Taurus 731UL Vs. S&W 331

K

Kentucky Rifle

New member
Much to my wife's dismay, I keep old gun magazines. I had this affliction when we married almost 25 years ago, and I was honest with her about it. She said it was fine. However, all these years later, I sometimes notice magazines go "missing in action", so I've taken to hiding the ones I wish to keep.
In the Mar. 2001 issue of "Handguns" there is a review of the S&W 331 .32 H&R mag. The magazine gives the weight as 12 ounces.
In the July issue of the same magazine, it gives a review of the Taurus 731UL. (Which I purchased. As far as I know, the boycott is still on.)
It seems that the main difference between these two pistols is that the S&W has a titanium cylinder and a slightly shorter barrel. Yet, incredibly, weighs in at five ounces lighter. How can this be? There's not much difference in the outward appearance of the two pistols at all.

Thanks,
KR
P.S. Sorry friends. Not knowing things like this drives me nuts!
 
Steel cylinder vs. Ti wheel. All-steel barrel vs. (slightly shorter) aluminum barrel shroud over steel liner.

That'd account for most of it right there.
 
Tamara...

I'm not complaining about my fine new Taurus, I'm just trying to figure out where this 5 ounces is coming from. I just took another look at the magazine and it says that the Taurus also has "a stainless barrel liner housed in an aluminum shroud". Can you think of anything else?

Thanks for helping with this curiosity thing.

KR
 
Makes me wish...

...I had an alloy J-frame around the house to do the comparison thing with, but the only J's around here are all-steel. :(
 
Tamara...

It's very possible that "Handguns" magazine is wrong regarding a steel barrel being encased in an aluminum shroud on the Taurus UL. (It wouldn't be the first time that I've found a glaring mistake in a magazine!) I just put the Taurus under a strong light and the barrel actually does look more like the cylinder than the alloy frame of the weapon.
If indeed this is the case, you are right. A stainless barrel and cylinder would make up the five ounces.

KR
 
Sounds like you have a win win situation. The extra five ounces should make it more enjoyable to shoot while still being quite light enough for carry. Sounds like you don't have a barrel insert to maby come loose with use.

And you didn't purchase from a company that is actively supporting the gun grabbers.

Sam
 
Sam...

Bet you as...er, "boots" I've got a win/win situation! The UL is a great shooter!
Actually, I am curious about some other things also. Such as...what is up with the S&W trigger?? The Taurus is smooth and light, the S&W was heavy and gritty. (I DID look at one in the gun shop. Looking is OK isn't it?:)) To me, the Taurus was clearly the better pistol. (And less money, to boot.) No offense to you Smith fans. I'm one myself. However, to me the older models are the ones to get. Don't get me wrong. My 1978 model all steel Chief's Special IS special. I just don't think they make them like that any longer.
Forgive me...I didn't mean to start anything here.
:eek:
KR
 
ah HAAA!!!

I finally got through to Taurus today. "Handguns" DID in fact, make a mistake. The magazine reported that the Taurus 731UL had an aluminum shroud covering a stainless tube.--They were wrong and Tamara was right. The cylinder AND the front of the pistol (including the barrel) is made of the same stainless steel and is indeed the reason the small Taurus snub weighs 5 ounces more!
Bet everybody thought I had given up! This is proof of the fact that curiosity will drive you to extremes. (Or at least to the loony bin.:p )

KR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top