Taurus .38 Snub experiences?
- Thread starter LH2
- Start date
DeltaWhiskey
New member
I've had a blue steel Model 85 for almost eighteen years now. It's travelled all over the southeast with me as my CCW for probably fourteen of those years. It has always been a tough and reliable revolver. It stays in my safe now, still loaded and reaady to go if the need arises. The only reason that I stopped carrying is that I was starting to ruin the finish and decided to upgrade to a semiautomatic for carry. Great gun, would never consider giving it up.
detructo4130
New member
i love it 85bul
Lh2
Having said that, Taurus makes good quality guns. Good enough for me anyway! But I'm not suprised higher quality from SW costs more. If it didn't, why would anyone buy it? So you've pretty much hit the nail on the head.
I have 10 Smiths, 5 of which are discontinued. I have 5 Tauri, 2 of which are out of production...I like them all!!!
No, but I wouldn't be suprised! IMHO with the exception of the 'J' frames SW quality is better than Tauri'...
Having said that, Taurus makes good quality guns. Good enough for me anyway! But I'm not suprised higher quality from SW costs more. If it didn't, why would anyone buy it? So you've pretty much hit the nail on the head.
I have 10 Smiths, 5 of which are discontinued. I have 5 Tauri, 2 of which are out of production...I like them all!!!
Taurus makes great small revolvers... have 85 ultralight ported, gold and 731 US 32 H
Hi,
When I decided to get CCW license a couple of years ago, I started out thinking the Taurus 605 would be the good everywhere gun... "light enough to carry... heavy enough to help tame recoil." I bought it after "auditioning" Smiths, Taurus, Ruger SP101, Rossi revolvers. At that time, I could put five in a smaller group with a comparable smith than the Taurus. The range people said "tighter tolerances = better accuracy." But I didn't want to spring for the extra $150-200. So I started with the 605.
I quickly learned that a compromise gun was not a good choice. It was way too heavy in the pocket... but not nice and heavy like a 4" underlug 30 ounce plus revolver for the night stand.
Then I auditioned Taurus ultralights... found that light equals more muzzle climb to control... and more difficult in the accuracy department.
I couldn't find one with porting to try, but read that porting helped tame recoil and muzzle flip, to I bought a Taurus 85 gold, rosewood, ported. The porting does reduce felt recoil and flip. The trigger was smooth, easy, and the fit and finish flawless. I can shoot 2.5 inch groups offhand at 21 feet.
Then I bought a model 731, Stainless, ported 32 HR mag for my wife. 32 HR has about same energy as .38, but less recoil, six rounds, and can shoot lower power .32 long colts for the diminutive wife, who will work up to the maggies. This, too, is an excellent gun... fine finish, good trigger.
But then.... I read where a concealed hammer is a better concealed gun, and that the smith 442 is the excellent choice. The cover over the hammer is squared off in such a way that you can get your hand closer to the line of bullet travel.... hence reducing muzzle flip. And the 442 airweight is an ounce lighter than my ultralight Taurus 85 and 731.
I bought the 442 used through GB. It has a great trigger! Might be because it was used, and has had some working of the trigger by the previous owner.
But I will say this: I can shoot perhaps 30% smaller groups with the 442 than the Taurus. Is it that good trigger? Is it closer tolerances? Can't tell you.
After carrying the 442 (15 ounces + 2 ounces of .38 spec) for a few months, that extra pound flopping around in my pocket started to weigh. I started looking lighter. The range owner where I shoot was packing his scandium smith and I took a look. Shortly thereafter I picked up a 340SC.. a cool 12 ounces! Recoil is pretty nasty.. it bites compared, even, to the 442 (only 3 ounce difference, but quite noticeable both in carry and recoil). However, I can shoot 25 or 30 rounds at a session, interspersed with shooting my 442 and the many other handguns I have added. It is truly a carry often, shoot seldom gun, but worth every penny.
I have since bought the Kahr P9, P9 Covert and have my eye on the PM9.
They are fabulous "almost pocket" guns, or "big pocket guns", but weigh in at over 20 ounces with 7 or eight rounds aboard. They are almost as concealable as the small snubs.. with a narrow .9 inch thickness, compact shape. The semi auto is inherently easier to shoot because the bullet has left the barrel before the flip reaction starts... and the grip places the hand very close to the line of fire... reducing the moment arm for upward torque. The Kahrs are every bit as reliable as revolvers, the triggers are smooth, short for Double Action Only.. and can put all of the bullets in the same hole if I or you can.
In closing: buy the lightest carry gun you can afford... and I would stretch to buy the Scandium smith (340SC, 340PD) and bypass the stops along the way. As time goes on, every little ounce matters in carry and you will either keep buying lighter or quit carrying. As they say, the gun in your pocket is the one you need, not the one on your dresser.
Incidentally, the SC340 arrived with a rough and stiff trigger. I am contemplating replacing the main spring with a Wolf reduced power spring, but may just allow dry firing to smooth it out.
I bought the SC340 over gunbroker, new for $500 + $20 shipping and $25 FFL charge. You should be able to do close to that.
The other very best option is the Kahr PM9 at 14 ounces (without mag) plus 3-4 ounces of magazine and 9 mm rounds. Potent, shootable package. The P9 and P9 covert pack more power, 30% better accuracy that the 442, and do so with significantly less recoil. If you can test fire one and swing the $550-600 delivered price, it is another good choice.
Good luck.
Paul
PS. I tried every imagineable grip and pocket holster and found that the Butler Creek boot grips are a great compromise between small and still can get enough control to be effective (on the Smith.. think they have for Taurus too...) and the Robert Mika's pocket holsters are the absolute best:
http://www.frontiernet.net/~akim/. His are soft lined naughahyde and are therefore sweatproof, but also have a form holding liner that holds the holster open enough for a quick draw.. and yet are light. Otherwise, you have to step up to expensive leather at $45+ for a pocket holster that retains shape.. etc.
Hi,
When I decided to get CCW license a couple of years ago, I started out thinking the Taurus 605 would be the good everywhere gun... "light enough to carry... heavy enough to help tame recoil." I bought it after "auditioning" Smiths, Taurus, Ruger SP101, Rossi revolvers. At that time, I could put five in a smaller group with a comparable smith than the Taurus. The range people said "tighter tolerances = better accuracy." But I didn't want to spring for the extra $150-200. So I started with the 605.
I quickly learned that a compromise gun was not a good choice. It was way too heavy in the pocket... but not nice and heavy like a 4" underlug 30 ounce plus revolver for the night stand.
Then I auditioned Taurus ultralights... found that light equals more muzzle climb to control... and more difficult in the accuracy department.
I couldn't find one with porting to try, but read that porting helped tame recoil and muzzle flip, to I bought a Taurus 85 gold, rosewood, ported. The porting does reduce felt recoil and flip. The trigger was smooth, easy, and the fit and finish flawless. I can shoot 2.5 inch groups offhand at 21 feet.
Then I bought a model 731, Stainless, ported 32 HR mag for my wife. 32 HR has about same energy as .38, but less recoil, six rounds, and can shoot lower power .32 long colts for the diminutive wife, who will work up to the maggies. This, too, is an excellent gun... fine finish, good trigger.
But then.... I read where a concealed hammer is a better concealed gun, and that the smith 442 is the excellent choice. The cover over the hammer is squared off in such a way that you can get your hand closer to the line of bullet travel.... hence reducing muzzle flip. And the 442 airweight is an ounce lighter than my ultralight Taurus 85 and 731.
I bought the 442 used through GB. It has a great trigger! Might be because it was used, and has had some working of the trigger by the previous owner.
But I will say this: I can shoot perhaps 30% smaller groups with the 442 than the Taurus. Is it that good trigger? Is it closer tolerances? Can't tell you.
After carrying the 442 (15 ounces + 2 ounces of .38 spec) for a few months, that extra pound flopping around in my pocket started to weigh. I started looking lighter. The range owner where I shoot was packing his scandium smith and I took a look. Shortly thereafter I picked up a 340SC.. a cool 12 ounces! Recoil is pretty nasty.. it bites compared, even, to the 442 (only 3 ounce difference, but quite noticeable both in carry and recoil). However, I can shoot 25 or 30 rounds at a session, interspersed with shooting my 442 and the many other handguns I have added. It is truly a carry often, shoot seldom gun, but worth every penny.
I have since bought the Kahr P9, P9 Covert and have my eye on the PM9.
They are fabulous "almost pocket" guns, or "big pocket guns", but weigh in at over 20 ounces with 7 or eight rounds aboard. They are almost as concealable as the small snubs.. with a narrow .9 inch thickness, compact shape. The semi auto is inherently easier to shoot because the bullet has left the barrel before the flip reaction starts... and the grip places the hand very close to the line of fire... reducing the moment arm for upward torque. The Kahrs are every bit as reliable as revolvers, the triggers are smooth, short for Double Action Only.. and can put all of the bullets in the same hole if I or you can.
In closing: buy the lightest carry gun you can afford... and I would stretch to buy the Scandium smith (340SC, 340PD) and bypass the stops along the way. As time goes on, every little ounce matters in carry and you will either keep buying lighter or quit carrying. As they say, the gun in your pocket is the one you need, not the one on your dresser.
Incidentally, the SC340 arrived with a rough and stiff trigger. I am contemplating replacing the main spring with a Wolf reduced power spring, but may just allow dry firing to smooth it out.
I bought the SC340 over gunbroker, new for $500 + $20 shipping and $25 FFL charge. You should be able to do close to that.
The other very best option is the Kahr PM9 at 14 ounces (without mag) plus 3-4 ounces of magazine and 9 mm rounds. Potent, shootable package. The P9 and P9 covert pack more power, 30% better accuracy that the 442, and do so with significantly less recoil. If you can test fire one and swing the $550-600 delivered price, it is another good choice.
Good luck.
Paul
PS. I tried every imagineable grip and pocket holster and found that the Butler Creek boot grips are a great compromise between small and still can get enough control to be effective (on the Smith.. think they have for Taurus too...) and the Robert Mika's pocket holsters are the absolute best:
http://www.frontiernet.net/~akim/. His are soft lined naughahyde and are therefore sweatproof, but also have a form holding liner that holds the holster open enough for a quick draw.. and yet are light. Otherwise, you have to step up to expensive leather at $45+ for a pocket holster that retains shape.. etc.
Over the years have owned and carried various 1911s, Browning HP, Ruger SP101, S&W 60, Taurus 85 (very early model), Beretta 21A, Kahr MK9 and Taurus 851 (shrouded hammer, titanium). What works best depends on what you shoot well and CARRY. Depending on clothes worn I have found the Browning HP and the Taurus 851 the easiest to carry and conceal. I liked the Kahr MK9 but it was too heavy - maybe the PM9 would be OK.
That said, the Taurus 851 is getting the most use. It is light, easy to conceal in a pocket holster or IWB. I have not noticed any problems shooting it with 38s nor has my wife. Just a matter of some practise. I thought the small grips would be a problem even for my small hands, but it isn't. It is also surprisingly very accurate at 15 yards. I did replace the springs and it made the trigger pull much more acceptable. (Much better than early Taurus I had in the 80s.)
I've owned a number of S&Ws over the years and they are great guns - especially the revolvers. However, I just don't feel what you get in a S&W is worth paying the higher price compared to what you get in the Taurus for a lesser price.
Just my experience and opinion, others will differ and that's OK too.
John
That said, the Taurus 851 is getting the most use. It is light, easy to conceal in a pocket holster or IWB. I have not noticed any problems shooting it with 38s nor has my wife. Just a matter of some practise. I thought the small grips would be a problem even for my small hands, but it isn't. It is also surprisingly very accurate at 15 yards. I did replace the springs and it made the trigger pull much more acceptable. (Much better than early Taurus I had in the 80s.)
I've owned a number of S&Ws over the years and they are great guns - especially the revolvers. However, I just don't feel what you get in a S&W is worth paying the higher price compared to what you get in the Taurus for a lesser price.
Just my experience and opinion, others will differ and that's OK too.
John
S&w 340
Since I'm thinking pocket carry will be the way I carry most of the time, your post makes sense. The thing about the S&W 340 is that .357's will not only be nasty to practice with, but will have an awful lot of flash/blast for a CC gun compared to a .38. I'm not sure I need more than a .38+P, and can get a nice Taurus or Smith .38 that weighs 14-15 oz for about $400.
So couldn't I spend less on the gun, and shoot with what I carry more and be within 2-3 oz with a Smith 642 or Taurus 85CHULT like pictured below?
Or are you saying 2-3 oz is a pretty big difference for pocket carry? I could just shoot .38 +P out of the 340 as well.
Since I'm thinking pocket carry will be the way I carry most of the time, your post makes sense. The thing about the S&W 340 is that .357's will not only be nasty to practice with, but will have an awful lot of flash/blast for a CC gun compared to a .38. I'm not sure I need more than a .38+P, and can get a nice Taurus or Smith .38 that weighs 14-15 oz for about $400.
So couldn't I spend less on the gun, and shoot with what I carry more and be within 2-3 oz with a Smith 642 or Taurus 85CHULT like pictured below?
Or are you saying 2-3 oz is a pretty big difference for pocket carry? I could just shoot .38 +P out of the 340 as well.
Two or three ounces is just that: not much after you've loaded it with five rounds of .38s. Personally, the 16 oz. 642 is the lightest revolver I care to shoot using +Ps. I'm a retired LE and have fired many rounds of ammo, using a wide variety of pistols (as I suspect most of you have done), over a 45 year time period and will tell you that, at least for me, the 642 is at the extreme, ragged edge when using +Ps as far as recoil control and accurate, repeat follow-up shots are concerned.
I'm sure there are others who can handle even lighter pistols equally as well but I would suggest that they are few and far between. Lots of practice helps but I'm uncomfortable with the notion of firing very many +Ps with the light, J-frame chassis in terms of longevity limitations. Though I load my 642 with +Ps for CCW purposes, at the range, I shoot tamer stuff; firing the +Ps on occasion as rude reminders of what's in store for me if and when "duty calls".
I'm sure there are others who can handle even lighter pistols equally as well but I would suggest that they are few and far between. Lots of practice helps but I'm uncomfortable with the notion of firing very many +Ps with the light, J-frame chassis in terms of longevity limitations. Though I load my 642 with +Ps for CCW purposes, at the range, I shoot tamer stuff; firing the +Ps on occasion as rude reminders of what's in store for me if and when "duty calls".
rangefodder
Inactive
Get the M-85. I have had one for 5 years now, and shoot 20 rds of +p ammo once a month out of it. at about 10 yds with a little practice you won't have any problems hitting where you aim.
It's well built, sturdy, and the trigger is like butter.
No need for titanium, with a nice hi carry holster or IWB holster you wont even notice the 4 oz.
get one new if you can ... they're fairly cheap. But, if you can find one used and in great condition at about $185 - $200 get it. Taurus has the lifetime warranty regardless of who bought it.
Great reliable and cheap... perfect combo
It's well built, sturdy, and the trigger is like butter.
No need for titanium, with a nice hi carry holster or IWB holster you wont even notice the 4 oz.
get one new if you can ... they're fairly cheap. But, if you can find one used and in great condition at about $185 - $200 get it. Taurus has the lifetime warranty regardless of who bought it.
Great reliable and cheap... perfect combo
great gun
O.k. I'm gonna get ALOT of flak but here goes.. If you want a revolver that feels and shoots, it will say COLT.
That being said, besides my colts I have a m85 blue that is a tack driver,just like "Ohio Annie", I also have a good friend with an identical m85, he claims equal accuracy to mine. Since colt doesn't make any small revolvers anymore I would go for the stainless 85. You might also check into the need for +p rounds. I remember reading an article in a law enforcement magazine a few years ago stating the damage path measurements for standard swc was accually higher than +p and 357 because the +p & 357 completely exited the body before full bullet expansion.
O.k. I'm gonna get ALOT of flak but here goes.. If you want a revolver that feels and shoots, it will say COLT.
That being said, besides my colts I have a m85 blue that is a tack driver,just like "Ohio Annie", I also have a good friend with an identical m85, he claims equal accuracy to mine. Since colt doesn't make any small revolvers anymore I would go for the stainless 85. You might also check into the need for +p rounds. I remember reading an article in a law enforcement magazine a few years ago stating the damage path measurements for standard swc was accually higher than +p and 357 because the +p & 357 completely exited the body before full bullet expansion.
Found a Taurus M85 with shrouded hammer, and Ti barrel & cylinder. I think it's about 14 oz. Trigger on the Tauruses I've checked out have been better than S&W J-frames, less of a heavy pull.
The bad news is the Taurus is ported, and I'm not sure I want a CC gun to be ported with the extra flash & blast it entails. Not to mention losing velocity on .38's that need it.
These are about $420 at a couple shops nearby. That's kinda pricey for a Taurus snub - must be the titanium...
The bad news is the Taurus is ported, and I'm not sure I want a CC gun to be ported with the extra flash & blast it entails. Not to mention losing velocity on .38's that need it.
These are about $420 at a couple shops nearby. That's kinda pricey for a Taurus snub - must be the titanium...