Observations on the Taurus .22LR revolver for a new shooter

A

AID_Admin

New member
Yesterday I went to the range with a lady friend, who's new to shooting. Initial intention was to rent a 44 Magnum, so I could show her how big of a macho I am. And then have her knocked off her feet with a recoil when she tries it. That would be a perfect date... But since I am a little too old for that, I rented a Taurus .22LR, small frame with what looked like a 3" barrel for her.

I showed her how to hold the gun, the stance and such and then wanted her to start shooting. But she could not pull the hammer! She actually had to use two thumbs to do that. I also noticed a heavy hammer pull. I meant heavy to the point that it was similar to my Russian Nagant! Then she could not do any double action due to a heavy trigger. Now, she could shoot, but she would not even hit the target. I ended up giving her my Model 17 and she liked it much better, even though it was a larger and heavier gun.

But here is a really interesting thing! Afterwards I got her a Model 66 with 4" barrel and some 38 Specials and she loved it! She put about 50 or 60 rounds through it easily and hit the target all the time! Of course it was a large target at close range, but still...

So, now I am reconsidering the thought that .22LR is the best caliber for beginners... Oh and BTW, that Taurus is complete crap. I even ask the guys on the range and they confirmed that the trigger and hammer pull on it is normal for this gun. It's hard to believe Taurus makes a gun with such a heavy hammer and trigger. I understand that all smaller framed revolvers are not as smooth as larger ones, but still! I used S&W Model 60 before, a few actually, as well as Ruger SP 101 and this Taurus's pull seems to be almost twice as heavy...
 
Last edited:
Good on you for introducing a new shooter and for sharing the story.

My Dan Wesson 22 and a Smith & Wesson k-22 I used to own had reasonably light and smooth double action trigger pulls. My Taurus 22 is heavier, about equal to my two 22 rimfire SP101s, but nowhere near as heavy as you describe (but then I bought it 30 years ago-I guess I will have to try one of recent manufacture).

Lost Sheep
 
Last edited:
Taurus Model 94. Horrible, horrible trigger in both DA and SA mode out of the box.

I use one for teaching the NRA Basic Pistol class. I tuned mine by installing a Wolff spring kit, replacing both the hammer spring and the trigger return spring with lighter ones, and polishing the small parts inside. The trigger is now almost as good as my Armscor M206 ... but the M206 hasn't been tuned.

Taurus really needs to do something about their triggers, but they sell the guns the way they are, so they have no incentive to improve them.
 
I actually had a very similar experience with a Taurus 94. My thumb became sore after I fired some rounds. I don't remember how many. The trigger was bad. I remember thinking at the the time that it had the quality of a cast cap gun, with a worse trigger:eek: Ironically myself, like you, I had a K22 that I brought that day. The Taurus 94 belonged to my friend. He kept saying things like "well, its not that bad really" etc etc but he bought it brand new. I told him for a little more, he could have got a used S&W 22 (at that time). There really was no comparison although I will say, a model 34 or 63 S&W is a better comparison because the 94 is on the smaller side than a medium frame target 22 revolver. His daughter who was newer to pistols fired my K-22, and just like your account, she preferred it much better. ;)

IMO, the Taurus 94 isn't worth the money saved. If you really think about it, most cheaply made, new production stuff is not. I prefer buying used quality stuff to save money rather than buying new and cheaply made (often cheaply made is also low quality), but of course, YMMV.
 
Taurus - Ever notice how they always seem to rate reviews like...

"Not that bad"
"I've only heard a few complaints"
"Most of them are pretty good for the price"


Sgt Lumpy
 
Not all Taurus guns are bad, but enough of them are lousy enough that it can easily sour someone on the brand. And for those who haven't owned one or more, there's far more than enough internet chatter to scare the panties right off a buyer before they ever even consider looking at one.

So many folks believe revolvers are the "simple" machines and semi-autos are horribly complicated and advanced in comparison. The truth is 180 degrees from that.

Sure, revolvers seem to use a more simplistic manner of operation... you can easily see all the chambers, you can see a cocked or uncocked hammer, there is no manual safety, they are opened and examined in a plainly obvious manner. And it's almost written in stone somewhere that NON-gun people who have to have a gun in their hand immediately should turn to the revolver because it's "soooo simple, always works." :rolleyes: I roll my eyes at this tired out cliche', but that discussion is for another thread.

My point is that revolvers are not simple machines, they are quite complicated and there's a lot that goes in to making them...so there's a lot that goes in to making really good ones. Revolvers are not as popular and are not as in demand as semi-autos, but have you noticed how much less expensive that are NOT?! It's because there's work and engineering that goes in to making good revolvers.

Attention to detail, fine finishing and quality production from concept to shipping are critical in making a quality revolver. There are some things that Taurus does well, but NONE of those things just mentioned are near the top of the list.

If you have a chance to pick up a Taurus and -really- interview that particular one, you can find decent guns with the name and snortin' bull on them. No, I'm serious, I own one myself and I personally know of at least two others that I've used extensively that fit the description.

They are not all junk, but it's awfully hard to recommend them, especially to someone who is fairly new to handguns.

As for an awful trigger pull, the brand new (reintroduced) Ruger SP-101 in .22LR is certainly a very nice revolver, high in quality and very sharp looking...and solid as a rock. They go for around six hundred bucks, IIRC, and are really a sweet little machine.

And their double action trigger pull is horrendous and pales in comparison to every Smith & Wesson revolver I have ever owned.

Bottom line? Not every Taurus is completely worthless...and it takes a lot more than three hundo MSRP to make a quality revolver every time.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
Had one and it locked up. Back to the shop. Still iffy and I sold it.
Click to expand...
The Taurus .327 Federal Magnum revolver is (was?) built on the same frame. One of those came through the shop at the range a few months back, and it must have been your Taurus's long-lost brother. It alternated between locking up, and then simply not locking the cylinder at all when cocked. That's what we call a bad thing, so the shop owner wanted to fix it before he would let it out the door.

The in-house guy worked on it ... and worked on it ... and worked on it some more, and finally threw up has hands and said [something unprintable]. Owner knew I had tuned the Model 94 so he asked me to look at it. It took me a lot more time than it was worth, and many failed attempts, but I did finally fix it. The problem was that the bolt was VERY crudely machined, with rough surfaces on both sides, and the slot in the frame that the bolt rides in was also very crudely machined, and the result was that most of the time the bolt just couldn't rise up out of the slot.

I polished the bolt, but getting into the slot was impossible due to a fixed pin in the frame just beneath it. In the end, I had to polish the bolt a bit more, enough to reduce its thickness a tad, so there was enough clearance to allow it to rise reliably.

Which just tells me I got very lucky with my Model 94.
 
I have a S&W 317. The trigger is probably twice as heavy as my model 15. Yes, it's normal. .22 is a great beginners gun in semi-auto, not in a revolver. The trigger is generally heavier, at the firing pin hit is usually harder. Yes, I've had arguments about this before, but by intent and general nature, rimfire requires a harder hit.
 
I had a 317 and didn't like the trigger. So for just having a utility plinker revolver in 22 LR - I went to a SS Bearcat.

I also have Buckmark if I want to shoot and reload quickly - use it for steel matches.
 
Oh and BTW, that Taurus is complete crap. I even ask the guys on the range and they confirmed that the trigger and hammer pull on it is normal for this gun. It's hard to believe Taurus makes a gun with such a heavy hammer and trigger.
Click to expand...

Too bad. I've heard that about the Taurus .22 revolvers. I wonder why. My 605 has a decent trigger.
 
Everyone I know that has had one of the Taurus small frame .22's has had problems. I'd vote for a K frame smith or something better for her. I've fixed a few of the Taurus's and they are sure cheaply made inside compared to a Smith.
 
The model 94 seems to be one of their more troublesome models. Too bad, since it is the only thing they make that really interests me. I would love to have a reasonably priced, 9 shot, d/a .22 kinda like the old Hi-Standard Sentinel.
 
i have a taurus 94 .22 and i love it..i have had no problems with it at all...it does get dirty when i put alot of rounds through it though...i just clean it really good after a session and she is ready to go again...
 
There are several things a person can do to lighten the trigger on a model 94.

The first that some do is to use either #4 wall anchors or .22lrf snap caps(Tipton) and practice dry fire. Do this somewhere from 500-1000 repetitions ( not all at the same time obviously) and things smooth and lighten out.

There are some who change the springs out, but I had misfires with the Wolff ones.

The 94 is my main understudy gun to my larger centerfire revolvers. It's a 5" barreled beauty.

I also own a 990 which shoots very tight groups at 25 yards using CCI solid Mini-Mags.

The 990 has one of the smoothest, crisp, and light trigger pulls on any revolver I've ever felt. The 990 is a 6.5" barreled revolver.
 
"Yesterday I went to the range with a lady friend, who's new to shooting. Initial intention was to rent a 44 Magnum, so I could show her how big of a macho I am. And then have her knocked off her feet with a recoil when she tries it. That would be a perfect date... But since I am a little too old for that, I rented a Taurus .22LR, small frame with what looked like a 3" barrel for her."

OP- plus dating points for taking a woman to the shooting range, plus points for NOT trying to have fun by having her shoot (and probably hurt herself with) a .44. Big minus dating points for having her shoot a Taurus, friends don't let friends shoot Taurus :D.

Now for the big question? Will there be a second date?
 
I think Taurus missed the boat when they designed the M94. It all has to do with the geometry of the trigger mechanism. Wolff doesn't sell a spring kit specifically for the M94 because the trigger is so finicky. I have tried several different tricks to no avail to get the DA back with the Wolff spring.
There may be a spring that will be in between a Wolff and the stock spring that will give reliable DA. I haven't found it yet.
There is a 1/4" difference in the hammer travel of SA vs DA. So in order to get DA they had to put in the heavy spring to compensate for the shorter hammer travel.
I generally use SA anyhow with the lighter Wolff trigger spring and lighter hammer spring. I do enjoy shooting the gun with this set up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top