Qwiks draw
Moderator
Owning seven Taurus revolvers, and four Taurus semi-autos, most over 20 years old, I can say that I haven't had any failures that were the results of Taurus QC. That includes .22, .22 WMR, .380, 9mm, .38 Special, and .357 Magnum.
I check every new, or used, gun that I buy at the dealer BEFORE putting my money down. How many people have bought a new gun, then complain bitterly that something "isn't right" that they should have seen prior to buying it? Lousy triggers, barrels misaligned, loose sights, barrel/cylinder gap issues, screws missing or buggered up, poor polishing, finish problems, and so on can usually be checked at the counter. If you don't think it's right, don't buy it.
I found S&W QC in the 1980's and 1990's to be abysmal, but the usual refrain is "send it back, they'll make it right." I also found Rohrbaugh to have a product that rarely worked in the beginning, and cost $1000. Yet, the same old song was repeated.
I expect a gun that cost me $600 to be better finished, and better in overall operation and quality, than another gun that costs $300. You don't buy a Ford Taurus and expect the same fit and finish of a Lincoln Mark. To do so is to guarantee that you'll NEVER be satisfied. Whether we like it, or not, it's the world we live in.
Reply Quote Notify
was invited. Seems that one of the mods noticed my posts on another forum, where I was playing with one of the "if it doesn't cost $1000, it's junk," members.
I've owned Taurus firearms since they hit our shores in the 1980's, away from Interarms. I also own the more expensive brands, as well. Guess which ones I've sent back the most often?
The snob was glaringly quiet after I PM'd him about my Korth revolver and semi-auto. Seems he wasn't quite a well-heeled as he thought.
I can afford anything that I really want. The reason for that is that I usually buy things that I feel will do the job, without the cachet of price, to make it "better".
I currently have four Taurus semi-autos, and seven Taurus revolvers. Two of the semis are of the older, non-decocker, variety, and ALL of the revolvers are at least 15 years old, a couple pushing 20. I use them when teaching, so a LOT of different people have shot them, without incident, over the years.
Reply Quote Notify
vs PT100 on: June 15, 2008, 09:19:49 AM
Both S&W and Taurus were briefly owned by the Bangor-Punta Group. S&W was sold to Thompkins, and Taurus was bought by the current owners, Brazilian nationals.
The reason that Taurus revolvers look like S&W is simple. EVERYONE's DA revolvers resembles S&W, as form follows function. That's why EVERONE'S 1911 looks like everyone else's, too.
The fact that Taurus used Beretta machinery for the PT92 has been amply documented. Beretta finished their contract with the Brazilian Army, and was faced with either selling the machinery, shipping it back to Italy as excess machinery, or producing civilian Berettas in Brazil, and competing with it's Italian plants. The only revenue producing choice was the sale, and Forjas Taurus made them the offer.
Had somebody decided to build a duplicate of the Model 92 Beretta, the company would have smothered them in law-suits. By buying the machinery, a deal was reached, allowing Taurus to produce, and market, the weapons.
You'll note that the bashers always refer to older revolvers, for the most part, as problems. They will then include ALL Taurus products in their sweeping pronouncements. There was such an "expert" on the 1911 forum recently. He announced that the Taurus "small parts" were all "too soft". When I asked him how he had determined that, I was told that a friend at a shop related to him a story about another customer's tale of a sear that "snapped" in a jig while a "noted", but nameless, gunsmith torqued it while setting up the jig. That meant that the parts were "too soft". With his telling making this at least fourth-hand, I asked him if he actually had real information to share. It went down-hill from there. The symptom that he stated would occur with any sear, as they aren't designed to be torqued. There was no actual attempt to determine soft or hard made. If anything, the parts were too hard, and brittle. Typical of bashers, the lack of facts, when pointed out, forces them to devolve into personal attacks.
No matter where you go, somebody always has bad things to say about every brand but the one they like. These are the same people who BUY brands that they don't like, and then complain. Also, would anyone actually but a revolver that has the sights noticeably canted to one side? With a trigger that feels like it has a pound of metal shavings in it? Or a bad finish? Well, they do.
You'll note that the bashers always refer to older revolvers, for the most part, as problems. They will then include ALL Taurus products in their sweeping pronouncements. There was such an "expert" on the 1911 forum recently. He announced that the Taurus "small parts" were all "too soft". When I asked him how he had determined that, I was told that a friend at a shop related to him a story about another customer's tale of a sear that "snapped" in a jig while a "noted", but nameless, gunsmith torqued it while setting up the jig. That meant that the parts were "too soft". With his telling making this at least fourth-hand, I asked him if he actually had real information to share. It went down-hill from there. The symptom that he stated would occur with any sear, as they aren't designed to be torqued. There was no actual attempt to determine soft or hard made. If anything, the parts were too hard, and brittle. Typical of bashers, the lack of facts, when pointed out, forces them to devolve into personal attacks.
Not too many years ago, the Norinco 1911 pistols were the object of derision on the new Internet Boards. Today, they are great base guns for a build. Supposedly, in the early 1990's, Colt 1911 were so "out of spec" that gunsmiths wouldn't use them. Yet, today, guns from that era are routinely used by national 'smiths for builds. In the '70s and 80s, S&W had serious QC problems with their entire line, but, again, today, the same people who bash Taurus recommend S&W, especially used ones, instead.
No matter where you go, somebody always has bad things to say about every brand but the one they like. These are the same people who BUY brands that they don't like, and then complain. Also, would anyone actually but a revolver that has the sights noticeably canted to one side? With a trigger that feels like it has a pound of metal shavings in it? Or a bad finish? Well, they do.
I also have all three. You're familiar with the manual-of-arms for the 92/99, and the 100/101 pistols. While getting to the range will be important, Home Defense is critical. Under stress, we revert back to what we've been taught, and, for you, that's the 92-100 platform. It would take a while with the 1911 before you reached that level.
The PT100/101 series ( I own a 101) has 12 round magazines available for it, so you'll only give up three rounds to the M9 you're familiar with. Premium defensive rounds, like the Gold Dot, HST, and Golden Saber, are producing the most successful results of any between the 9x19 and the .40 S&W.
I like the PT101 for use as a combination home and range gun. The chances of anything damaging the adjustable sight is rare in this scenario, and the gun can be adjusted for the weight of bullet used.
The .40 S&W recoils much like a +P or +P+ 9mm round, and is more expensive per round than the 9mm, at least for the near future.
The .45 ACP, in it's premium designs, does hold a certain advantage over both of the others. It's also the most expensive to shoot. The platform has a different manual-of-arms, a better trigger feel, and the full-size version can be CCW'd. However, it's far different in operating qualities (single-action) than either the M9 or the 92/100 platforms.
The choice is yours. Oh, the 1911 is actually easier to teach a new shooter. No "transition" from DA to SA, better trigger to learn, and the grips fit many more people's hands. The "recoil" of the .45 ACP is also mostly a myth in a full sized gun, as well. I've had little trouble teaching petite females to use the 1911, or younger males. They have little in the way of pre-conceived notions about calibers and recoil.
My PT101 sits next to the bed at night. However, I CCW a 1911. To me, the safety location of the PT101, being identical to that of my 1911, allows me to get it into play quickly. However, that first DA pull allows me to be sure of my target in those first few "heard something, saw something, am I REALLY awake?" seconds. I wake up easily after decades of Fire/EMS service, but I'm older now, and my hearing isn't what it was 45 years ago. A small war in SE Asia, followed by decades of sirens, air-horns, and barely muffled trucks and gas-powered accessories on the scene have left me with tinnitus, and moderate-to-severe loss of hearing in both ears. So, I tend to be VERY cautious about what I "hear' at night, or should have "heard".
Reply Quote Notify
I own 11 Taurus pistols and revolvers. Some are over 20 years old. All are still servicable, and are shot whenever I go out. Looking at another PT1911
Now, why would you spend the time examining a weapon for IDPA if you dfidn't know if it would qualify? Then sign on to a Taurus Board and complain about a matter that isn't wide-spread? You even go far enough as to talk about other guns that you like better, and already own.
If I'm looking for a gun to compete with, I try those that I know will qualify in the game that I choose, first. I'm not going to try a Ruger revolver and complain that it doesn't hold enough rounds for Service Weapon Class semi-auto.
The magazine release worked, but it didn't reliably release the mags to fall free. I've owned 1911s that this was a problem for the first few mad changes.One was a Wilson Combat. The folks there said to just go ahead and shoot it. After 40 rounds, it worked fine.
Had the poster presented himself in a more educated fashion, he could have received much more information, or advice. I've passed on some high-end pistols and revolvers because the sample I handled had a problem. I don't go to a forum devoted to that make, and declare that this is symptomatic of the entire line.
Despite his explanatiuon, it was obvious that he liked the XD and the M&P pistols going into this. His entire post reflected that. If you don't like a product, don't buy it. I don't care for the grip angle of a Glock, or the cheap plastic sights, or the fact that there are still a ton of magazines floating around that don't drop free. However, I'm not going onto the Glock forum to complain about the grip angle or the sights, and state that the poor ergonomics, and cheap sights, lost a sale.
He didn't like it. So what? There was nothing said that even merited notice on Taurus Armed.
Ok, I went to the closest store to me, today, and checked the mag release on three (3) OSS pistols. Two were still greasy with Taurus' packing lube. All three (3) released the mag cleanly. Effort between the three was noticeably different, though none was really hard for me to release.
There is no guarantee that the production variants of the OSS are perfect copies of the military entrant. Something as simple as a change in the coating of the mag release button, for whatever reason, could vary the thickness enough to allow problems with a maximum o.d. button, and a minimum i.d. frame hole. Seems that I can remember a simple change in the 1960's in type of powder in a certain ammunition that certainly had much more deleterious results. Yet, it passed, unnoticed.
To simply call the magazine release "poor quality", while extolling the release on the XDM, or the M&P, even though both pistols had the same problem, sticking magazines, reported, is wrong. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that continued use of the release button will result in polishing the excess coating, and a resumption of your mandated "feel". Remember, the Browning High Power was notorious for sticky magazines for decades. Some of the later magazines even had a spring installed in them to help "kick the mag loose". Glock magazines were originally designed NOT to fall free, as an Austrian Army requirement. It wasn't until Americans began criticizing this that the magazines were Americanized for those shipped here.
IDPA could care less about the efficiency of the magazine release, so long as it doesn't compromise safety. Your problem, and the IDPA, have nothing to do with each other. That you wished to use the OSS in IDPA competition was a random fact, hardly associated with the function of the pistol.
The best that I can gather from this thread is that it re-enforces the old dictum that you need to wait a while, until a new model works out the bugs, before judging, or buying, it.
THESE are all quotes from one of the members here who know is also at the Taurus forum.
He's taken apart all the old lies and trash about Taurus guns. Facts and the truth win out any day.
I've talked to him about my giving him away here or at the Taurus forum. However in this case I am not giving away the name.
Just that you get the picture.
There are others of us who are also on the Taurus bandwagon, but only because the guns work for us. Most of us do have many other brands,makes, and models of other firearms.
There are those for who own only Taurus firearms. They also have had their needs and niches filled by Taurus guns and have no reason to look any further. Why should they? The guns work for them.
These guns are all bought with well thought out,rational common sense,inspect the gun closely before buying, try it out, and then put the money down for the gun types.
Not starry eyed follow the ruler or brand with no thought to consequences of any kind.
People's lives depend on these guns and the purchases were done with great care. Other's lives are on the line as well. These are rational commons sense choices. Not snap decisions.
Nor are these guns bought because of info on the internet only. Shouldn't happen that way. The Net is just a tool. It is wise to go out,get training, and learn as much as possible about shooting, the guns, and anything that goes with all this. At least a good basic knowledge.
No we do not think Taurus are flawless and haven't had their share of troubles like other gun companies. They have.
However to broad brush stroke an entire brand of guns on just one instance is pure folly.
I've seen a few bad examples of major brand guns. Just about all of them. 1 example of each for the most part. This did not mean that all that particular maker's makes and models were trash. Far from it. Yet is is done to Taurus. Odd.
The massive influx of links has the evidence to prove that Taurus does make good to excellent products.
I think I may start bringing all the "I have trouble with this brand gun" to these kinds of goings on and trash the whole brand. Why not?
There are boards at this forum or the archives are full of problem gun threads.
Those can be brought here for the other brands. Why not? They all stink totally do they not? Hey, I have the proof so to speak.
Or I can make up an outrageous claim, have little or facts, and even draw it out over a long,long period. Seen that happen here with other brands as well.
Oh, yes. Forgot to add a couple.
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=6959.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=6230.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=8038.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=5529.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=7865.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=898.0
Blasts from the past on trying to trash Taurus. Nice try,guys,nice try. Missed it by thaaaat much!
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=1074.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=5374.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=3038.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=1096.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=8478.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=5783.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=4379.0
We all know that is bunk to trash an entire brand. Okay, that brand is not your cup of tea. No problem. Just move on.
Most of us have better things to do than be negative a majority of the time, totally obssess on a certain brand and can't give it up going negative, or those who love to spread misery and are cruel. Yet the same cast keeps showing up at these threads.
I check every new, or used, gun that I buy at the dealer BEFORE putting my money down. How many people have bought a new gun, then complain bitterly that something "isn't right" that they should have seen prior to buying it? Lousy triggers, barrels misaligned, loose sights, barrel/cylinder gap issues, screws missing or buggered up, poor polishing, finish problems, and so on can usually be checked at the counter. If you don't think it's right, don't buy it.
I found S&W QC in the 1980's and 1990's to be abysmal, but the usual refrain is "send it back, they'll make it right." I also found Rohrbaugh to have a product that rarely worked in the beginning, and cost $1000. Yet, the same old song was repeated.
I expect a gun that cost me $600 to be better finished, and better in overall operation and quality, than another gun that costs $300. You don't buy a Ford Taurus and expect the same fit and finish of a Lincoln Mark. To do so is to guarantee that you'll NEVER be satisfied. Whether we like it, or not, it's the world we live in.
Reply Quote Notify
was invited. Seems that one of the mods noticed my posts on another forum, where I was playing with one of the "if it doesn't cost $1000, it's junk," members.
I've owned Taurus firearms since they hit our shores in the 1980's, away from Interarms. I also own the more expensive brands, as well. Guess which ones I've sent back the most often?
The snob was glaringly quiet after I PM'd him about my Korth revolver and semi-auto. Seems he wasn't quite a well-heeled as he thought.
I can afford anything that I really want. The reason for that is that I usually buy things that I feel will do the job, without the cachet of price, to make it "better".
I currently have four Taurus semi-autos, and seven Taurus revolvers. Two of the semis are of the older, non-decocker, variety, and ALL of the revolvers are at least 15 years old, a couple pushing 20. I use them when teaching, so a LOT of different people have shot them, without incident, over the years.
Reply Quote Notify
vs PT100 on: June 15, 2008, 09:19:49 AM
Both S&W and Taurus were briefly owned by the Bangor-Punta Group. S&W was sold to Thompkins, and Taurus was bought by the current owners, Brazilian nationals.
The reason that Taurus revolvers look like S&W is simple. EVERYONE's DA revolvers resembles S&W, as form follows function. That's why EVERONE'S 1911 looks like everyone else's, too.
The fact that Taurus used Beretta machinery for the PT92 has been amply documented. Beretta finished their contract with the Brazilian Army, and was faced with either selling the machinery, shipping it back to Italy as excess machinery, or producing civilian Berettas in Brazil, and competing with it's Italian plants. The only revenue producing choice was the sale, and Forjas Taurus made them the offer.
Had somebody decided to build a duplicate of the Model 92 Beretta, the company would have smothered them in law-suits. By buying the machinery, a deal was reached, allowing Taurus to produce, and market, the weapons.
You'll note that the bashers always refer to older revolvers, for the most part, as problems. They will then include ALL Taurus products in their sweeping pronouncements. There was such an "expert" on the 1911 forum recently. He announced that the Taurus "small parts" were all "too soft". When I asked him how he had determined that, I was told that a friend at a shop related to him a story about another customer's tale of a sear that "snapped" in a jig while a "noted", but nameless, gunsmith torqued it while setting up the jig. That meant that the parts were "too soft". With his telling making this at least fourth-hand, I asked him if he actually had real information to share. It went down-hill from there. The symptom that he stated would occur with any sear, as they aren't designed to be torqued. There was no actual attempt to determine soft or hard made. If anything, the parts were too hard, and brittle. Typical of bashers, the lack of facts, when pointed out, forces them to devolve into personal attacks.
No matter where you go, somebody always has bad things to say about every brand but the one they like. These are the same people who BUY brands that they don't like, and then complain. Also, would anyone actually but a revolver that has the sights noticeably canted to one side? With a trigger that feels like it has a pound of metal shavings in it? Or a bad finish? Well, they do.
You'll note that the bashers always refer to older revolvers, for the most part, as problems. They will then include ALL Taurus products in their sweeping pronouncements. There was such an "expert" on the 1911 forum recently. He announced that the Taurus "small parts" were all "too soft". When I asked him how he had determined that, I was told that a friend at a shop related to him a story about another customer's tale of a sear that "snapped" in a jig while a "noted", but nameless, gunsmith torqued it while setting up the jig. That meant that the parts were "too soft". With his telling making this at least fourth-hand, I asked him if he actually had real information to share. It went down-hill from there. The symptom that he stated would occur with any sear, as they aren't designed to be torqued. There was no actual attempt to determine soft or hard made. If anything, the parts were too hard, and brittle. Typical of bashers, the lack of facts, when pointed out, forces them to devolve into personal attacks.
Not too many years ago, the Norinco 1911 pistols were the object of derision on the new Internet Boards. Today, they are great base guns for a build. Supposedly, in the early 1990's, Colt 1911 were so "out of spec" that gunsmiths wouldn't use them. Yet, today, guns from that era are routinely used by national 'smiths for builds. In the '70s and 80s, S&W had serious QC problems with their entire line, but, again, today, the same people who bash Taurus recommend S&W, especially used ones, instead.
No matter where you go, somebody always has bad things to say about every brand but the one they like. These are the same people who BUY brands that they don't like, and then complain. Also, would anyone actually but a revolver that has the sights noticeably canted to one side? With a trigger that feels like it has a pound of metal shavings in it? Or a bad finish? Well, they do.
I also have all three. You're familiar with the manual-of-arms for the 92/99, and the 100/101 pistols. While getting to the range will be important, Home Defense is critical. Under stress, we revert back to what we've been taught, and, for you, that's the 92-100 platform. It would take a while with the 1911 before you reached that level.
The PT100/101 series ( I own a 101) has 12 round magazines available for it, so you'll only give up three rounds to the M9 you're familiar with. Premium defensive rounds, like the Gold Dot, HST, and Golden Saber, are producing the most successful results of any between the 9x19 and the .40 S&W.
I like the PT101 for use as a combination home and range gun. The chances of anything damaging the adjustable sight is rare in this scenario, and the gun can be adjusted for the weight of bullet used.
The .40 S&W recoils much like a +P or +P+ 9mm round, and is more expensive per round than the 9mm, at least for the near future.
The .45 ACP, in it's premium designs, does hold a certain advantage over both of the others. It's also the most expensive to shoot. The platform has a different manual-of-arms, a better trigger feel, and the full-size version can be CCW'd. However, it's far different in operating qualities (single-action) than either the M9 or the 92/100 platforms.
The choice is yours. Oh, the 1911 is actually easier to teach a new shooter. No "transition" from DA to SA, better trigger to learn, and the grips fit many more people's hands. The "recoil" of the .45 ACP is also mostly a myth in a full sized gun, as well. I've had little trouble teaching petite females to use the 1911, or younger males. They have little in the way of pre-conceived notions about calibers and recoil.
My PT101 sits next to the bed at night. However, I CCW a 1911. To me, the safety location of the PT101, being identical to that of my 1911, allows me to get it into play quickly. However, that first DA pull allows me to be sure of my target in those first few "heard something, saw something, am I REALLY awake?" seconds. I wake up easily after decades of Fire/EMS service, but I'm older now, and my hearing isn't what it was 45 years ago. A small war in SE Asia, followed by decades of sirens, air-horns, and barely muffled trucks and gas-powered accessories on the scene have left me with tinnitus, and moderate-to-severe loss of hearing in both ears. So, I tend to be VERY cautious about what I "hear' at night, or should have "heard".
Reply Quote Notify
I own 11 Taurus pistols and revolvers. Some are over 20 years old. All are still servicable, and are shot whenever I go out. Looking at another PT1911
Now, why would you spend the time examining a weapon for IDPA if you dfidn't know if it would qualify? Then sign on to a Taurus Board and complain about a matter that isn't wide-spread? You even go far enough as to talk about other guns that you like better, and already own.
If I'm looking for a gun to compete with, I try those that I know will qualify in the game that I choose, first. I'm not going to try a Ruger revolver and complain that it doesn't hold enough rounds for Service Weapon Class semi-auto.
The magazine release worked, but it didn't reliably release the mags to fall free. I've owned 1911s that this was a problem for the first few mad changes.One was a Wilson Combat. The folks there said to just go ahead and shoot it. After 40 rounds, it worked fine.
Had the poster presented himself in a more educated fashion, he could have received much more information, or advice. I've passed on some high-end pistols and revolvers because the sample I handled had a problem. I don't go to a forum devoted to that make, and declare that this is symptomatic of the entire line.
Despite his explanatiuon, it was obvious that he liked the XD and the M&P pistols going into this. His entire post reflected that. If you don't like a product, don't buy it. I don't care for the grip angle of a Glock, or the cheap plastic sights, or the fact that there are still a ton of magazines floating around that don't drop free. However, I'm not going onto the Glock forum to complain about the grip angle or the sights, and state that the poor ergonomics, and cheap sights, lost a sale.
He didn't like it. So what? There was nothing said that even merited notice on Taurus Armed.
Ok, I went to the closest store to me, today, and checked the mag release on three (3) OSS pistols. Two were still greasy with Taurus' packing lube. All three (3) released the mag cleanly. Effort between the three was noticeably different, though none was really hard for me to release.
There is no guarantee that the production variants of the OSS are perfect copies of the military entrant. Something as simple as a change in the coating of the mag release button, for whatever reason, could vary the thickness enough to allow problems with a maximum o.d. button, and a minimum i.d. frame hole. Seems that I can remember a simple change in the 1960's in type of powder in a certain ammunition that certainly had much more deleterious results. Yet, it passed, unnoticed.
To simply call the magazine release "poor quality", while extolling the release on the XDM, or the M&P, even though both pistols had the same problem, sticking magazines, reported, is wrong. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that continued use of the release button will result in polishing the excess coating, and a resumption of your mandated "feel". Remember, the Browning High Power was notorious for sticky magazines for decades. Some of the later magazines even had a spring installed in them to help "kick the mag loose". Glock magazines were originally designed NOT to fall free, as an Austrian Army requirement. It wasn't until Americans began criticizing this that the magazines were Americanized for those shipped here.
IDPA could care less about the efficiency of the magazine release, so long as it doesn't compromise safety. Your problem, and the IDPA, have nothing to do with each other. That you wished to use the OSS in IDPA competition was a random fact, hardly associated with the function of the pistol.
The best that I can gather from this thread is that it re-enforces the old dictum that you need to wait a while, until a new model works out the bugs, before judging, or buying, it.
THESE are all quotes from one of the members here who know is also at the Taurus forum.
He's taken apart all the old lies and trash about Taurus guns. Facts and the truth win out any day.
I've talked to him about my giving him away here or at the Taurus forum. However in this case I am not giving away the name.
Just that you get the picture.
There are others of us who are also on the Taurus bandwagon, but only because the guns work for us. Most of us do have many other brands,makes, and models of other firearms.
There are those for who own only Taurus firearms. They also have had their needs and niches filled by Taurus guns and have no reason to look any further. Why should they? The guns work for them.
These guns are all bought with well thought out,rational common sense,inspect the gun closely before buying, try it out, and then put the money down for the gun types.
Not starry eyed follow the ruler or brand with no thought to consequences of any kind.
People's lives depend on these guns and the purchases were done with great care. Other's lives are on the line as well. These are rational commons sense choices. Not snap decisions.
Nor are these guns bought because of info on the internet only. Shouldn't happen that way. The Net is just a tool. It is wise to go out,get training, and learn as much as possible about shooting, the guns, and anything that goes with all this. At least a good basic knowledge.
No we do not think Taurus are flawless and haven't had their share of troubles like other gun companies. They have.
However to broad brush stroke an entire brand of guns on just one instance is pure folly.
I've seen a few bad examples of major brand guns. Just about all of them. 1 example of each for the most part. This did not mean that all that particular maker's makes and models were trash. Far from it. Yet is is done to Taurus. Odd.
The massive influx of links has the evidence to prove that Taurus does make good to excellent products.
I think I may start bringing all the "I have trouble with this brand gun" to these kinds of goings on and trash the whole brand. Why not?
There are boards at this forum or the archives are full of problem gun threads.
Those can be brought here for the other brands. Why not? They all stink totally do they not? Hey, I have the proof so to speak.
Or I can make up an outrageous claim, have little or facts, and even draw it out over a long,long period. Seen that happen here with other brands as well.
Oh, yes. Forgot to add a couple.
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=6959.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=6230.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=8038.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=5529.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=7865.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=898.0
Blasts from the past on trying to trash Taurus. Nice try,guys,nice try. Missed it by thaaaat much!
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=1074.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=5374.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=3038.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=1096.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=8478.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=5783.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=4379.0
We all know that is bunk to trash an entire brand. Okay, that brand is not your cup of tea. No problem. Just move on.
Most of us have better things to do than be negative a majority of the time, totally obssess on a certain brand and can't give it up going negative, or those who love to spread misery and are cruel. Yet the same cast keeps showing up at these threads.
Last edited:
