Taurus Reliability - Actual Numbers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Taurus M85

I can only speak about this one revolver because it is the only Taurus that I have ever owned. I've had this ported model 85 since '02 or '03 I think. Bought it new, I haven't fired it alot but a few hundred rounds (between 350 and 450), mostly 125gr +P.

I have never had a problem with it, don't mind the ports. The porting does seem to help with felt recoil when shooting the +Ps. It is entertaining when shooting at dusk. It is at the bottom of the pic (of course), shown with the two 38 topbreaks for size comparison.

DSCN0661-1.jpg
 
I wouldn't buy a Taurus because of the quality issues I've seen while working at a gun store. We got back far more Taurus guns on warranty than any other brand, maybe as many as all other brands put together, we didn't keep a count on them. I wanted the 10 shot .45 Mill. Pro, would have bought it had we not got so many back. It ain't just hearsay, pay yopur mone and take your chances with any off them. Nobody is 100% but most are a lot closer than Taurus.
Just my experience with Taurus.
 
I, too, have a turbo reliable Taurus PT-22 that I won't give up.

It is turbo reliable as long as I shoot Winchester Wildcat out of it. In over 2,000 rounds I've not had any failures of any kind with that ammo.

I did have some issues with CCI Blazer, apparently the brass is harder in that ammo.
 
I own two Taurus guns now (454 and a 41 Mag). Had another (454) which was bad from the factory (timing & trigger) so I got rid of it. The other two guns that I currently own work fine.

If Taurus offered something unique that I was interested in - - say a small framed d.a. revolver in 45 Colt - - I might consider them. But only if I were able to see the gun for myself and thoroughly go over it. In addition, that gun would have to fill a current role that another gun that I own doesnt do adequately; so thats a tough requirement.

I don't think of Taurus very often when looking for guns because of the 'hassle & time factor'. To me, its not worth a couple or three hundred dollars to risk spending extra time trying to have an item fixed. -- And when it comes to self defense arms, I'm not willing to trust an item that may be unreliable.

It doesnt seem that Taurus' reputation has improved over recent years.
 
Pete2,

You shouldn't have discounted the PT145...You were scared off by the bogus accusations from buyers that have little or no sophistication with firearms. I've been down this road...I've been an FFL for almost 40 years, and returns of Taurus products with Heine Straight Eights, like the PT145 and PT140, are usually linked to the customer's naivete, and not the fault of the firearm.

The most common reason you saw returns had mostly to do with the Straight Eight Sights...

Straight Eight Sights, unless they are properly aligned, will shoot low left by about 8-12 inches. Most shooters have absolutely no idea how the Straight Eight sight picture is supposed to be aligned. Most shooters are familiar with conventional sight systems, and misuse Straight Eights to their own detriment, and to Taurus' regret for having used them on the firearm to begin with.

This is the area where I had formerly commented that there are some design decisions that Taurus made with respect to the PT140 that I wish were different. But, it doesn't rise to the level of my accusing them of poor quality or poor design. It is a design intended for a purpose that the especially inexperienced or naive shooter isn't prepared to, nor are they willing to, apply.

The typical buyer of Taurus handguns consists mostly of unsophisticated novices. The statements I make here are NOT intended to arouse the ire of all those experienced shooters that experienced legitimate problems with a Taurus product, but it's a comment made to address the statistical rate of return on those particular models. "Unsophisticated Novice" is not a description I assign to the majority of forum members, but it is truly the reality with respect to the average Taurus buyer, statistically.

If attempting to target practice for accuracy, the Straight Eight Sights are supposed to be aligned in the configuration of a figure eight, the top dot aligned on top of the rear dot, with just enough space between the two, then the front sight is supposed to be placed directly on the target.

Straight Eights have to be perfectly aligned in the dovetail, or they will shoot left or right, depending on whether the shooter is left or right handed, and depending on whether the alignment in the dovetail is slight off one direction or the other. Most shooters are right handed, so they typically shoot low left, putting rounds low left on the target, and their inexperienced trigger control usually exaggerates the misplaced shot even more.

They come away believing that they can't hit the broad side of a barn with that POS!!! "Return this POS to the LGS" so they think. I know, I've been there, and seen it happen.

The purpose of the straight eight sight is for close quarters fire fights where point and shoot is about all the time you have for sighting in. They are not really meant to sight in, but to merely pick up on the front sight, putting it directly onto your adversary, without so much as a nano second of sight picture consideration.

I don't like them, not because they don't work as they're intended, as a point and shoot SD sight system, but because I can't enjoy recreational shooting with the PT140. They are not accurate enough for range shooting, and/or for achieving good scores. I also don't like them because naive customers can't shoot them, are too lazy to read the manual, and are ready to give up on what is otherwise an outstanding firearm for the money.

So, for recreational shooting, and as an excellent sight system for SD, I opted to replace the Straight Eights with the Williams Fire Sights. They've been great, making the PT140 more accurate than with the Heine sights, and the Williams Fire Sights are adjustable, whereas the Straight Eights are fixed in the dovetail, and have no vertical adjustment whatsoever.

Like I said before, the customers that come into a store to buy a Taurus are price shoppers, and most have little or no experience, little or no money, and they haven't the knowledge to diagnose these issues, issues that are not quality issues, but application issues.

I don't expect the LGS to hold their hands. But, in my own case with the PT140, were I not willing to examine the reason for the low left target performance, and to thoroughly understand the HUGE difference between the proper sight picture for the Heine sights, I might have concluded that the gun was defective.

But, it's not the quality of the gun, it never was "defective," it's the misuse of the sight system, and the misapplication of the firearm as a recreational firearm rather than a self defense weapon.
 
Last edited:
Seriously.....

First, I have Straight Eights on a couple of my .45s, and used one of those .45s to take top accuracy in a shooting class that had 29 students, several of whom were handgun instructors. The sights are notch and post, with a slightly wide notch. The dot over dot is not hard to figure out.

I have no trouble keeping all shots in the A zone at 20 yards plus.

Any sights, improperly installed or improperly aligned, will cause issues.

That last post was just over the top, Quizcat.

As far as your claim about non specific bashing, seems to me I have heard very specific bashes, from high volume dealer friends in person, and from a lot of forum members on TFL.

Specific examples include:

Revolver binding due to metal shavings inside the sideplate;
Revolver binding due to zero B/C gap;
Revolver binding due to cylinder being improperly aligned;
Revolver having cylinder chambers full of scored rings due to old, dull machining parts;
Magazine release issues (such as you, yourself described);
Auto repeated failure to feed;
and, quite often,
Handgun sent back for warranty repair multiple times, with no apparent work done, and still not functioning.
 
Complaints alone, are not qualifying the malfunction. They are just that, complaints of a malfunction with absolutely no reasoning to justify their cause, ie: bashing. As for my experience with all brands, not just Taurus, and the cause of complaints on returns, I have 40 years with which to base my own conclusions concerning what is and is not truly a supposed piece of junk. I have also seen a disproportionate number of these inexperienced novice customers return Taurus products that simply were not defective in any way, but misapplied by them.

I have seen accomplished handgun instructors at the police academy totally misapply the Straight Eights. Most shooters are clueless with respect to Straight Eights, and they do not properly apply them. If you had good luck with the Straight Eights in competition, you would have done even better with a fully adjustable sight system.
 
Last edited:
The examples I gave are pretty specific, and most of the complaints I have read have fallen into one of those categories. I rarely read unsupported bashing, so I wonder how it is that you find so much of it, and so little that has "absolutely no reason to justify" it.

FYI, a lot of people who mistrust Taurus are quite happy with Springfield Armory 1911s. For those people, at least, it is not about "Made in Brazil" being a problem - though that is a popular red herring.

Also, as somebody who has bought a surplus K frame S&W for under $250, I can assure you it's not about a belief that inexpensive equals bad, though that is another popular red herring.
 
Quizcat, I have a lot of guns. I have had Novak, Heinie, XS, Trijicon, and MeproLight systems; I have had adjustable target types; I have had lasers.

If you can't shoot the Straight Eights, it isn't the sights.

As far as whether I would do better with adjustable target sights, that would depend on the course of fire.

You generalize a lot.
 
I've explained why I believe Taurus is regularly accused of having a statistically higher number of returns...

The typical Taurus buyers are inexperienced novices that misapply their purchases, and haven't got a clue. That's the statistical reason for the increased number of returns, along with the myth being perpetuated on the forums with absolutely no actual reason for these malfunctions being identified as to cause.

And, in addition, I also believe that Taurus sells a HUGE number of firearms. I would like to see the comparative figures, by brand, if anybody has access to them. Taurus claims they are the largest manufacturer of firearms in Latin America, but that's their own marketing...I realize.

But, I have a hunch their sales are absolutely huge, even compared to some of the other elite brands. That might also statistically account for a higher percentage of returns, if in fact that is even the case. I have never seen that quantified by any reputable source, just by the "bashers." Just wondering...

The complaints I have about the PT140 were specifically identified as to the "reasons" for my complaints. I find no reasons being given when someone merely says, "I had this, I had that" happen. Nobody seems to qualify their complaint, they just make the complaint with no further analysis or explanation. It's very easy to blame, and not provide some justification for why the supposed malfunction occurred.

The cause of so many malfunctions can just as easily be the fault of the shooter. As a competitor, you must understand all the variables that are totally and completely shooter induced, many of which can cause malfunctions, right?
 
Last edited:
And, by the way, I don't mean for my emphatic, and sometimes lengthily written, defense of my position to offend anyone.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I enjoy defending a position that I've held concerning Taurus products, and their reputation within the forums, one that I know is contrary to the prevailing rhetoric within the forums.

I realized when I started to defend this position within the forum, that I was going to be fighting an uphill battle. :D Taurus bashing has taken on a life of it's own.

Because of the disproportionate bashing that goes on in the forums compared to other brands that seem to also have their own range of problems, I feel the brand is entitled to a little more "cross examination" in the court of public opinion, especially in light of my own direct positive experiences with their polymer products.

I just don't accept complaints on face value without hearing something with a little more substance as to the apparent cause of the supposed defects. And, then, once those cases are made with some kind of supporting evidence, and not just accusation, then the process of cross examination can begin to get to the whole truth.
 
Last edited:
Quizcat, you've never seen a report of high rates of return from any reputable source, but only from bashers?

Hmmm.... guess you've never read any comments from Tom Servo, forum staffer, eh?

He manages a large, busy gun shop near Atlanta. He's given numbers and percentages on Taurus returns from his shop. I've seen some of the bad lock-up NIB Tauri his shop has received, back when a) I lived in that area, and b) his shop was still dealing in Taurus products. I have since moved, and they have since stopped selling most of the Taurus line-up.

His shop had NIB Taurus revolvers that had no barrel/cylinder gap. None. Binding from the outset. Impossible for QC to miss, yet they did.

His shop had NIB Taurus revolvers that were out of time. Obvious on casual inspection. Again, QC missed this.

You keep wanting to turn this into non-specific complaints from know-nothing bashers; you keep wanting to discredit people.

I begin to suspect you are an employee or a stockholder of the brand.
 
I could just as easily level unsubstantiated charges that you are affiliated with a competitor to Taurus, MLEAKE. But, accusations are diversionary and meaningless.

I will state for a SECOND TIME, for the record, I have NO AFFILIATION whatsoever with Taurus, and I do not own any of their stock, nor am I invested in their enterprise in any way.

Taurus has been in the firearms business almost as long as I can remember, and most of the time they manufactured junk.

I have qualified by comments with respect to their quality being on par with other manufacturers, and limited my comments to product manufactured during the last five years, polymer only. You have referenced revolvers in your prior post, and I have specifically limited my assessment to polymer firearms.

You sited one gun shop's claims. Please advise which year those claims were published, and reference them here. I will gladly read them over, and meticulously evaluate the degree to which they can be cross examined and made applicable to impeach my current assessment of Taurus' quality of polymer handguns.

As I said before, I believe many criticisms of Taurus originated from problems that occurred before the period that I feel Taurus got their act together. I am simply not going to leave those criticisms unchallenged just because the political correctness of the forum seems to be in favor of bashing Taurus.

That doesn't mean their customers will never, ever have problems, or that some haven't had a legitimate problem in the relatively recent past. Nor does it mean that I disbelieve a posters comments that they had issues. I am not discrediting anyone that posts about something they believe is a defect or complaint, provided it can be examined.

A manufacturer that once had issues has turned the corner, IMHO, ie: during the last five years. But, because there is so much active unsubstantiated, slanted bias within some of the forums, potential shooters that would have otherwise considered Taurus are totally frightened away.
 
Last edited:
The shoddy quality Tauri I saw at that shop were 2009-2010 models. The shop discontinued most Taurus products in late 2010 or early 2011. So much for the past five years...

Meanwhile, I have seen some of the problem revolvers, but have only heard about the problem polymer autos. I know the Milennium was a model that caused them serious warranty return issues.

I don't care about political correctness. I care about people pretending problems are imaginary, or primarily the fault of incompetent shooters, when the evidence points to spotty QC and poor CS.
 
I don't expect you to evaluate them on anything but your own second hand preconceived biases. The evidence you claim to point to isn't apparently through any direct experience you have with Taurus, and now your focus is upon the POLYMER HANDGUNS, and specifically on the Millennium Pro, the exact model I have direct experience with. But, your attempts at besmirching Taurus were formerly with a broad brush stroke, and included everything they manufacture.

Only after I reminded you that the polymer handguns were the subject of this debate, you are now bent on insisting that Taurus polymer handguns, and the Millennium Pro specifically, are garbage. But, your accusations aren't quantifiable, or qualified with any engineering corroboration. They are hear-say versus my own 40 years of direct personal experience with all brands, including Taurus.

With you, my talking points are simply falling on deaf ears, and my opinions based on direct experience with the product, and Taurus customer service, are ridiculed as some kind of disingenuous conspiracy to improve the image of Taurus for some self serving reason.

I have no hidden agenda, only to report my direct experience. I resist the extraordinary pressure to march in lockstep with the bashers, when I have direct experience that contradicts the notion that all handguns Taurus manufactures are pieces of crap.

I give up on you...Good luck with the brands you choose, and have a nice life. I'm running out of energy repeating my talking points in an effort to penetrate the rhetoric.

That should put to rest any accusation that I am somehow a shill for Taurus, and not legitimately attempting to report my direct experience so others will get a fresh perspective.
 
Last edited:
Reputations take a long time to build . . or to repair. We're unlikely to be given actual numbers from the manufacturers on what their rate of returns are, how quickly they are repaired by the factory, and how satisfied the customer rates that experience. All our statements are therefore very limited - to our own experience. And once a reputation is tarnished, it isn't easy to change.

It cannot be denied that questioning of the quality of Taurus products is widespread among shooters, and not just to this forum. If the company has drastically improved . . . it would seem that theyve not gotten the word out very effectively.

I contrast this to Charter Arms. I intend to buy one of their new Bulldogs in 44 Special. It offers me something unique - a compact, lightweight snub nosed revolver in a chambering I am very fond of. (Smaller/lighter than the Taurus & cheaper.) Under old managment, Charter had problems with their guns produced in certain years. But, this predates my interest and I have no experience with those guns. I checked out a new Bulldog at a shop and I liked the trigger; it actually surprised me given its price. Fit and finish were also a pleasant surprise. I'm willing to give Charter Arms a chance (being US made doesnt hurt either - we need to make things again).
But if I get this gun and it starts falling apart and I have problems with it that aren't quickly handled by the manufacturer - that will be the end of it. Theyre not likely to get another shot at my money for a very long time.

Manufacturers make or break their reputations. They cannot blame their customers for that.
 
Where exactly is the "preconceived bias" in actually seeing poorly assembled NIB guns?

Where exactly is the preconceived bias in knowing dealers who won't carry products because of repeated issues?

Just because you would like to limit the discussion to your one handgun that works wonderfully does not mean that I have to play that game.

I guess you think people shouldn't use Consumer Reports when looking at cars, or AngiesList when hiring plumbers, as those are all just secondhand, preconceived bias...

And 40 years experience with firearms... Wow, I have only been shooting for 30 years; how could I question what you say?
 
I just can't actively participate in promoting the notion that Taurus polymers are a total POS on the forums, when my direct experience with it has been just the opposite.

I am open to accepting any complaints that can also be cross examined with respect to cause and effect of those supposed defects, no problem. But, I have yet to see even one complaint presented in that manner concerning the polymers, with the exception of the one gentleman that had the same issue I had with respect to our thumbs hitting the mag release button.

That is a cause and effect analysis. But, as I said, I do not consider the PT140 a POS just because my own grip releases the mag release button during the course of fire. I accept the Gentleman's assessment that for him it's not acceptable. His analysis was cause and effect, and I respect his assessment, and his final decision to get rid of it for that reason.

Some have represented that they had defects with respect to some of the revolvers they purchased, and in your own case you qualified your comments with cause evidence, and effect, had they attempted to be fired due to their being no gap between the cylinder and the breach, would have been obvious, for example. And, you must admit, I did not dispute your criticism of their revolvers, did I?

I fully accepted your analysis of the revolvers you saw because your evidence is not merely a report of the "effects" with no causal relationship. If you attempted to fire those revolvers, and they blew your hand off, and you posted that Taurus revolvers are a POS because they blew my hand off, that would be a useless review of their product from a cause and effect perspective.

Postings with "EFFECT" are mostly what I see in the forums concerning the polymer products from Taurus, no "cause" analysis, which leaves shooter competency in question with regard to complaints being shooter induced. Until I see cause and effect analysis, and can cross examine it, as well as shooter competency, then I can only relate to my own stellar experiences with the PT140 polymer.

If you go all the way back to the beginning, you'll see that my posting the photos of the internal mechanisms revealed by intention to solicit a cause and effect relationship between different brands of polymers, and later, to solicit cause and effect analysis of Taurus' polymers compared to all the rest.

What makes me very suspicious for example is that I can find just as many complaints about the M&P40s, for example, in the forums, yet there is not the same level of almost what sometimes seems like a conspiratorial effort to besmirch Taurus polymers for the very same criticisms, if not a greater number of criticisms, even with respect to other polymer models that are being offered on the market by more expensive manufacturers.

I contend that this disproportionate criticism is the overflow endured by Taurus from perhaps a greater quality control issue with other models. I don't dispute that. But, if you look back at my original comments, you'll find that I've been very specific about wanting to focus on the polymers, and their level of quality, performance, etc...

You want to talk about Taurus' other products, ones that haven't been the subject of my original comments here, I have no quarrel with that. I haven't commented on their other products other than to hold a personal opinion that Taurus just may be turning the corner.

When someone comments on their experiences with the PT22 or PT25 for example, you'll notice that my comments do not dispute their experience, but solicit more information, not in an effort to contradict the commentator's post, but in an effort to fully understand the CAUSE and effect of the poster's supposed defect issues.

But, it is interesting that there seems to be a majority of shooters that actually like the PT-22s and PT25's, which are made in the Florida factory, which is an absolutely "state of the art," fully automated, ISO certified facility. The PT140 comes out of Brazil, and I've had no problems with it either...So, I really haven't any evidence that the polymers or the PT-22s and PT25s have much of a problem with respect to quality or QC, as it relates to plant location.

When I say that I do not accept some of the criticisms on face value, I am not intending to besmirch the commentator's comments. I am simply interested in hearing a more detailed analysis of their issues than to merely hear that "this model is a POS because it blew my hand off." (ie: FTF, FTE, etc...)

And, what is more important to me, is NOT to develop a "preconceived notion" based on accusation without "cause and effect" to back up the accusation that Taurus' entire product offering are PcsOS solely based on "effect" alone.
 
Last edited:
If you wish to keep the conversation solely focused on one model of Taurus, which is a polymer semi-auto, then you need to start a thread in the semi-auto forum. This is the General Handgun forum.

With regard to Taurus polymers, I know a lot of people like the PT-22 and PT-25, assuming they use very specific ammo types in the PT-22. My issue with the PT-22 is not so much based on ammo sensitivity (though the Beretta on which it is based is not so sensitive), but on the latch mechanism for the tip-up barrel. The ones I tried out in the store (two of them) were so stiff that to close them required a lot of force - which resulted in my finding the heel of my left hand in front of the muzzle.

Luckily, I was testing this with an empty pistol, as the gun shop manager (not my friend's shop; this one is another pretty busy one, about seven miles from his shop - so this was a different gun shop manager) had warned me to expect some issues of this nature. (My wife and I were checking out the PT-22 and PT-25 as possible pistols for my mother-in-law, who has arthritis in her hands... some people suggested the tip-up barrel might be good for her. Based on my experience with those two pistols, I disagree very strongly.)

A friend of mine has the .25 Beretta. It is easy to latch.

I don't know if these two Tauri were unusual, but both a PT-22 and a PT-25, NIB, did the same thing; and the store manager told me that was normal in the pistols that had come into his shop.

Things can look really good, or even be based on really great ideas, but sometimes the execution can have all sorts of problems. (For example, look up the Eclipse 500 very light jet; I have a few hundred hours in those; failure rate on check rides for pilots was pushing 75%, and the few of us who could get through it in one go had diverse backgrounds in aviation. The thing could fly pretty well, but had a lot of limitations that a jet should not have.)

I don't care how pretty a thing looks, or how good the ideas on which it is based may be. I care about how it actually performs intended functions.

And I don't buy major equipment without doing my research, first. In some cases, that means I won't have a test sample of my own - because I've already been warned off by trend analysis. (The Eclipse wasn't mine; I flew it for somebody else.)
 
My post began as a general analysis...I don't need to be corrected as to where to post, just because the conversation happened to go in a different direction, implying that my comments are somehow improperly categorized within the forum.

As for your analysis of the Beretta versus the Taurus, you won't get an argument from me. But, you might from others that have purchased the Taurus and seem to be perfectly content with it, and for a considerably cheaper price compared to the Beretta. Spending more for the refinements doesn't make the Taurus a total and complete POS.

To satisfy my own preferences, I probably agree with your decision to purchase the one with the refinements, but I wouldn't imply that others that have purchased the Taurus are idiots for having done so either.

A lot of this is subjective when it comes to making choices, and predicated on affordability. If "we" have the money to purchase the refinements, more power to us. But, those that don't, that choose to purchase the lesser expensive Taurus, are not complete fools for doing so, nor are they any less content with their purchases apparently.

There is also the issue of break-in period with respect to some of the tightness you might first experience in the gun store. Keltec P3ATs and Ruger LCPs are a perfect example. The P3AT and the LCPs are commonly known to throw fits for about the first 300 rounds or so. If you don't know enough to break-in a firearm, you are also quite likely to return it when it has a few hick ups in the beginning. Yet, P3AT and the LCP have been one of the most reliable back up pieces you can own, and highly favored by Law Enforcement, but only if the shooter has the sophistication to know better with respect to enduring some initial incidents of FTF and FTE.

If a novice, inexperienced shooter were to purchase them, and failed to break them in properly, and to give them an opportunity to function flawlessly in the long run, how many do you think might just get returned by them? Those of us that have spent many years in the firearms business are aware of the degree to which shooter induced complaints, many of which are mistakenly categorized as defects, contribute to overall returns.

Since you insist on my posting more generalized comments, I'll give you a bigger target...my bone of contention is the implication that everything Taurus manufactures is crap, and the accompanying implication that anyone that chooses to purchase a Taurus product is an idiot in lieu of purchasing other brands, some of which have just as many complaints, or are twice the price.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top