Video: Taurus is Dangerous.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I hate to rain on your parade but Ruger had hundreds of revolvers with the exact same problem. It took months of research but they finally figured out whaat was causing it.The thread lube on the barrels was drying out and causing them to overtorque the barrels.Most of the failures were guns that sat overnight or over the weekend, after the lube had been applied but before the barrels were threaded in.We wont mention their latest autos that have failed the drop test and discharged, causing a 100% recall....Ooops I mentioned it! Or the hundreds of accidental discharges with the S&W Sigmas when they first came out.Or the hundreds of glock kabooms with their poorly designed 40 SW barrels.
glock03kaboom.jpg
I would most likely buy any of those brands except the Glock,but not because of the kabooms, but they dont fit me ergonomically, I can't shoot accurately with one.Anything made by man can have flaws, there is no perfect gun, my ffl has more returns on the Kimbers he sells than any other brand.
 
I've seen videos or pictures of almost every manufacture's gun going "kaBOOM!", all in just over a year of membership on TFL.

I've also seen threads about lemons made by a VERY high percentage of makers.

That said, Taurus seems, on the overall scale, to have more quality and reliability issues than most any other gun. More kBs I doubt, more issues, yes.
 
Last edited:
But let's turn it around: doesn't anybody here think, on average, that a new Taurus will be a better deal than a used similar Ruger or S&W?
Click to expand...

Don't know. The problem is when you include used you open up yet another variable...as if we needed one in the Taurus VS. arguments. For me "better deal" is one that works well. I would rather have a Ruger that was taken good care of than a Smith that was abused.

BTW, I buy new & used. One of the very best pistols I own is a SS Speed Six that I purchased from a retired State Trooper. It is absolutely like new. (no its not for sale :p)

That said, Taurus seems, on the overall scale. To have more quality and reliability issues than most any other gun. More kBs I doubt, more issues, yes.
Click to expand...

Fair statement.
 
At least buying a new gun versus used you get a warranty, depending on how well it is supported, but it is something. Always a good idea to give a new gun a good looking over at purchase, no point in just walking out with a box and hoping everything is cool.
 
Always a good idea to give a new gun a good looking over at purchase, no point in just walking out with a box and hoping everything is cool.
Click to expand...

The one and only time that I have not done this ended up with the only time that I have had a NIB handgun sent back to the manufacturer. I have other Colts (never any issues before) and was in a bit of a rush that day, just filled out the paperwork, paid my money and walked out the door. Never again. Two months later I got back a Commander that worked like it should have out of the box.

Normally I will field strip a pistol, if I am seriously considering buying it, and inspect it prior to committing to purchase.
 
And the non-warranty on Rugers exceeds either of those... though Hi-Point's warranty appears to be excellent and nothing to complain about by any means.

However, it is still irrefutable that a used Security/Speed/Service Six, GP, SP, SRH or Redhawk will percentage-wise be less likely to be boogered up than a new Taurus. And, if it is boogered up, it will get fixed faster on Ruger's dime than Taurus will fix their product.
 
However, it is still irrefutable that a used Security/Speed/Service Six, GP, SP, SRH or Redhawk will percentage-wise be less likely to be boogered up than a new Taurus.
Click to expand...

What's irrefutable are irrational statements like this. They simply can't be proved one way or the other. If I'm wrong, then please provide evidence of the statement.
 
I liked the video of the Taurus. I too agree that it looks like there was a barrel obstruction. I really liked two things about the video. The first was the failure to show the shot before the barrel incident. The creator of the video attempted to give that impression by showing a gun shooting at some point in time different then when the shooter is at the bench with the gun rested, making it appear like the shots prior to the incident were in fact quite normal. My guess is that the shot immediately preceding the KB wasn't.

The second aspect I liked is when the shooter turned the gun toward himself and the camera guy. Those chambers are perfectly fine short barrels. That was a very dangerous thing to do.
 
Taurus is junk,a POS and not worth anything besides a paperweight,fall apart,blow up,kills kittens and destorys the ozone.And lest we forget it clogs out internet tubes.

There now its been said can we go back to trash talking HighPoints again?
Sadley i like them for what they are and the owners are at least openminded.
 
I have three Taurus revolvers and I love each of them. You guys that do not even want a Taurus laying next to your (Insert Brand Here) are doing me a great service. I can get what I want and I have never had any problems with any of my pistols blowing up.

This is the same argument about trucks... A ford is better than a Chevy, a Chevy is better than a Dodge, a Dodge is better than ford. Well here in Missouri, where I am at, on a nice quiet evening you can hear them Chevies rusting at 1/4 mile...
 
I don't understand why no one seems to be able to accept a Taurus for what it is: an economy gun. No Taurus is not of the same quality of Ruger, S&W, or Colt nor do they have as good customer service. However, that's why a Taurus is cheaper: you get what you pay for. It still amazes me that people actually think they can pay a Taurus price and get a S&W/Ruger quality product with S&W/Ruger quality service. McDonald's food isn't as good as Applebee's and neither is the service, but you can't get your whole meal for five bucks at Applebee's either. As compared to other economy brands (Hi-Point, Charter Arms, some EAA's, Phoenix Arms, Jennings, Davis, etc.) I would be more inclined to trust Taurus, I just wouldn't expect as much as I do of my S&W's that I paid much more for. FWIW, the reason that I no longer buy Taurus products is not that I'm unsatisfied with the products themselves, it is because of Taurus' dismal resale value.
 
Excuse me, have you been to outdoor world lately? Them Tauruses are not cheap 1911's over 700 bucks and Iv'e had Rugers and Smiths in Handguns and none of them are still with me, but my Taurus pt 101 is. As for revolvers, ok I might give the edge to ruger and smith cause I've never had a Taurus revolver and I do have smith and rugers.:)
 
ok I might give the edge to ruger and smith cause I've never had a Taurus revolver and I do have smith and rugers.
Click to expand...

Well, I think Taurus revolvers are a decent bargain most times but, Ruger & S&W hold far more than just an edge over Taurus. IMO.
 
What's irrefutable are irrational statements like this. They simply can't be proved one way or the other.
Click to expand...

That's the real point. I have my opinions on how Taurus quality rates compared to other brands, but there is simply no QC data available out there in the gun world to tell us the real answer. I didn't say it is impossible to have such data, just that to date no one has published such data.
 
I am no Taurus fan, but you can really find accounts of any gun blowing up. Especially when goobers are orchestrating it happening through intentional actions or stupidity. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top