Quality Of Taurus Handguns?

A

Ala Dan

Member in memoriam
Over the course of the last few weeks, I have been able to
examine two Taurus model 605 .357 magnums that were
purchased by co-worker's. Both were purchased NIB, from
the same dealer. Fit and finish on one was adequate; and
the other was sub-par, noting many surface blemishes with
many imperfection's. Neither gun was a dealers display model.
While some of our member's insist that the Tauri quality control
has improved over other make's (in particular, Smith & Wesson);
this reporting writer cannot attest to those findings. While it is
very possible for any manufactuerer to produce an
industry "lemon"; I guess each one can also produce a handgun
"of the highest standard's". I just wonder how often Tauri
International does the latter? Yes, Taurus has come a long
way since the inception of the company's original model 66;
with more model's than Carter has liver pills. But the QC
seems to be in that same ole' rut, as that of their bull barrel
model 82; which in my opinion is a P.O.S. Bottom line is, I
just can't seem to find a Tauri model that will rival Smith &
Wesson; even at Smith & Wesson's worst!!!:eek: :D :)

With that said, Taurus International's use of stainless steel
looks more like something that the Zippo lighter factory
incorporated; than that of being used in a handgun's
works.:( Just my coveted opinion.

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
 
Your coveted opinion pretty much sums up my thoughts on the Taurus line as well.

I, probably like you, grew up in the hay day of revolvers, the only semis I remember anyone owning was a .22 High Standard or Ruger, Colt 1911, or an occasional oddball Hi Power. We remember the slick Colt and Smith actions, even in their lower tier offerings. Flawless blueing was standard across the board, not the exception. This is the standard by which we judge today's lawyer designed, "cost effective" offerings.
I know three people with Taurus revolvers, one .357 Mag and two with .44 mag. All shoot and have experienced no mechaical defects. Two of these gents wound up spending big bucks to a gunsmith to get a decent action. They would have been better off spending the $ up front or buying used in my opinion. (But that's exactly what it is, my opinion)
Price sells, there is no doubt about it. For the money, Taurus sells a serviceable firearm. They're not Pythons Troopers, Combat Magnums or a Highway Patrolman. They have filled the lower cost end of the market. Buyers unsure of used, have an alternative brand new gun with full warranty. It would be interesting to see some statistics on Taurus buyers. My guess many are young, purchasing their first revolver or are new to revolvers.
One man's opinion.
Take Care
 
You pay for what you get. With respects to revolvers, Taurus makes functional handguns. It holds no advantage over S&W other than price. A short while ago, American Rifleman had a photo of the interior of a Taurus revolver. It clearly showed how Taurus simplified the lockwork it originally took from S&W.
 
Sheese, guess since I'm pleased as punch with Taurus, I must be one of those young, luckily ignorant gun owners with a single example of a good Tarus product...

Naw!

I have a 669 that I bought twelve years ago - functions as well as my 20 year old S&W 686 with after market trigger job. Still looks great less a little holster wear and scratches I've inflicted with rough use. Sure the 686's trigger's nicer, but the Taurus is factory.

Also have a 605 with perfect mirrored finish. Can't find a blemish anywhere on it. you'd have to dress up any of the old Smiths to even come close and that includes trigger work. Compared it side by side to a current Ruger SP 101 and found I liked it more in every way.

Used a .454 Raging Bull quite a bit over one summer - shot like a dream and looked great. Unfortunately it belongs to someone else and I haven't had the funds to get my own yet.

Over the years I've also handled dozens more other Taurus guns. Shot a more than a few others too. Admittedly some have had problems, but not nearly as many, often, or serious as what some claims would have people believe. After all, I've never said Taurus has been perfect have I? (OK, but that 605's finish IS perfect! ;) )

All in all I think that Taurus products do stack up pretty well expecially when compared to S&W products that have been modified from the original (updated or imporved in some way) or thier custom shop work. Understandably they aren't the equal of such guns, but then niether is thier end price!
 
My personal experience with the three Tauri I've bought in the last year or so has been just fine. All functioned flawlessly and offered very nice fit and finish. I also buy and use more expensive guns but have found Taurus to fill the value/quality niche quite well.
 
I have to agree with yorek & asp -- I've owned & shot several Tauri over the years (I still have a mid-80's Model 66, which has a beautiful finish and shoots great, BTW) and have never had a problem with any of them. Alot of what I've seen on these boards about Tauri I try to take with the same grain of salt I use when reading the anti-Glock, anti-Ruger, and "&", etc etc etc posts.....
 
Opinion based on observation....
AVERAGE Taurus QC has improved over the last few years.
AVERAGE Smith QC has declined over the last few years.
With the graph lines crossing a while back.

Sam
 
Excellent post so far, from everyone. Keep 'em coming. If
and when I do find a Taurus handgun that in my opinion
equals that of S&W, Colt, or Ruger; I will be fair and very
impartial, posting my finding's right here on TFL. As far as
"economy line" of handguns go, before their merger I do
believe that the new and improved version's of the Rossi
handguns were superior to that of the Taurus. My wife
has the 2" barrel SS version of a square butt Chief's
Special, and I'm here to tell you folk's that the fit and
finish is there my friend's. I personally have never had
the opportunity to shoot this weapon; but I've read
post on this forum that give it a favorable opinion.

If I had my rathers, I would like to see all firearms
manufactuerer's produce only top quality weapons.
But in all honesty, I guess that will never happen; thus
leaving us with some very debateable obstacles to have
to overcome. I would like to take this opportunity to thank
everyone who has responded to this thread; and I'm
looking forward to see other opinions, as well.

Stay Safe, and Have A Wonderful Day-

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
 
I don't think you ever will find a Taurus that lives up to your expectations Ala Dan. I have noted your prejudice toward that manufacturer on many occaisions here at TFL. You will find what you seek. I just don't agree with your assessment of Taurus quality. I have had sub-par handguns before (like Llama) and I could not stand them, so I sold them. I tell you that to establish that I am not brand loyal to the point of lying to myself to keep a gun that is junk. I shoot my Taurii lots and they never disappoint me. Have had no problems with them. That is my experience. Evidently you have managed to stumble upon a whole run of lemons. I don't believe that every gun Taurus makes is perfect. And I don't believe that every gun they make is faulty. The truth is somewhere in-between. Just like it is for EVERY other manufacturer. I do believe that some brands are generally more reliable and stout, like Ruger and Dan Wesson. I think it's debatable whether or not the current S&W offerings are superior to Taurus. And when I factor in the value that Taurus offers, I'm sure of that not being the case.

At any rate... I just feel like you put Taurus under the microscope but look at the others from a distance. And it makes me wonder why you have such a problem with Taurus. I hated my Llama, but I have no interest in taking every opportunity to slag them. My dad has one that he loves. To each their own I guess.

P.S. No flaming here. The above observation is not a personal attack, I just find myself defending Taurus' quality from you a lot, and I wonder which one of us will finally give up and just accept the statements of the other without rebuttle... ;)
 
In 1996 I ordered my 608 from a dealer who had never seen that model before. When it came in he called me and I came right down to the store. By the time I got there he had opened the box once, just to see of it was what I ordered. He never took it out of the box or the plastic bag it was in.

Two other customers in the store at that time and the dealer himself ordered their own right then. Finish was excellent (still is for a highly polished revo), action was smooth, lock up and tolerences are top rate. I have pics of the finish taken a month ago or I could take more if you want to see a 6 year old factory polish job.

One of my shootin buds has a model 27 that was purchased new by his father in the 60's. Very nice revolver, light, smooth, tolerences are still tight to this day.

Comparing the two specific guns to each other, my low quality fishing weight has a smoother action and crisper DA break, his high quality M27 has resale value and the S&W name. The only thing I don't like about the Taurus is the front sight is a dull color but thats not a functional defect, just a color blind inspector or something.

I can not say that the finishes on the newer Taurii are as good. Last I heard they weren't polishing the SS revolvers like they did when I got mine.
 
I would guess that M27 has something amiss in the trigger assy.

No, they weren't all perfect but if that way when new, would have taken little or nothing to bring it up to snuff.

Sam
 
Once more into the breech.

Here we go again;
Have a Taurus model 85 blue (all steel) .38 revolver. Fit and finish and fucntionality are first rate.
Cost: $250 new in 11/01.

Have a Rossi .38 cal. model 352, 2" highly polished Stainless. Fit and finish and functionality are first rate.
Cost: $269 new in 4/01

Where's the problem? :eek:

Regards,
Mike
 
Great post guy's, I appreciate the input!

Red Label- In examing the two weapons mentioned in the
previous post, one appeared to be exceptional; more like
"show case quality". The other one unfortunately wasn't
as nice; but I would bet both were serviceable firearms.
Admittingly, I have never owned a Taurus firearm. Once
I was considering working an extra job after my LE career,
with a major security company guarding of all thing's a
damn bank!:eek: I was issued a Taurus model 82 in .38
Special, with six 158 grain RN lead bullet's; but expected
to "qualify" on an approved police combat course using
148 grain LWC's from Zero Bullet's of Cullman, AL. Well,
I'm thinking thats fine and dandy, no problem; as I had
been qualifying for years with various weapon's. Noting
that the Taurus had about a 25 lb. trigger pull, I knew
that this would be an uphill battle just to stay on target.
Well, I assumed the position at the firing line and at the
direction of the range/safety officer commenced firing on
this timed course. When the course was finished, I had
only scored 82%; the lowest of any of my qualification
scores, ever.:( :mad: Needless to say, due to the results
and the dissatisfaction of having to defend my life with
this POS; I waived the job offer. Truthfully speaking, I
do not think this was a fair assement of Taurus product's.
I have read each and every post regarding this company's
line of firearms. I agree, there are a lot of satisfied Tauri
owner's that post here. Kind hearted Tamara has even
offered to let me shoot a Taurus in .32 magnum, on my
next visit to east Tennessee. Give her credit, she knows
firearms; and with that I will take her at her word that
this is one marvelous shooting handgun.:D Just maybe,
one of these days I will be able to bring myself, to at
least giving Taurus another chance, I don't know? Well,
my friend its getting late (or early) here in BamaLand;
as the ole clock says 0300 hours, so I'm putting it to
rest. Enjoyed the discussion everyone, I'll check with
you later.

Quickly, interesting post Mike86 and Mikeseli. I agree
there is "bad apples" in every bunch. Owning several
Smith model 27's, I never quite could get one that was
crisp straight from the box; always required a little
"smithing".

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
 
Last edited:
I own two Taurus revolvers and.......

I am completely satisfied with both. I own the mod 85 ultralite and a very classic mod 605 in stainless steel. Both shoot accurately, are compact and light in weight, AND a good buy for the money. I don't have an unlimited gun budget and have made a career out of being frugal, therefore, I really do my research homework. I also own a very nice Smith mod 638 and honestly, with my eyes closed, I can scarecly tell the difference between the Smith or Taurus. Taurus semi-autos, on the other hand, DO have some problems (PT145 structural problems, etc) However, the fit, finish, and materials on both of my Tauruses are good enough for this on-the-fringe gun enthusiast.
 
I hear you Ala Dan. I admit that one usually developes their attitude about a gun based on their first impression. Had the first Taurus I tried been of the qulaity that Llama I had was, I may have never given them another chance. Luckily, my first two Tauruses have been great, so even if I got one that wasn't up to par, I'd still give the company another chance.

And yes, they do have a pretty stout double-action trigger pull. I have a Taurus M44 .44 mag in Double Action Only, with a 2.75" barrel. Between the heavy DAO trigger pull and the kick I get from such a short, non-ported barrel, AND the fixed sights on it -- it is VERY hard to shoot accurately. But I knew it would be when I got it. I got it for that kind of scenario where a bear is right on top of you and you need to pull it out of your holster and just start pulling the trigger without it snagging on your backpack and shoot the beast in the head at nearly point blank range. When I want to shoot at 25 yards and beyond with bullseye accuracy, I pack my M44 with 4" barrel, porting, single/double action, and adjustable sights. Different tools for different jobs. If I was defending large sums of money from the bad guys, I'd probably want a different tool. I love revolvers, but I'd have to go with a semi-auto for that job. Maybe a Desert Eagle in .50 AE... :D
 
I can't compare s&w to taurus, because haven't personally owned enough different models to make any comparison valid.
They both make functional firearms.
They both make lemons from time to time.
Before you buy a taurus, try the trigger.
Before you buy a s&w, check the timing.

Personally, I shoot s&w better than taurus models so far.
My .02
 
I need to clear one thing up from my previous post.

I never said the S&W trigger wasn't smooth, actually it is. I said that my never been touched by a 'smith Taurus trigger was smoother in comparison, specifically it has a noticably crisper SA break and more even DA stroke. That could be nothing more than 40 years difference and it's still nothing a good 'smith can't take care of.

IMO, S&W did make fine firearms and still do, just now they make fewer fine ones and more satisfactory ones then before. Taurus is just the oppsite.

NOTE: this is still a Ford vs. Chevy topic that nobody will ever win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top