Taurus Reliability - Actual Numbers

[Quizcat]

Which of these polymer handgun mechanisms appears to be the best, strongest, most durable, most reliable design, etc...?

If you would like to participate by commenting, please Indicate your preference for each by replying to this post, and indicate why you believe certain mechanisms appear to be superior compared to others. Each photo is numbered except the last one, an after thought, but none the less, a very prominent manufacturer that should not be omitted.

The view in each photo looks down upon the polymer frame, into the internal mechanisms of each. The steel alloy areas of the mechanisms are circled in white, and the green shaded areas are machined aluminum areas. The Slides are positioned next to the polymer section of the handgun to assist in orientation with respect to the direction the barrel is pointing in each photo.

The Slides are all machined steel, and quality seems relatively uniform between the different brands, so the slide quality with respect to durability, strength, reliability, etc...seems relatively equal to me, and probably not noteworthy with respect to one being better or worse quality than the other.

These photos reveal the internal mechanisms of (9) very popular brands with respect to how much of the internal workings of these polymer firearms is supported by metal frame work, and the various types of frame work that each manufacturer has chosen to incorporate into their respective designs.

It would seem to me that the design of the internal frame work would play a considerable roll in the durability of each, whether a manufacturer is relying mostly on polymer (plastic) for support as the mechanism functions, or whether the manufacturer is incorporating strategically placed metallic support, along with polymer, to achieve strength, durability, reliability, etc...

I will eventually reveal the brand names of each of these designs by number...

 

[Quizcat]

I don't work for taurus, but...

I own the Millennium Pro PT140, and when comparing the quality of construction, and the internal parts and mechanisms, Taurus stacks up to any of the other brands that are $150-$500 more expensive. Yet, in most of the forums, there are a number of people that really bad mouth Taurus products, while simultaneously giving all the rest a pass.

I will never quite understand why Taurus can't overcome what seems to be a relative few in comparison to the same numbers of complaints against ALL other brands, especially when there are so many of us out there that have nothing but praise for the performance and reliability of our Taurus firearms.

Perhaps Taurus endures criticism from a number of years ago, perhaps for long past poor design issues, or even perhaps due to issues that may have manifested themselves in the first few of newly established models that still need the bugs worked out, just like all the rest of them, or maybe it's failure of the shooter to properly break them in...who knows.

I know for a fact that Taurus operates one of the most technically advanced manufacturing operations in the world. Everything is state of the art CNC. Maybe the criticism are from a past era, when the quality of machinists mattered. Now, these days, every major manufacturer uses state of the art numerically controlled machinery.

The reality is, there aren't other manufacturers that haven't had the exact same degree of issues, certainly no less than Taurus, bar none, not even the most expensive of them out there. Yet, the chatter about their missteps are virtually non-existent, and they are held in blind awe and esteem by their groupies who feel it is their moral obligation to warn the world away from Taurus.

I must confess, due to the Taurus bashers, I have more than once considered switching to a different make and model for concealed carry, thinking that maybe my Millennium Pro does have some kind of jinx that I am somehow blindly unaware of. Never mind my 50 years of experience with all different brands, shooting all kinds of models, etc...

But, every time my doubts arise, and my eyes wander to other brands and models, all of which get serious and contemplative consideration, all the while also imagining that I am somehow missing the wisdom of the bashers that are out there concerning Taurus products, I come right back to the Millennium Pro, at least for concealed carry. I could not have a more open mind about other brands and models for concealed carry and personal defense.

But, in the end, after all the doubts, and after all the considerations have been made, weighing all the pros and cons, and knowing all the design features that are packed in the PT140, and following that same in-depth process we all go through when trying to make the very best selection, I come running back to old faithful, my Taurus PT140.

I simply can not find anything that serves me better, especially when I consider the price, at least $150 less than the next closest competitor with respect to features, benefits, reliability, and performance.

I know this sounds like blind allegiance or something, but the Millennium Pro has earned my respect. I really can't find anything better than the Millennium Pro for my Concealed Carry needs, regardless of price. Over 1200 rounds through it, flawless, no FTF, no FTE, not one substantive, legitimate, meaningful complaint!

That having been said, nothing is perfect, and I have some very minor critiques of my Millennium Pro, things that I have dealt with to enhance it's performance, it's operation, it's convenience, etc...

But, which makes or models do we own, some of them significantly more expensive, that we wouldn't like to change this or that aspect of design, even with some of our most favorite firearms.

I can't get over it...I've found Taurus to be an exceptionally reliable product, and when I review it's construction, and the quality of it's design from a manufacturing engineering perspective, my professional background, at least with respect to the Millennium Pro, I can find absolutely no evidence that it is substandard in any way.

To illustrate this point, the following are in the internal workings of (9) major brands.

 

[45_auto]

Aluminum framed auto-loaders have been around since the Colt Commander in the early 1950's. Their wear characteristics are well known. It appears that Taurus wrapped a plastic shell around the 50 year old aluminum frame concept.

If you're looking for wear and impact resistance, you'll find that there's a reason that things like non-marring hammers and skateboard wheels (as well as pistol frames) are made out of polymers and not aluminum .....

Maybe the criticism are from a past era, when the quality of machinists mattered.

Maybe that's Taurus's problem. Could be the reason they have such poor quality compared to other manufacturer's is because they don't understand that the most high-tech machinery in the world won't do you any good without high-quality people doing the design, running it, inspecting it, and maintaining it.

As far as actual numbers, I can tell you my actual experience with the only Taurus I ever owned over about a 2 year period in the early 2000's. It was a PT99 (Beretta 92 clone except with adjustable rear sight) purchased new that went back to the factory twice for the adjustable rear sight breaking. When it happened the third time I requested that they replace it with a PT92 slide (fixed sights) which they did. Not too long after that the locking block broke, and they replaced that also. I have no complaints about their warranty service, their turnaround times were about 2 weeks each time. I sold the gun not too long afterwards. The guy I sold it to had to send it back for something (I don't remember what for now) not too long after he bought it from me. Shortly after that it was stolen when his house was broken into, hopefully it'll break down on the thieves also if they try to use it.

 

[Quizcat]

Here's another perspective...

Defense Aircraft manufacturers manufacture a considerable number of aircraft parts from aluminum, parts that are contact parts. It's because Aluminum is strong, light weight, and flexible.

That's my own engineering expertise, and to what extent it relates to operational mechanisms in firearms, my background may, or may not, be relevant. For that reason, I am not convinced that wear characteristics with respect to aluminum, compared to bare plastic, are enhanced using plastic instead of aluminum or steel.

I can see where a solid billet of thick, machined aluminum, encapsulated in polymer, would lend considerably more strength to the overall design than a steel skeletal framing concept, and that it would make it very light weight as well. I also notice that the Aluminum rail on the Taurus frame is continuous, and not just intermittent, as is the case with the steel encapsulated framing of some of the other brands. A continuous guide path for the slide is preferable to intermittent supports.

There is a high degree of Miscibility between same metals. Same materials have a high adhesion and bonding capacity. Therefore, the rule is to avoid using the same material in the composition of sliding friction systems. The aluminum sliding on steel, does not reveal a huge frictional coefficient, especially when lubricated (a little gun oil). Therefore, the solid and continuous rail used in Taurus' frame, against the steel slide, is perfectly acceptable with respect to the frictional coefficient, which is it's wear characteristics.

I'll give you a more practical example. I have a piece of gym equipment, an elliptical machine, whose foot carriage rides on an aluminum shuttle, one that contacts a steel rail. The manufacturer, Precor, changed to using aluminum wheels, not steel, and certainly not polymer (plastic), as a wear surface for something that has continuous sliding contact, actuating back and forth, hours upon hours on end. I have actually replaced the foot carriage, which originally had polymer wheels. Precor came out and replaced the foot carriage with one that has aluminum wheels. If I turn the foot carriage over, and inspect the wear upon the aluminum, it is virtually nonexistent over the same period of time of use.

With respect to my choosing the Taurus for concealed carry in lieu of other brands, if I am wrong, and there is a greater wear factor due to aluminum on steel, it is not really much of an issue. The Aluminum Rails will not wear suddenly, but slowly, very incrementally over time. They may wear with repeated practice at the range, thousands of rounds later, but I will easily discern that the wear is occurring. And, if I practice very little, rail wear isn't even going to be an issue.

If I'm having perfectly good operational experiences at the range, and no immediate indication that wear is effecting function via some kind of slop in the slide, then I can carry the Taurus with complete confidence with respect to the effect of an aluminum frame upon steel as it relates to function, since wear occurs over a considerable amount of time, and has no close proximity in time to a concealed carry event occurring.

The cost of the Taurus is about one half of many other supposedly high quality, better reliability firearms. If it wears, then I can literally almost buy two of them compared to some of the other brands. Not to mention that Taurus has a lifetime warranty that is transferable. So, if eventually the aluminum rails wear out in 20 years, they will replace the firearms, or the slide, or whatever, and it's no questions asked with them.

The reality is, most of the handgun mechanisms depicted in the photos, run on steel skeletal framing, not billets of machined steel or aluminum, but just steel framing sandwiched in polymer.

In the case of one brand in particular in those photos, there isn't any steel shell at all, the slide operates on plastic rails (polymer). That particular brand has a stellar record in the forums, and suffers almost no blow back in the forums with respect to quality, just the statistically normal number of criticisms. Nobody bad mouths that particular brand, accusing them of being garbage.

In the end, I don't have as much invested in the Taurus in comparison, but I receive the benefits of a completely reliable concealed carry. I can literally leave the Taurus in the center console of the car for example, or secured in the garage most of the time, and be less susceptible to enduring the loss from theft in public parking areas where it may be forgotten and left in the console, compared to keeping an H&K there in the console for example.

I notice that many people criticizing Taurus have experiences that seem to go back in time, historically. I believe most of these issues that are being related on the forum, and are being repeated into present day perpetuity, are criticisms that are not currently being experienced with any greater degree, statistically, than what is experienced by any of the other brands.

Taurus' unfortunate past deeds versus the originally stellar old line manufacturer's excellent past reputations, but whose quality I believe has actually deteriorated, at least in comparison to their past greatness, is what contributes to Taurus enduring such disproportionate criticism.

I don't doubt that the commentators in the forums had issues with Taurus at one time, or that Taurus, or any other manufacturer, doesn't have occasional issues with their products. I just doubt that the problems are any more prolific these days with Taurus quality or customer service, within say the last five years, than any of the other brands.

I also doubt that statistically Taurus suffers a greater failure rate than any of the brands currently producing product. I don't care if the brand happens to be 3 times the price of a Taurus. They all have their problems...Just Google it, and you'll see. If you do an internet search of "problems" with any particular brand, or a particular model, you will find issues that are about equally pervasive compared to Taurus.

But, Taurus endures a disproportionate high rate of criticism these days, compared to the other brands, for defects that I believe were experienced in the relatively distant past.

 

[Quizcat]

I began to see a transition in Taurus in around 2007. I believe Taurus has evolved into a very dominant and relatively good quality product over the past five years. I believe they have had their problems, but that their problems are no more prolific statistically now, these days, than what is experienced with any other manufacturer.

I believe that most of the manufacturers with stellar reputations in the past, exist almost completely off their past reputations, and that they avoid deserved criticisms these days, and that they actually suffer a degradation of quality in comparison to their past level of absolutely stellar quality, thereby actually causing an equilibrium adjustment that has brought Taurus on par with all the rest of them to date.

I do believe that shooters that have not given Taurus a look in the last five years, fail to realize that companies evolve, that quality sometimes evolves, and that just because there were issues at one time, it doesn't mean they haven't improved with time.

I think that is definitely the case with Taurus, at least based upon my own experience with the Millennium Pro, which I know had huge problems when it was initially rolled out. Mine is a third generation Millennium Pro. I believe the first and second generations had issues, and that those criticisms are probably 100% deserved.

But, not now...to besmirch Taurus now for past acts, when they are getting their act very much together the last five years, is to simply limit one's own range of selection, and totally misjudge the reality as it exists today compared to other more prestigious brands.

That having all been said...I appreciate hearing the opinions of others concerning these various mechanisms, and why they believe one is better than the other.

I will reveal the numbered list by brand name soon...

 

[jmortimer]

As discussed, two years ago, I bought a model 85 and the gun locked-up and would not fire. Taurus customer service blows, so I got no help there. Since the brand new, current production revolver could not be relied upon, and because Taurus customer service is less than worthless, I traded it in for credit on a J Frame. All manufacturers can produce a lemon, and if the have decent sustomer service, it is not the end of the world, but with Taurus you get the worst of both worlds, hit and miss on quality control and horrible customer service. So the decison to go with Ruger or S&W is a no-brainer when it comes to revolvers. Only buy revolvers so I can't say about semi-autos, but even then, you still have bad customer service.

 

[Quizcat]

I currently own an M&P40C. For a period of time, I considered replacing the Millennium Pro with the M&P40C. I've only put about (75) rounds through the M&P40C. It is a brand new firearm. On my first trip to the range, I experienced (5) incidents of a dead trigger condition out of a total of (75) rounds, and that was with various brands of good quality factory ammunition, but same brands of ammo loaded in their respective magazines. To top it off, I also experienced several instances of a failure to fire on my first time out with the M&P40C.

I heard that some Police Departments reported these same problems on departmental issue firearms, that Smith & Wesson is aware of this pervasive problem.

The M&P40C was returned to their factory, and was there for over 4 weeks. I received absolutely no notification from S&W that it had been received, or a forecast as to when the repair would be completed. As it turns out, S&W replaced the sear spring... and, on a brand new firearm.

That settled it for me, especially with respect to concealed carry. I could no longer be confident in S&W compared to the Taurus. The Taurus goes bang every time, no FTF, no FTE, perfect in every way, and I had the 1200 rounds of flawless operation down the pipe to back up my faith in the Taurus.

I did return the Millennium Pro to the factory one time in the past, for two relatively minor issues. I was shooting low/left. It turned out to be a simple adjustment of the sights in the dovetail, NO BIG DEAL! Something I could have done myself.

The other issue I had with the Millennium Pro was inadvertent mag releases during firing sequences. But, subsequent to replacement of the mag release button, and taking the Millennium Pro to the range, I realized I was sometimes inadvertently releasing the magazine with my thumb. So, I decided to switch the mag release to the other side of the frame, which eliminated a problem that was shooter induced. I doubt if the mag release button was even defective in any way when I returned the Millennium Pro to Taurus.

It now shoots palm sized groupings center mass at 10-15 yards. Later, I put Williams Fire Sights on the Millennium Pro so I could adjust them, and I am shooting about 2" groupings at 10-15 yards.

Taurus was quicker than S&W in their return of the Millennium Pro to me, and provided email confirmation the firearm was received and being worked on. S&W paid shipping both ways, and Taurus paid return shipping. Honestly, I haven't seen much difference between Taurus customer service, and S&W customer service.

But, with respect to revolvers, just like you, I am partial to Smith & Wesson and Ruger myself, and would probably always purchase revolvers from them versus other brands. I just like 'em, and they've always served me very well.

But, with respect to these polymer pistols, I think most of the major brands, including Taurus, are relatively equal in quality and performance with respect to "concealed carry." And, that is a significant distinction when comparing concealed carry polymer designs to all steel, recreational firearms with enhanced mechanisms.

In recommending people consider Taurus, I generally limit my recommendations to polymer pistols for concealed carry, versus all steel pistols, or revolvers. Were I considering the purchase of an all steel range firearm, not necessarily for concealed carry, but something for recreational shooting, I would probably favor Sig, H&K, Steyr, Ruger, etc...

I am really seriously considering the Steyr S Series A1 to replace the M&P40C, maybe switching between the Taurus and the Steyr for concealed carry. There are some features of the Steyr that I find intriguing compared to the Taurus.

 

[Creek Henry]

My brother and I looked at guns 20 years ago and he got a PT99. He's had no problems with it but he doesn't shoot it much.

That said, I checked out the latest crop of Taurus at the gunshop early this year (I wanted a 1911). I was not impressed. Their quality seems to have dropped on all of their guns in those 20 years. It's obvious they are making and marketing to the low end/cheap gun crowd now.

Spend the extra cheddar on a better made gun, imo. That way, it'll only cause you pain once But, if you just have to have a double action 454 that you will shoot once and then store and just feel good about having it, then get the Taurus. If you plan on hunting a lot with you revolver, there are better options... imo. This goes for ALL of their guns.

 

[MLeake]

Quizcat, you gave a lengthy analysis of component materials, but that isn't the issue. Many of us own various makes of steel, alloy, or polymer framed guns; some of us have both forged and cast, among our steel.

Good quality materials don't help if parts are not made to tolerances, or if good CNC parts are not properly assembled. The human factor matters - especially QA/QC.

Nice looking sub-assemblies don't matter as much as do well-running sub-assemblies.

My CZ's have had some rough looking areas inside their slides, but those have not affected function. The parts that needed to be smooth all were, and the parts that needed to work together all have.

 

[Quizcat]

Anybody seen the most recent ad in American Rifleman concerning the M&P series of pistols? They are now starting to address their "superior" quality of skeletal construction within polymer in marketing photos, etc...

These days, everybody, including Taurus, uses state of the art CNC equipment, which makes the superior workmanship of the past, with respect to machining, machinist skill, etc...significantly less of an obstacle for all manufacturers. So, the issue for me is engineering design, metallurgical integrity, and QC, especially with respect to polymer firearms, where we really can't make a judgment concerning aesthetic workmanship, not like we can if we observe the quality of the machining on steel for example.

The subject of my analysis of Taurus, and my comparison with other brands, relates specifically to their polymer firearms, and not their all steel products, or their revolvers. My impression of Taurus is, when it comes to polymer firearms, Taurus is as good a performing product compared to any of the medium priced firearms that are literally $150 or more expensive than Taurus.

I do not believe Taurus can compete, nor should we judge them, compared with the higher priced models, the Kimbers, the HKs, the SIGS, Colt, the Springfield Armory 1911s, etc...

The way in which I use the Taurus PT140, mostly for "Car Carry," not necessarily always for concealed carry, and after having put about 1200 rounds through mine, I can honestly say that nothing comes close with respect to my own satisfaction with the product, it's range of features, and especially not with respect to the price.

I have no idea if some Taurus bashers have received lemons. I don't doubt their stories. Maybe my own stellar experiences with the PT140 buck the statistical averages. But, like so many other commentators in this thread, one thing is for sure.

I will not be getting rid of a gun that literally out shines all the others I've had in comparison, even with my having made some minor adjustments to the firearm to further enhance what I perceived as it's minor in comparison shortcomings.

I do believe the negative press has taken on a life of it's own concerning Taurus, and the criticisms are not statistically valid with respect to painting a broad brush criticism upon their polymer firearms when comparing apples for apples, (ie: sub-compacts, versus compacts, versus full size, versus steel framed, versus revolvers, etc...)

The photos rank as follows:

#1 Kahr CW40
#2 Beretta PX4 Storm
#3 Taurus PT140
#4 S&W M&P40C
#5 SIG P250F
#6 Glock 36
#7 Springfield Armory Model XD40S&W
#8 M&P Full Size
#9 Ruger SR9

 

[MLeake]

Quizcat, what manufacturers don't employ marketing? How many gun marketers are actually gun guys? (Remembering the one ad with cartridges inserted backward in the magazine...)

As far as your PT-140 goes, if it runs that well, that's great, and I wouldn't trade it, either.

As far as your M&P40c goes, sorry you got a problem gun.

Of the people I know who own Taurus polymers, M&Ps, or Kimbers, the M&Ps are usually the most trouble-free. Kimbers either run really, really well, or else seem to be nothing but trouble. The Taurus guns seem like the Kimbers, in that regard. But based on trend analysis among shooter/owners I know personally, I won't buy either a Taurus or a Kimber.

This isn't a cost thing, either... Bersas and CZ-82s are very inexpensive, yet the people I know who own those pistols have been overwhelmingly happy with them.

It's all about quality control, or lack thereof, IMO.

Two things I will note, with the Taurus and Kimber comparison:

1) Both have ads all over the place, in every gun publication I read (which says to me marketing gets a lot more money at both companies than does QC); and

2) Both enjoyed much better reputations before they shot their production levels up, after major increases in demand (which says to me that QC was not able to keep up with ramped up production levels).

 

[Quizcat]

I just found it timely with respect to my own inquisitiveness about the internal construction of the polymers, that as a marketing focus, S&W had begun to address this issue of internal construction, something that none of them seem to have focused on previously in their marketing.

I think that quality issues that are the source of complaints are in areas that can not be seen, such as the integrity of internal Metallurgy, springs, strikers, sears, internal frame strength, etc...Even the manufacturers are not aware that these problems exist because most of those kinds of components are being subcontracted, and they receive them in at face value from their sub-contractors.

That's why some of us are experiencing flawless function with particular models, and some of us are report nothing but problems with those same models.

An internet search reveals just how inconsistent quality seems to be across the board between exact same models. But, some brands endure a disproportionate amount of criticism compared to others, depending on brand name.

Those favored brands, for whatever reason, are simply not held to account with respect to their overall market image when they endure complaints that are just as statistically high as other brands.

 

[mikejonestkd]

My biggest problem with Taurus is that they have very inconsistent QC, and that they CS department is significantly lacking compared to many of the other manufacturers. They are not badly designed, just not consistently manufactured, and poorly supported.
My money will be spent with companies that turn out better products and with better CS.

 

[Mrgunsngear]

My PT1911 had 2 malfunctions through 500 rounds before I sold it.

My 709 has had 1 malfunction through 800 rounds.

 

[Quizcat]

With so few a number of malfunctions in relation to rounds fired, I would have looked much more critically at "other factors" before dismissing either of those firearms. That is less than a half a percent failure rate on the 1911, and less than .0001 on the PT709.

That is my point exactly...so many are too quick, IMO, to blame the firearm, perpetuating the negative reputation, without gathering sufficient conclusive evidence that it was the firearm, and not some other contributing factor.

 

[Master Blaster 2]

Ya know guns in the 70's-80's did not run that well. i had to send many back to the manufacturer once or t\ice...of course there was no internet.

 

[BGutzman]

Sorry if Im not replying exactly the way the OP wanted... No disrespect...

Most of my experience in life has been with rifles of all kinds, as a 21 year veteran Ive shot most everything the military had to offer, there are exceptions but not many. My experience with pistols was limited to 1911's and a few 22 Cal revolvers with a sprinkling of try this here and there over the years.

Once I retired from the military I immediately began to pursuit enjoying the freedoms I gave up or could not fully enjoy... Privately owned guns and shooting for pleasure, sport and hunting blossomed within months of retirement.

So I started researching and looking at various guns and after I put together what was a lot of money for me I went with the "Taurus has changed and now makes good guns" line of though..

My wife and I between us bought: PT145, PT 845 and a 1911 all from Taurus and really put our limited money where our thinking was. I can’t tell you how excited I was to get the little PT145 first and then I took it to the range. From day one it never fired right... I had to pull the trigger to the right or the gun would not fire, period... This was my chosen CCW weapon and I knew for 100% without pulling the trigger to the right it would not fire.

The PT 845 I loved and fired 600-800 rounds with no flaws and then the day came when the firing pin never went forward with any reliability again...

My wife got good service from her 1911 but it would only feed a handful of ammo types and she just wasn’t happy with the ammo choices that it did feed.

Now some time had evolved in here and I learned more and then bought my Sig P220 Carry which to this day has never failed to fire and is smoother than any other pistol of any brand I have ever shot. Now more time has passed and I have bought other brands that I truly do like and respect but none of them that I have ever bought has ever given me the trouble of the taurus pistols... I simply will NEVER buy one again under any circumstances. I started with full respect for Taurus it is my experience that led my to know for me it is junk...

I dont buy Taurus and I dont buy Glock, for different reasons but neither one is ever going to happen...

 

[Quizcat]

Remember the cars coming off the lines in the 80's? They were JUNK!!! I think the late 70's and early 80's was the beginning of the end in America's distinction for world renown quality. It pains me to think about it...But, with regard to the 70's and 80's and guns, most of the very reputable manufacturers earned their stellar reputations three decades prior to the 70's and 80's, and then some.

I had a .45 ACP Colt Combat Commander back in the 80's, purchased new. I had such expectations for what was an expensive firearm at the time. I was really surprised at it's lousy performance. It jammed regularly, stove piped often, etc...

I even took it to a gunsmith and had a throat job done on it. It never did function right, not even after the gunsmith, a relatively well known and reputable one at that, tried to remedy it.

My own case is a case in point. I gave that Colt every opportunity to change my mind, even spending money to complete the throat job. If you give a firearm every opportunity, rather than making snap judgements over a minor, occasional issue that could just as easily be caused by bad ammo, bad primers, wrong ammo type, dirty mechanisms, etc...If it's a repeated, constant issue, and you've examined all the potential causes, then the criticism is justified, and a bias forming makes complete sense.

As for those that have given a gun every chance to work, some are just lemons. If my PT140 craps out, I'll reassess it. But, until then, it's still tied for the top spot, along with my Sig Sauer Model 228 9mm, but it compares well also against some considerably more expensive brands and models in my collection. But, in fairness, the Sig is not concealed carry, it's all steel, and too heavy, much more expensive, etc...not even an apples for apples comparison between the two.

 

[amd6547]

I gave Taurus one chance to wow me, when I bought a PT22 last January.
It was the best looking, non-functional pistol I have owned in 50yrs of shooting.
First, there were failures to feed. Then, there were multiple light strikes using good quality 22ammo which functioned fine in other 22's.
Finally, close range targets showed clear evidence of keyholing...the bullets were hitting sideways at 12'.
I returned it to Taurus with a clear, polite note describing the problems.
Taurus returned it after replacing the hammer spring and tweaking the magazine. They did not address at all the keyholing.
While it was gone, I stumbled into a deal on the PT22's parent gun, the Beretta Bobcat. The Bobcat functioned perfectly. It did not keyhole. Interestingly, Taurus felt it necessary to put a hard plastic buffer in the front of the PT22 slide which beretta did not use...this buffer is prone to shattering, and the slide has cracked due to it breaking. Some users have found Taurus to be out of stock on this part for extended periods.
When the PT22 came back, I tested a couple mags to make sure it fed and fired, then sold it.
Last Taurus for me.
As far as problems dating to older Taurus handguns poisoning the current attitudes, not my experience. In fact, I hear many say the older Taurus offerings were better...such as the snub Model 85. If I found one of those from the '80's at the right price, I might buy it.

 

[Quizcat]

Sorry your PT22 had problems. They are particularly finicky with certain kinds of ammo, nothing over about 1400 fps and nothing over a 40 grain bullet. I believe Taurus publishes that in their manual as well.

Key holing is often caused by too slow a twist rate for bullet weight and length, and because the PT22s are particularly finicky on ammo, that could also explain the FTF, and light primer strikes. So, ammo is crucial with PT22s. Exactly which ammo did you say you used? Perhaps with the Beretta you selected a model that has a design that also handles a wider range of ammo selections. Just a hunch...

My Dad purchased a .22 single shot, Beretta literally 40 years ago, quite similar in appearance to the Tomcat, break open breech style, single shot. He loves it!