Taffin says .357 Raging Hunter sets standard

That is quite good accuracy, but the usual gunzine waffles annoy me.

"Although the Raging Hunter is a seven-shooter I always give myself a stress-reducing mulligan which is the closest I ever get to golf. All of the groups mentioned were the best six shots at 25 yards"

Another writer is down to counting the best 3 out of 5.


"...the single action pull registers 7-1/2 lbs... At least it’s an easy fix."

Do say, just what is the fix? I learned not to mess with the single action engagement of a S&W, is Taurus easier to work on?
 
Most all modern revolvers are more accurate than 99.9% of the shooters out there. One particular model, which might be incrementally more accurate than the norm, will not make a bit of difference to you, the shooting public.

And then too, the particular handgun Taffin tested might be very acccurate, but the next one in the serial number range of that model might be just average. And what ammunition was Taffin shooting. Another brand or even a different lot of the same brand may not be as accurate.

Instead of buying another gun to make you more accurate, learn trigger control.

Dave
 
None of this stuff interests me much anymore. I've been shooting a LOT of different .357mags myself for over fifty years now. I've owned better guns than the Taurus in the past and I've had several that shot better than his "wow" specimen he's reviewing. The problem with all these reviews is that you rarely get a real nit picking review on what's wrong with one of these guns. I'll bet that Taffin paid for this gun at a very, very reduced price after testing it and giving a glowing report on it. I've personally owned three different 686 S&W's that would out shoot his Taurus and they were stock guns....with great triggers right out of the box. Both Coonans (original Dan Coonan Coonans) shot as good or better than this also. Depending on what you pay for it, it could be a good deal. If it's going for the price of the SW 686, I'd be taking a harder look at the Smith. Just my 2cents.
 
The magazine writers have to develop a skill that can make chinese food and french cheeses sound like wonderful delicacies.

Rotten eggs, maggoty cheese, coffee dragged out of an elephant's butt,

A description of Durian Fruit that I once read compared it to "eating a smooth, fruity custard while ensconced in a sanitary sewer in May. It's a must-try for the adventurous gourmet!"

I would love to read what John said about drinking coffee smade with beans salvaged from elephant turds.
 
John Taffin is a gun rag writer. He's paid to says stuff like that.
In 40 some years, I've seen exactly one gun rag article that didn't say the subject of said article was not the best thing since sliced bread.
 
Pfft... Writers these days, no respect for brand hierarchy, m'right?

I miss the good ol' days when the value of a gun was determined by how much ad space the manufacturer purchased in the publication.

Lastly, I find it mighty suspicious that non of these writers have never had a Taurus fail apart or explode on the range, nor do they have any acquaintances who claim to have experienced such things like so many of the honest and highly accountable folks you so often see here or the internet do.

Seriously though, Taurus' bad reputation is dated and no longer accurate. Nowadays Taurus brand firearms are roughly equal to Ruger in terms of QC, their issue is that their Customer Service is among the worst in the industry, so when somebody gets a lemon, it comes along with the nightmare of dealing with their CS Representatives, which in turn sours them to the brand, and thus their reputation is perpetrated by the amount of folks who recount the tale.
 
"I took a sample of one manufacturer selected example of a particular model and feel ________________"

I always take this with a major grain of salt. The fact that gun writers ever get a gun that is not exceptional when compared to the rest of the field utterly surprises me. I just don't think one should extrapolate the results of a sample of one (likely hand picked) example to the entire model.
 
He's not going to get paid if he writes a bad review, and Taffin is one of the worst when it comes to that. A gun that won't group he deems as having "acceptable combat accuracy"
 
This is the first 357 on the Taurus Raging frame...that's a cool deal.

But the Taurus 608 8 shot cylinder is built on a frame larger than the S&W N frame equivalent (source: https://triggershims.com/), ie the S&W R8.

So going larger onto the Raging frame...it's not needed.

The mid K-L Taurus medium 66 frame doesn't have frame issues. It may have quality control issues on the cylinder work, but it's not a frame size issue...
 
Since we're talking about Taurus's and Gun magazines, I don't think I'm going too far off topic. If you want honest reviews, try looking at "Gun Tests" magazine. They buy their test guns from retailers, just like us, and accept no advertising in their magazine. You get honest and critical reviews of guns, accessories, and ammunition.

Although I'm using small sample sizes, I'm not too surprised at the improvements in Taurus's quality and accuracy. A couple of Taurus's have come into the family lately, and I've been impressed. Things can improve and also deteriorate. Savages have always been known for their out of the box accuracy. The last two new savages for me and my son have been disappointing.
 
Although the Raging Hunter is a seven-shooter I always give myself a stress-reducing mulligan ...
Click to expand...

Come on, Jim Watson, he does this for health reasons and not to compensate for any shortcomings that the gun might have. You can understand that, right? He would never throw out the worst shot if the gun was at fault, so obviously, this could not be by the gun.

I think a lot of gun writers and other shooters must have similar health issues based on how often I see people doing this same thing. I really feel bad that folks are in such poor shape. {might be a little bit of sarcasm in my response}
 
Taurus set a standard long ago that left me not giving them the time of day anymore. I don’t know what it is these days with gun writers but every gun is a great gun when it comes out only to leave buyers not so agreeable over time. Finally the big rave on the Ruger Wrangler is calming done.
 
The same can be said about food establishments. One or two great reviews can set a restaurant up as the best place ever. Then word of mouth can sink it like a cow in quicksand.

People like to complain, and it's more fun to holler about something negative than it is to speak nice words about it. In real life you will probably hear a dozen negative comments for any single positive report.

I've noticed an interesting phenomenon over the last decade or so. A movie will lose rating points as it ages. where a new movie may be running 9.5 of 10 6 months after release, five years later, when the newness has gone, the rating that has been ongoing for those five years may average as low as 7.5. People who wait five years are obviously not the type who will throw a ten point rating.
 
Allowing a modern production DA revolver to leave the factory with a 7 1/2LB single action trigger pull doesn't exactly instill a desire in me to own one.

On the other hand, I guess this could be used to argue that the company wasn't trying to send a gun writer a specially tuned example. :p
 
Ehh, from what I hear about taurus all of the time on the internet, that probably was their specially tuned target masterpiece that sells for over $2,500.

That model isn't in the catalogs, it's only made bespoke for south american dictators.

But then, I did hear that on the internet. Maybe I should be a little careful about what I believe. Even if I read it in $5 color glossy pages with lots of advertising.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top