Taurus 941 - Junk or Good Plinker?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

YankeeIronSights

New member
Hi everyone,

I have a chance to buy a used Taurus 941 .22 magnum revolver for $300.00 at my local gun store. I would like feedback from anyone who has experience with these revolvers. I want to buy it mostly for plinking, although I do not discard carrying it while backpacking. I have other revolvers for self defense and hunting. With the current ammo shortages, I have noticed that 22 magnum ammo is readily available in most gun stores. This will allow me to save my .22LR and 9mm ammo, while supply and demand returns to normal.

Thanks for your feedback!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Yeah, I have the 94 and 941. They are what they are - inexpensive revolvers that go bang with a thin finish and sharp edges. Both of mine were around $270 but that was about 5 years ago. Since then, I've put a few thousand rounds through the 94. The 941 was a bit expensive to feed for rimfire but in these days of limited ammo, 22 Mag makes more sense. Both are reliable.

These days, I use mine for practice. Does wonders for trigger control.
 
They are catch as catch can. I have a Model 94 that worked out of the box, but the DA trigger was so heavy it was unusable. I put in a Wolff spring kit and got it down almost to what a normal DA revolver might be like.

A couple of years later I bought a Taurus .327 Magnum revolver, which is built on the same frame. That one did NOT work out of the box. I tinkered. The gunsmith at the range shop tinkered with it. Still didn't work. I finally took it apart and filed down several jagged edges inside that weren't allowing parts to move when and where they were supposed to. That got it working, but the trigger pull was just as abominable as the 94. So ... another Wolff spring kit. It's now usable, but DA is to be avoided if at all possible.
 
Mine is the regular .22, not the magnum, manufaactured in early 90s. I have been VERY pleased with it. Accurate, enough. Yes, the trigger pull is a little heavy but my elderly Mother could use it well enough. Spot them $250 cash --- and take it home.
 
Update:

After reading your comments, I realized that I was going to pay a bit more than average for this used revolver. Although this 941 was in good condition, the trigger was quite heavy too. I know that most .22 revolvers have terrible heavy triggers to overcome rimfire light strike issues, but I have never been a conformist.

Today, my LGS took in a used Smith and Wesson 648 with 6” barrel. It is not a pre-lock and costs double the price but the trigger is significantly better than the one on the Taurus 941 and it is in very good condition. The longer barrel should allow the .22 magnum rounds perform better and the sight radius should make this revolver very accurate.

Finally, I decided to spend the extra cash hoping that this will be a better investment over time.

Your thoughts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Taurus = second rate junk. S&W will be a better investment in shooting and money. There is no money to be lost as long as it’s taken care of. I don’t do stainless but have 48s.
 
YankeeIronSights said:
Today, my LGS took in a used Smith and Wesson 648 with 6” barrel. It is not a pre-lock and costs double the price but the trigger is significantly better than the one on the Taurus 941 and it is in very good condition. The longer barrel should allow the .22 magnum rounds perform better and the sight radius should make this revolver very accurate.

Finally, I decided to spend the extra cash hoping that this will be a better investment over time.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

You made the right call. I'm not much of a fan of recent-production S&Ws, but S&W over Taurus is always the way to go. If you take proper care of it, you'll get your money back at resale.
 
Get the Smith. You are correct about the over time thing it being a better investment. The only concern that I have is the .22 Magnum for a plinker. Cost is much more than a .22 LR .
 
Friends don't let friends buy Taurus.

Transfer bars always break. Taurus is aware but figures it cheaper to just replace them. Wonderful if you're using the Taurus to protect your life. Buy American.
 
"...better investment over time..." It'd highly unlikely as Taurus revolver(S&W clones), of any flavour, will ever be much of an investment. Mind you, neither would a 'modern' Smith. Too many made.
The big issue with Taurus in general is that their customer service is poor.
"...22 magnum ammo is readily available..." A great deal more expensive than LR though.
 
YankeeIronSights said:
Hi everyone,

I have a chance to buy a used Taurus 941 .22 magnum revolver for $300.00 at my local gun store. I would like feedback from anyone who has experience with these revolvers. I want to buy it mostly for plinking, although I do not discard carrying it while backpacking. I have other revolvers for self defense and hunting. With the current ammo shortages, I have noticed that 22 magnum ammo is readily available in most gun stores. This will allow me to save my .22LR and 9mm ammo, while supply and demand returns to normal.

Thanks for your feedback!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Junk.
 
4V50 Gary said:
Friends don't let friends buy Taurus.

Transfer bars always break. Taurus is aware but figures it cheaper to just replace them. Wonderful if you're using the Taurus to protect your life. Buy American.
Click to expand...
The jingoism is strong with this post.

The only revolver I've ever had that had a transfer bar break was the Charter Arms Professional, which when I looked at the broken piece, the metal looked like it was MIM. Like, how can you MIM a piece that gets struck repeatedly?

My Taurus Judge, besides the occasional issue with the DA locking up randomly when dry firing, has been super reliable and very accurate with plated .45 bullets out to 20 yards. I must be coming up on 1000 rds shot thru it thus far.
 
I don't like .22 Magnum as a plinking caliber, not only is it much more than .22 LR, it's not as common when there's a panic. I remember 2013 thru 2015, .22 Mag was GONE. All the companies were producing .22 LR because that's what people were buying and they were very slow to tool up the machines to run .22 Mag again. Winchester once had a short barrel JHP PDX1 .22 Mag that disappeared and while it's on their website, it was never seen again.

The other reason I don't like .22 Mag in a handgun is it's just not as reliable as even .22 LR. I have found that in a revolver, I've had about the same number of duds in .22 Mag as I have .22 LR, yet I've shot probably 20 times more .22 LR in revolvers than I have .22 Mag.

Now, I know someone is going to see this and say in their 60 years of shooting .22 Mag they've never not once ever had a dud, but they have multiple .22 LR duds every time they shoot a .22. All I can say to them is good for them, hasn't been my experience.

Of course the next question will be what brands of .22 Mag did I shoot and I shoot all kinds. Aguila was the worst, Hornady wasn't good either, and while Federal, Speer, and CCI were better, they weren't perfect either.

All the revolvers this ammo was shot from were single action revolvers, so this isn't an issue of weak strikes w/ double action. Also, these all came with .22 LR cylinders and no matter what .22 LR ammo I used, they had fewer FTF's.

So, unless you want to tell me all three revolvers have poorly made .22 Mag cylinders, the issue isn't the revolvers, it's the ammo. It's either the rims are harder/thicker and cause ignition issues or it's my belief the long necks on .22 Mag cause the priming compound to get hung up and leaves large swathes of the rims unfilled with the priming compound.

.22 Magnum is less reliable than .22 LR.
 
The OP decided over a month ago to buy a S&W rather than the Taurus. Further comments, especially comments that don't repond to the question, are off-topic and unnecessary.

Closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top