I see a lot of Taurus bashing going on in forums, and that's not to say that a certain amount isn't justified... I've never owned a Taurus, haven't even shot one before. However the amount that goes on (as others have said) seems suspiciously high for a company that's still in business. As a prospective buyer, the amount of worthless noise surrounding the brand is staggering, and more than a little annoying. But, is it justified?
I'm shopping for a snubbie 357 and I've mostly had my eye on the Ruger LCR, but at the shop yesterday handling some various options, a couple Taurus options (the 651 and the 605 poly) totally caught my eye. They were over $100 less and had better sights out of the box, some more heft that might help with recoil a little more, and felt really nice in my hand. Since I tend to be careful and know I'm going to like something before I buy it, I went home empty handed and did some research.
I know a lot of times the armchair experts make doing research like this on the internet a little maddening, and most professional gun reviewers are are worthless because they don't want the manufacturers to stop sending them free guns to review so they say everything is awesome, but I was driven to find some actually useful information about the reliability of Taurus firearms (which is my only real hang up with buying one). And lo and behold...
I found a post on this other site where this guy went through every issue of "Gun Tests" magazine (who aren't paid for by ads, and who aren't sent freebies by the manufacturers) to find all the tests of guns by Taurus and Glock (and also all of the various 1911 models, but that doesn't pertain to this discussion).
Out of the 83 total Taurus tests done between 1994 and 2010, 16 broke or locked up during testing (that's 13.28%). Out of the 47 Glock tests over that same period, zero (0) broke or locked up.
Not exactly the best score for their QA, however I would have to say that it is a far cry from them "making more bad guns than good ones," which I've seen said a lot on this and other forums, and it's a pretty silly notion as they really wouldn't be in business if that were true.
So to me it seems that while their reliability record isn't stellar, the people having problems are probably just louder. The ones without problems don't spend their time raging on the internet about it, because they're too busy at the range shooting their fully functioning firearm.
So after finally finding some numbers, my opinion is if the extra $120-$200 is a lot of money to you, or if the extra money saved is worth the 13.28% chance of having to send it back for repair/replacement under warranty, and it feels good in your hands, then get one. If any of that bothers you, or money isn't an object, or you'd be embarrassed to be seen anywhere with a Taurus in your hand, or whatever your beef is, then don't. Simple as that. I know, some answer, huh?
Well, at least it's more concrete than "OMG TAURUS IS POOP BY WIFE'S FIRING PIN BROKE" or "I'VE HAD A TAURUS FOR 30 YEARS AND IT'S FINE"!
As for me, I'm still deciding if it's worth it to me or not. Maybe I'll sell some stuff and get both the Ruger and the Taurus?
http://www.yankeegunnuts.com/2010/12/28/quality-1911-glock-taurus/
I'm shopping for a snubbie 357 and I've mostly had my eye on the Ruger LCR, but at the shop yesterday handling some various options, a couple Taurus options (the 651 and the 605 poly) totally caught my eye. They were over $100 less and had better sights out of the box, some more heft that might help with recoil a little more, and felt really nice in my hand. Since I tend to be careful and know I'm going to like something before I buy it, I went home empty handed and did some research.
I know a lot of times the armchair experts make doing research like this on the internet a little maddening, and most professional gun reviewers are are worthless because they don't want the manufacturers to stop sending them free guns to review so they say everything is awesome, but I was driven to find some actually useful information about the reliability of Taurus firearms (which is my only real hang up with buying one). And lo and behold...
I found a post on this other site where this guy went through every issue of "Gun Tests" magazine (who aren't paid for by ads, and who aren't sent freebies by the manufacturers) to find all the tests of guns by Taurus and Glock (and also all of the various 1911 models, but that doesn't pertain to this discussion).
Out of the 83 total Taurus tests done between 1994 and 2010, 16 broke or locked up during testing (that's 13.28%). Out of the 47 Glock tests over that same period, zero (0) broke or locked up.
Not exactly the best score for their QA, however I would have to say that it is a far cry from them "making more bad guns than good ones," which I've seen said a lot on this and other forums, and it's a pretty silly notion as they really wouldn't be in business if that were true.
So to me it seems that while their reliability record isn't stellar, the people having problems are probably just louder. The ones without problems don't spend their time raging on the internet about it, because they're too busy at the range shooting their fully functioning firearm.
So after finally finding some numbers, my opinion is if the extra $120-$200 is a lot of money to you, or if the extra money saved is worth the 13.28% chance of having to send it back for repair/replacement under warranty, and it feels good in your hands, then get one. If any of that bothers you, or money isn't an object, or you'd be embarrassed to be seen anywhere with a Taurus in your hand, or whatever your beef is, then don't. Simple as that. I know, some answer, huh?
Well, at least it's more concrete than "OMG TAURUS IS POOP BY WIFE'S FIRING PIN BROKE" or "I'VE HAD A TAURUS FOR 30 YEARS AND IT'S FINE"!
As for me, I'm still deciding if it's worth it to me or not. Maybe I'll sell some stuff and get both the Ruger and the Taurus?
http://www.yankeegunnuts.com/2010/12/28/quality-1911-glock-taurus/