll stop pointing out the fallacies of your position and apologize for making ya uncomfy.

Taurus may need to improve QC, but then again so does every manufacturer that accidently lets a single lemon gun get into consumer hands. And they ALL do that.
 
The reasons for QC problems with Taurus firearms can be speculated upon until we blame the man in the moon, but we lack solid information.

What we CAN do is complain to Taurus EVERY time we have a problem with their guns. We should expect them to do better and not accept a revolver with a 20 pound trigger or gritty, jerky actions.

Every maker has made a lemon or two. S&W made a 10mm or .40 wheelgun ( can't recall which) with a titanium cylinder that was supposedly a complete dog. Does anyone ever remember hearing that a Colt 1911 required a gunsmith to make it run without jamming? Or that Ruger had a bad batch of springs in their trigger groups that were breaking? It's all in how each company handles their customers and corrects the problem.

What gets me, folks, is that some people can buy two guns and decide that constitutes a valid sample with which to judge the quality of a broad range of products.

That said, with the obvious QC issues Taurus seems to have, I'd not buy one "sight unseen" (i.e. special order) unless the dealer was willing to take it back in exchange for another. And I'd not buy one that a dealer wouldn't let me dry fire to at least check the trigger.
 
Right, every maker can (and has) turned the occassional lemon (which is probably not very preventable) or even a run with bad parts (Glock is infamous for this, and Kimber has had bad luck with its MIM parts), and occassionally you'll see just a plain bad design or poorly thought out design (the infamous S&W titanium .40 S&W and 329 as examples, and it took SIG forever to get their P226 frames and trigger springs right), but Taurus' quality woes seem a little more pervasive than the occassional lemon, bad run or design that needs tweaking.

FWIW, I do think Taurus is trying and would like to do better, but when your market niche is low-end, inexpensive weapons, you don't necessarily have a lot of leeway if you want to maintain your price advantage. The one thing that appears to be working in Taurus' favour is that many major manufacturers seem to be letting their quality slip while raising their prices which might make Taurus more appealing (or at leas merit considering a Taurus).

When it comes to Taurus, I actually look at a NIB harder than I would used model of most other brands. If I had to put money blind on which would run best, a fifty year old S&W or NIB Taurus, my money would be on the Smith every time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top