Taurus: a question, not a bash.

[ngragg]

Here is how I feel about taurus and always have. Their revolvers are great and I have never had an issue with them. Revolvers are a simple operationg system so not a lot to malfunction. In my personal opinion I have found their semi autos to be unreliable at times.

 

[Budda]

^^^ I have found the opposite to be quite true. Thinking that a revolver is simple over an auto is quite ignorant of guns to say. The timing and lock up alone is quite complex as compared to a recoil opperated slide on an auto. Dont belive me? Does kel-tec or hi-point make a revolver? No. This is evidence of the hi tolerance requirements. So I would reevaluate your argument.

 

[Mosin44az]

I have owned 6 M85s including the one I just bought.

Don't really think there is a preference in terms of years. I don't think Taurus quality has declined. They do tend to have lower metal quality in their parts than Smith, for instance. And the steel Rugers are built like battleships by comparison.

Noting the good advice above (read the revolver check-out sticky, buy a Ruger or Smith if you can),

to me the key is if there are any good revolver gunsmiths in your area. If so, they can get the parts and you don't have to ship back to Taurus. Might cost you a bit if you get a bad one, but at least you know you have something that won't be out of your hands a long time.

 

[kinggabby]

I would also say check out reviews done by unbiased individuals like in gun magazines. I have read several reviews for various Taurus guns in the American Rifleman. And I am pretty sure those reviews will be honest.

 

[TennJed]

I would also say check out reviews done by unbiased individuals like in gun magazines. I have read several reviews for various Taurus guns in the American Rifleman. And I am pretty sure those reviews will be honest.

I have not read alot of American Rifleman so I will not comment on it individualy, but too often magazines, gun or other, are far from unbiased. They make their $ off of advertising, so it is not suprising they give great reviews to the companies that advertise with them

 

[Grant D]

Take the day drive and get the S&W Model 60. I carry mine almost every day.
With it you have the option of 38 or 357 rounds and I can put 5 in the black at thirty feet which is fine for a snubbie.

 

[Pond James Pond]

In response to a few comments so far:

Firstly, deep down I think I know that whilst I may carry it, I don't think this will become a habit and so, at present, the "want new toy" factor is dangerously strong. That is why the local guns are more tempting, but also easier to go for: I don't have to justify to myself the added time and expense of getting the S&W knowing that I may not be entirely honest with myself. It is easier to spend cash on plastic than it is to sit in a car for 7 hours total: that is the truer test of whether I really feel I need this additional firearm!!

That said, all things being equal, I'd prefer to buy the higher standard Smith...

Let's remember one thing though.
These guns are not spring chickens.
They are both (the S&W and the bobbed 85) .38 Spl only.
No .38 Spl +P, no .357.

That means they are both at least 15 years old.
Unknown ownership history, unknown maintenance history, unknown year of manufacture, unknown fettling in one's wood cellar...

I may be able to get the S&W down to about €230, and the Taurus to about €190 max, inc a little IWB holster, IIRR.
But those are still $290 or $230 respectively, assuming I can knock them down to those prices.

A new Taurus 851 is about $560, on offer! An LCR would be in at $825 new, minimum. The last would be my ideal, if I were awash with cash.

That is a LOT of money whichever way you look at it, especially for second hand guns. If I knew the Taurus would be OK, I could live with that little 85.
All for a gun that I "fancy", but may not use as intended all that frequently....

 

[lee n. field]

I may be able to get the S&W down to about €230, and the Taurus to about €190 max, inc a little IWB holster, IIRR. (US$290 or US$230 respectively)

That is a LOT of money whichever way you look at it, especially for second hand guns.

In my opinion, neither is an excessive price.

 

[Pond James Pond]

In my opinion, neither is an excessive price.

They may seem cheap compared to new, but to put it in perspective, over here 5 USD for a US gallon of unleaded would be considered a bargain!! So those €190 wouldn't go unnoticed...

I guess I need to sit down and think "Do I need, or just want a snubbie?", and "Will I actually carry it, or will it sit in the gun cabinet?"

 

[bossman]

Mr. Pond, take a step back and catch your breath. It sounds like you are looking for a want gun. Put your money aside, because you'll never know when or where it may show up. I think you have your need covered with the G-19.

Snub's are great for pocket carry but only in the lightweight versions. The all steel are to heavy and move around. So if you go with an all steel why not look for one with a 3 inch barrel. Better sight radius and balance to me.

Patience is good when looking for that one gun that calls, Pond James Pond, look at me. I do highly recommend a 38 spl, one of the grand ole rounds out there and still working hard today.

 

[lee n. field]

They may seem cheap compared to new, but to put it in perspective, over here 5 USD for a US gallon of unleaded would be considered a bargain!! So those €190 wouldn't go unnoticed...

We over here in the good old United State (sic) are creeping up on that price, for gasoline.

Mr. Pond, take a step back and catch your breath. It sounds like you are looking for a want gun. Put your money aside, because you'll never know when or where it may show up. I think you have your need covered with the G-19.

I still maintain that those are good prices for those guns. But, bossman speaks wisdom here.

I guess I need to sit down and think "Do I need, or just want a snubbie?", and "Will I actually carry it, or will it sit in the gun cabinet?"

In the long run, a snub is more likely to be carried.

See the discussion here: Revolver Liberation Alliance, Finishing an Experiment

Early last year I embarked on something of an experiment: carrying my gun not on my belt, as I've done for more years than I can remember, but in my front pocket. Exclusively.
...
My constant companion was one of a pair of pretty much identical, save for color, S&W Airweight Cenennials: a blued Model 042 and the dull silver-gray 642. Both of these are stock guns, meaning that I've done nothing to either one. (No, really!) I tried several holsters, and found that most of them really weren't terribly well thought out. I ended up using a cheap, cheesy, but serviceable Uncle Mike's pocket holster for the vast majority of the time. I carried my spare ammunition in Bianchi Speedstrips.

Why did I do this? For some time now I've been talking about the concept of congruency: that students should train with the guns that they'll actually be using to defend themselves, and further that instructors should be using the guns their students will be using. The problem, of course, is that people generally don't do that, and as a result instructors allow themselves to believe that their students really do conceal full-sized Government Models in their workaday world -- because that's what they bring to class. It's a delusional feedback loop.

In reality, most of the people I talk to who are carrying medium- to full-sized autoloaders in class sheepishly admit that during the week they tote a compact auto or a five-shot revolver in their front pocket, because that's what they can easily get away with in their place of employment. As a fraternity, instructors are not doing a very good job of getting past this deception; ...

Read the whole thing. He's a revolver partisan, yes, but he speaks truth here.

 

[Pond James Pond]

Thanks for those insights, gents, as well as the pragmatic advice.

I see the wisdom of taking a step back.
I don't want to, but I do see it!!

The urge of a new gun is strong. As strong as the disppointment that follows if one realises it was a rash purchase. I will probably still go down to see the Taurus in the flesh again, but only to inspect: promise!!

For some reason a snub is still very attractive: dunno why. As bossman says as an HD, putative carry and woods gun, my G19 and Redhawk have me covered, yet those little guys still catch my attention...

I'm going to practice dry-firing my Glock and Ruger now to "take the edge off"...

 

[Shadi Khalil]

I would also say check out reviews done by unbiased individuals like in gun magazines. I have read several reviews for various Taurus guns in the American Rifleman. And I am pretty sure those reviews will be honest.

Wow, now that's really funny. Thanks for the chuckle. It was a joke, right?

 

[B.N.Real]

I can definitely vouch for the weight being an issue as far as revolvers for carry.

MANY years ago,I once had a Taurus Model 85 that I messed up myself trying to do some ill advised trigger work so I sent it back to Taurus for repair.

In the letter I explained why I was doing,what I did and that I was respondsible for the damage to the gun.

They sent me a brand new DAO all stainless steel Model 85 that was simply a very stunningly made revolver and heavy as hell.

Try as I might,it felt like a cinderblock in my pocket when I tried to carry it.

Funny thing was,a friend at the gun store where I traded the gun was practically begging me to not trade that gun in-it was so darn beautiful.

I traded it in for the current Model 85 Ultralight Blued I use now and have'nt looked back.

My Ultralight is'nt the lightest revovler ever made in 38 special but it hits that minimum weight level just right to carry when I can in my pocket.

Still,that Taurus DAO 85 was a stunningly beautiful,reliable handgun.

What a shine it had.

Wow.

 

[Jbar4Ranch]

I manage an inventory of about 1500 - 2000 guns where I work, and I send back as many Taurus revolvers for warranty service as every other brand we sell, combined. We have had excellent luck with the autos though, and I can remember only one single auto I've sent back, and that was for a problem with the front sight and had nothing to do with function of the pistol.

 

[Pond James Pond]

Well, I went and satisfied my curiosity today, by taking a look at the bob-hammered 85. I went armed with my newly abridged check list of bits to check. All in all it scored very well. Everything was in good order, in tidy condition and unworn.

The only exceptions/problems were not being able to check the internal safety, or the cylinder gap (no feeler gauges). In addition, I noted that the star, whilst sharp and unworn, looked like the metal was a bit scratched in places, and when locked up, there was a very slight hint of endshake, like half a millimeter...

Otherwise it was tight, the screws were unscathed, barrels, throats and clylinders neat, and aligned etc.

Frankly, I like it. It is only the name stamped on it that would make me wary....

That and its weight.
It is a bit heavy for the size: my guess between 500 and 600 grs, unloaded!!

 

[lee n. field]

That and its weight.
It is a bit heavy for the size: my guess between 500 and 600 grs, unloaded!!

HOld on a second......17 to 21oz? No, that's all that not heavy. My steel 605 is somewhat heavier than that, and I don't consider it heavy. And, you want a little weight in this gun, to help mitigate recoil.

The only exceptions/problems were not being able to check the internal safety

The transfer bar? You should be able to see that rise as the hammer goes back.

Frankly, I like it. It is only the name stamped on it that would make me wary....

Your call.

Who'd do warranty service on it, in Estonia?

 

[Pond James Pond]

HOld on a second......17 to 21oz?

That weight was a guesstimate on my part. It is not Redhawk heavy by any means, but it has some mass

The transfer bar? You should be able to see that rise as the hammer goes back.

I could see it, but only fleetingly as it is a bobbed hammer, and didn't want to dry fire it too much

Your call.

Who'd do warranty service on it, in Estonia?

Well, I spoke to the importer of Taurus and they said that they would use items in stock in Europe for fixes rather than send it back to Taurus for repair which would probably take a year!

If I had problems with this gun, other than springs being replaced, it would be a PITA. I think that much is sure... And the lowest he'd go, is €210, so €20 off...
If I got it, it would be a leap of faith, hoping that I get a decent one...

 

[bravo2uniform]

Love 'Em

I love Taurus revolvers. I have owned several and own several now, my latest being a new one in .327 Federal Magnum which I am carrying for personal defense.

I have had one problem which Taurus fixed, quickly and at no cost to me.

One of the reasons I like Taurus is the value to use ratio. I look at Taurus as a workhorse. I carry one camping, have two my spare vehicles, gave one away to a friend's wife to keep while he was deployed, etc. If I get a spot of rust, I'm not going to panic.

I'm not saying that Taurus isn't aesthetically pleasing or cheaply made, but, well, it is a Taurus. YMMV.

That being said, I'd go for the S&W. Since this is a want gun, not a workhorse, get tradition, the quality and good looks.

 

[Pond James Pond]

One of the reasons I like Taurus is the value to use ratio. I look at Taurus as a workhorse. I carry one camping, have two my spare vehicles, gave one away to a friend's wife to keep while he was deployed, etc. If I get a spot of rust, I'm not going to panic.

I'm not saying that Taurus isn't aesthetically pleasing or cheaply made, but, well, it is a Taurus. YMMV.

That being said, I'd go for the S&W. Since this is a want gun, not a workhorse, get tradition, the quality and good looks.

Other than price, the biggest plus for the Taurus over the S&W is the fact it has a bobbed hammer: far more preferable for carrying in a pocket, AFAIC. Dunno if bobbing a normal hammer would alter the primer strike...