I am planning to make my first revolver purchase soon- mainly used for casual target shooting. And I have the choice narrowed down to two: the Smith and Wesson 686 or the Taurus Tracker 627 in stainless steel. (both with 4 inch barrels.) So I would appreciate some advice. Is it worth paying up for the reputation of quality of the Smith and Wesson revolvers? Or does the Taurus 627 with it's more modern stylings offer more bang for the buck. Thanks for any opinions.
S&W 686 verses Taurus 627
- Thread starter rmz1
- Start date
Which One?
rmz, I can't attest to anything from Taurus since I don't own any. I've looked at them in the past but they never interested me enough to buy one.
I will attest to the 686 4", I have one and love it
Also have the 686 2 1/2". Both are great handguns in my opinion. Both handguns were used when I bought them
I'm partial to S&W in the older versions.
rmz, I can't attest to anything from Taurus since I don't own any. I've looked at them in the past but they never interested me enough to buy one.
I will attest to the 686 4", I have one and love it
Also have the 686 2 1/2". Both are great handguns in my opinion. Both handguns were used when I bought them I'm partial to S&W in the older versions.
dairycreek
New member
I have had both!
In the last two years I have had both a Taurus 627 stainless Tracker and a 686+ S&W - both in four inch barrels. Shot them both side-by-side. Even had the occasion to take a deer with the Tracker and it performed just fine. But, bottom line, IMHO the 686+ is just a better constructed, better shooting revolver. Please note that I am, in no way, deprecating the Taurus! Far from it.! However, I still feel the Smith is better. I sold the Taurus and now have two 686+'s. Good shooting
In the last two years I have had both a Taurus 627 stainless Tracker and a 686+ S&W - both in four inch barrels. Shot them both side-by-side. Even had the occasion to take a deer with the Tracker and it performed just fine. But, bottom line, IMHO the 686+ is just a better constructed, better shooting revolver. Please note that I am, in no way, deprecating the Taurus! Far from it.! However, I still feel the Smith is better. I sold the Taurus and now have two 686+'s. Good shooting
I own three SW wheels (including a 686, 66 and 10) and I think they are the best designed wheelguns. That said, I have been shopping for a long-barreled model 66 and have been very disappointed in the finsih quality on the new SW guns out here. I saw rough triggers, loose cylinders and lockup, very loose barrel/cylinder gap on one. Was not able to find one I would own. Look them over carefully. Check b/c gap, headspace, cyl alignment, trigger feel. I am not trying to steer you towards Taurus because the new ones I've looked at had terrible triggers.
Brian Williams
New member
I have a Taurus Tracker 6" in 357, 4" in 45 Colt, S&W 66 4", S&W 65 4", S&W 13 3"
I would say the Taurus triggers are just behind the S&W's but it is barely much to say a difference. I put it mostly to the fact the S&W's have a flat main spring vs. the Taurus coils.
I am selling the 66 because I like my Tracker just a little better.
I would say the Taurus triggers are just behind the S&W's but it is barely much to say a difference. I put it mostly to the fact the S&W's have a flat main spring vs. the Taurus coils.
I am selling the 66 because I like my Tracker just a little better.
KEN CHAVEZ
New member
rmz1, I own three S&W revolvers to include a 686+, and I think all three S&W's are great guns.
I do have to ask why you didn't list the Ruger GP-100,I think the GP-100 is another well made revolver, at a decent price.
I do have to ask why you didn't list the Ruger GP-100,I think the GP-100 is another well made revolver, at a decent price.
I'm also not going to be able to make your choice any easier.
I have one and have had another Taurus revolver (I have a Taurus 605 .357mag snub and I had a Taurus 82 4" .38spl). They make good guns. These days the trigger is probably going to be just as good as an equivelent S&W (my 605 has the best revolver trigger I've ever shot, overall, though my S&W 586 has a better SA trigger). I recently checked over a new S&W M10 and a new Taurus 82 (equivelent to the S&W M10) at the store and the trigger on the Taurus was at least as good as the trigger on the M10 (one had a slightly better SA pull and the other had a slightly better DA pull, overall I think they were about equal). Finish is good but not up to the level of S&W. Quality on Taurus is generally good, though it sounds like QC may not be as good as some others so just look it over carefully (though you need to do that with any revolver these days). I wouldn't hesitate to suggest a Taurus to someone and I personally plan to buy more in the future.
I also own two S&W revolvers, a K-frame S&W 65LS with a 3" barrel and an L-frame S&W 586 with a 6" barrel (the blued version of the 686). Both are great guns. Both are guns that I will probably never get rid of for any reason (while the Taurus 82 was sold, though I regret that and I'll eventually replace it, and the 605 will be replaced with a .38 snub like the Taurus 85). Both are very smooth and accurate. Both are beautifully finished. Both have nice triggers (the trigger on the 65 is very good, the trigger on the 586 is great). Both seem to be very well made.
If money is not an issue I'd say go with the one you like better. If money is an issue the Taurus is a fine gun. Not quite as good as a S&W 686 but it is also not priced like a 686 either.
I'll echo the opinion that if you're looking in this class (larger medium frame revolvers) you should check out the Rugers as well (the strongest of the three though the others aren't that far behind, well made though not up to the refinement in the trigger of either Taurus or S&W or the finish of the Smith, and priced about mid way between Taurus and S&W).
I have one and have had another Taurus revolver (I have a Taurus 605 .357mag snub and I had a Taurus 82 4" .38spl). They make good guns. These days the trigger is probably going to be just as good as an equivelent S&W (my 605 has the best revolver trigger I've ever shot, overall, though my S&W 586 has a better SA trigger). I recently checked over a new S&W M10 and a new Taurus 82 (equivelent to the S&W M10) at the store and the trigger on the Taurus was at least as good as the trigger on the M10 (one had a slightly better SA pull and the other had a slightly better DA pull, overall I think they were about equal). Finish is good but not up to the level of S&W. Quality on Taurus is generally good, though it sounds like QC may not be as good as some others so just look it over carefully (though you need to do that with any revolver these days). I wouldn't hesitate to suggest a Taurus to someone and I personally plan to buy more in the future.
I also own two S&W revolvers, a K-frame S&W 65LS with a 3" barrel and an L-frame S&W 586 with a 6" barrel (the blued version of the 686). Both are great guns. Both are guns that I will probably never get rid of for any reason (while the Taurus 82 was sold, though I regret that and I'll eventually replace it, and the 605 will be replaced with a .38 snub like the Taurus 85). Both are very smooth and accurate. Both are beautifully finished. Both have nice triggers (the trigger on the 65 is very good, the trigger on the 586 is great). Both seem to be very well made.
If money is not an issue I'd say go with the one you like better. If money is an issue the Taurus is a fine gun. Not quite as good as a S&W 686 but it is also not priced like a 686 either.
I'll echo the opinion that if you're looking in this class (larger medium frame revolvers) you should check out the Rugers as well (the strongest of the three though the others aren't that far behind, well made though not up to the refinement in the trigger of either Taurus or S&W or the finish of the Smith, and priced about mid way between Taurus and S&W).
My experience with Taurus is limited to one revolver, a model 96 (out of production, I think) 22LR, six shot, six inch barrel, looks like a Smith & Wesson K-22. The bluing is nice, the stocks oversized, but easily trimmed, the front sight was not evenly undercut, the trigger stop was poorly set, the trigger action is a little rough and the barrel forcing cone is rough. It shoots ok, but it is not a Smith & Wesson, but it didn't cost anywhere near what a K-22 would have cost. Overall, I consider Taurus the best of the low cost handguns, but if you can afford the Smith you won't be disappointed.
Robby from Long Island
New member
I own a S&W 686 and a 629. Love both of them and would buy a Ruger as second choice long before I would consider a Taurus.
As far as I'm concerned, Smith and Wesson are the benchmark for revolvers.
Safe shooting.
As far as I'm concerned, Smith and Wesson are the benchmark for revolvers.
Safe shooting.