Should I Buy a Taurus 94?

Z

zippyfusenet

New member
I'm looking for a small frame .22 target revolver that shoots good and doesn't cost a lot. I want a stainless steel finish, a 4 inch barrel and a 9 round cylinder. I plan to use the piece to cheaply practice double-action revolver shooting.

I like the looks and specs of a Taurus 94, but I've never shot one. It looks like I can get one lightly used from an internet ad for about $300, including shipping and local FFL fee.

I've read a lot of posts on this board from people who think well or badly of Taurus firearms. This time I'd like to hear specifically your Taurus 94 stories, and your opinion whether I should buy one of these guns or not.

Other models in my price range that I've looked at are the High Standard Sentinel and the H&R Sportsman, but these guns only come in blue finish, and I'm leery of buying such an old gun sight unseen from an ad.

S&W Model 63, Model 37, or a current J-frame with an aluminum cylinder and a long barrel would meet my spec, but cost more than I want to spend on a .22 revolver.

There's a stainless 4" Ruger GP101 .22, new in the box, for $450 with sales tax on display at my FLGS. Should I spend the extra cash and get the Ruger? It's just a trainer, I'd rather get a cheap gun.
 
well

I have also heard of many people that love the Taurus brand. From what I understand it is their quality control that is lacking. But if you get a good gun from them it is a great gun. Even if you do get a dud it has a life time warranty to be fixed. I have also considered Taurus and while I may not choose one for my concealed carry (trusting my life to it) I would not hesitate in the least to get a 22 for plinking and perfecting my double action pull.

I would say go for it. That is just me though :)
 
Taurus's quality control has really improved ALOT in the last 15 years since I purchased my first Taurus revolver.

If you asked me 15 years ago would I ever buy another Taurus product I would have said probably not.

However in the last few years I have changed my mind and I currently have no problem buying Taurus products.
 
How big is a Tracker?

Thanks for the input guys. Sir William, isn't the Taurus Tracker built on a full size frame? I'm looking for a small frame .22 revolver, something about the size of an S&W J frame. This is a firm spec because my wife has small hands, and we're both going to practice with this piece. We have an S&W Mod 60 in the night table.

Curious, that the bigger Tracker .22 only has a 7 round cylinder, while the smaller M94 has a 9 round cylinder. I wonder what the reasoning is behind that?

Sir William, what exactly was your experience with the Taurus M94 that you call it a POJ?
 
The Taurus M94 suffers universally in poor extraction, bad timing, broken bolts, poor quality and limited durability. Mine did not last through a Wal-Mart brick of 22s. I returned mine the same day I purchased it. M94 #2 didn't fare better. I would not trust the M94 to function beyond 200 rounds. POJ. The Taurus Tracker series is larger, built stouter, more durable and AFAIK, reliable. I suggest it over the M94, H&R, IJ or a used alloy frame S&W. The Ruger SP-101 is good. The other choice to consider are the Commanches. I have had fair success with them. They prefer CCI Mini-Mags and they suffer extraction issues but, they function and are cheap. You get what you pay for.
 
Get the Ruger!

"Get the Ruger, zippy! The Ruger! The Ruger! Noooooooooo...idiot!"

Okay Sir William. After reading your post, and Maddog-Enigma's complaints on another thread, it seems like the Taurus M94 is a trouble-prone design, and best avoided. I'll pay more money for the Ruger, and get a reliable firearm.

Here's what wonders me. I can buy any number of decent .22 target semi-autos NIB for about $300. Why does a good .22 revolver cost half again more than an autoloader?
 
Buy a used S&W 34 or 63. ( Your right, the new 317's are overpriced) These are common and about the same price as a new Taurus. The S&W will deliver better quality and value. ( i.e. You won't have to get on your knee's and beg to sell it for 50cents on the dollar should you ever need to. Been there.Done that.)

p.s. The Ruger Sp 101 would be my second choice. Mine was a VG shooter . it did need some cosmetic /action smoothening out of the box though. Nice guns overall but the one your looking at is about $20% overpriced IMHO.
 
Your price for a used 94 is $50 more than I paid for mine new.

I got a 5" 94 that I have mixed feelings on. I paid about $265 after tax.

It is accurate enough. I had problems with the sights right off the bat, which is common with other 94 owners. The rear sight blade often comes loose from the factory. It also clamps from both sides with two independent screws. It is not a click adjuster. When you loosen on one side, you must tighten on the other.

Mine also can be hand-indexed. The lockup is not very strong. It takes about 20lbs of hand power to twist the cylinder while in lockup. I am sending it back to Taurus for work on that matter.

$150-$200 is a much more realistic price for one used.
 
To build a quality revolver takes about the same amount of work and cost whether a .22LR oor .357 mag. Hence, the cost of the Ruger and S&W. Some .22 autos can be built cheaper than large centerfires in that they can use a blowback action. The medium frame S&W 17/18 and 617s (SS) are really nice but you want a small frame so the SP-101 or 34/63 is what I would seek out. Ruger made 2 versions of the 4" SP: one with the full lug barrel and one with half lug. The half lug barrel seems to command a premium. There is also a 2+" version. I would look around to see how prices are. Sometimes I see .22LR revolvers priced in the high $200's or so used because "they are only a .22" and the demand is not the same as for a .357 version.
 
I bought a used 94 for about $150 a few years ago. After a couple of trips to the range the cylinder froze. Back to Taurus. Then the rear sight blade refused to stay put. No matter how you tightened the screws.

Thus, I sold it.

I current have a Ruger SS Bearcat as a plinker/fun 22.
 
I got the Ruger

Thanks for all the testimonials. Everyone who's owned a Taurus M94 says they break. That helps make my mind up.

Thanks BigBoar for answering my other question. Makes sense the way you explain it.

As it turns out, there was an inventory clearance sale at my FLGS, so I snapped up my 4" stainless Ruger SP101 .22 and shot it tonight. I need practice, but the gun shoots good.:D
 
Hold on now. I have had my Model 94 for about 3 years and it is my most fired gun. I put several hundred rounds through it every trip to the range. It works great, never a problem. Not with extraction, or breakage or anything else. I am guessing I have close to 10,000 rounds though the gun.

There seems to be a definite bias against Taurus on this board. I have bought 3 new guns this year. A ruger, that had to go back to the factory. A Tikka that had to go back to the factory and a marlin that was drilled and tapped off-center. Every major gun manufacturer has problems. If you ever work in manufacturing you understand the difficulty of producing large quantity at reasonable prices and never have a problem.

If everyone that has a 94 that worked well got on the internet and let you know about it, you would not be worried about buying one.
 
The happy customer

Whiskey, you must have got the gun that was reviewed in all the magazines. ;) I wish other satisfied M94 shooters had posted, but you're the only one. I don't see any strong prejudice against Taurus on this thread. A couple of posters made a point of telling me that the Taurus Tracker is a good revolver, at the same time they warned me against the M94. I've seen a virtual dogpile on the internet before, but I don't think that's what we had here. Anyway, thanks for getting back to me, and I'd like to try your M94 out some time, if I'm ever passing by.
 
I'm pretty down on Taurus after buying an Instant Backup in 9mm only to have to return it to the factory after the first range trip. That said, I did own a 2in snub Taurus 94 a few years ago. I put thousands of rounds through this firearm without any problems. Sold it to finance another gun purchase. I've also had a number of Taurus firearms require trips back to the factory, so I can't say that I'd recommend a Taurus unless your willing to take a chance.
 
Comparison of S&W 63, Ruger SP101 .22 LR and Taurus 94

Have all 3.

4" steel Smith 63 is the best all around: accurate, portable, and a great trigger.

2" Taurus Ultralite .22LR is easiest to carry, carries the most rounds, and is very accurate, but the rear sight blade was loose (have had 3 Taurus .22 Magnum 2-inch steel revolvers that would not stabilize the round; get at least a 3" barrel if going up to a .22 Magnum).

The Ruger SP101 4" steel .22LR is the strongest and is fairly accurate, but is just too large and heavy to carry on anything other than an exposed belt holster.

For fun, get the Smith. For concealed carry, get the Taurus. For long-term durability, get the Ruger. Or get all 3 and have a ball.
 
I also have a 94ul, The stock triger was awful.changed triger spring to a wolff spring out of a tarus 85 shooters kit.and main spring changed to a tarus 85 stock spring.(the wolff 85 kit in the tarus 94 produced light strikes)
Any way thousands of rounds tru the little gun with out a problem, always goes to the range with me, wife loves it also.
my 02 mike
 
I had a S&W 63, and couldn't hit much with it. Bought a Colt Trooper III, in 22lr, for 400, and it was FAR more accurate.
63 is a tin can type accuracy gun. I like my guns to hit finger nails, or better, at 10 yards.

s
 
Bought a snub 94 in stainless. Aren't any other 22s pistols around with 9 rounds in compact size. Never had any problems with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top