[10 Ringer']

Besides the lesser pricetag, what are some of the more important differences between recent make Taurus revolvers and S&W wheelguns and why would you chose one over the other? I already have a Taurus 605 .357mag snubbie, and aside from a slight loosening of the cylinder release button, it shoots just fine. Plenty accurate, durable, mechanically sound, and the blue finish isn't all that bad either... for $200 or so less than it's S&W inspirataion... why go for a used Smith when a new Taurus (under lifetime warranty) goes for less?

Thoughts and opinions on this one?

[Nightcrawler]

A fair question, and I think you're going to get a LOT of opinions and thoughts. :D

[RUT]

One is made in the US by Americans, and the other isn't.

[JoeHatley]

Always buy the best quality, and you'll never be disapointed.

Words to live by...

Joe

[valnar]

Shoot, this question can be asked of anything. Why pay for a BMW when a Chevy costs so much less? Why pay for a custom 1911 for $2000 when a Charles Daly is only $400?

There are tangible quality differences even though you may not immediately see them.

It's also possible your Taurus is fine, will shoot straight, and have no problems. But if you bought 10 of them, and 10 S&W revolvers, I'd put my money that more of the Smiths would be good, and more of the Taurus's would be lemons.

Its hard to evaluate just one, but I'm glad you like it.

-Robert

[4v50 Gary]

S&W has superior lockwork. Next time you have a chance to do a side by side comparison of the two, you'll see why S&W is more expensive. Better internal mechanism inside and more safety features (rebound slide). Given a choice between two revolvers of the same caliber, barrel length, and weight, I'll pay the extra for a Smith anyday.

BTW, I think S&W is more honest in upholding their "lifetime" guarantee than Taurus.

[10-Ring]

S&W wheelguns tend to be nicer from model to model compared to the Tauri. When you find a nice Taurus revo, they're nice guns at a nicer price. Also down the line (if you decide to sell it), the S&W revolvers will be worth more.

[citizen]

I'm impressed; so many moderate responses so far. Hope it stays that way.

[Serpico]

I would go with the Taurus for fun and the smith if my life were on the line......

[Stainz]

I was shooting next to a chap with a Ti Taurus .44 Special some time back - not really a problem from him, as his Taurus locked up regularly. Friday found me shooting my new S&W M66-6" from sandbags at metal plates @ 110yd , using my .38 Special hand loads (...and yes, I actually hit them!). The same guy was next to me - again - this time with a Rossi .357 snubbie. I chased him off... and for good reason. I still have scabs on my right forearm and over my right eye where some of his round's copper spit drew blood. I have seen powder residue spit from a S&W's gap - but never lead or copper cladding. I have never had a S&W lock up. I have seen both Taurus and Rossi do both. I will own only S&W's, fewer than the number of other's I could afford, but more reliable, I feel.

In my own family, my son loves his Rossi revolvers - and my brother-in-law loves his Taurus' - so, take your chances. Not me, I'll stay with S&W and Ruger.

Stainz

[Nightcrawler]

You've got to give Taurus credit. They're coming out with some INTERESTING designs. I mean, you don't see Smith making a 5-shot, .41 Magnum snubby.

Now that Smith has an internal lock too, well...

From what I've heard, Taurus' titanium models remain problematic, but their steel ones are fine. FWIW.

[RUT]

>>I mean, you don't see Smith making a 5-shot, .41 Magnum snubby.<<

Probably because there's really no demand for one.

;)

[RWK]

IMHO, 4v50 Gary nailed this one VERY well.

I own many Smith (and Ruger) revolvers and have yet to have any reliability, durability, quality, or accuracy problems (and, by the way, one of the S&Ws is a 30+ year old P&R'ed 27-7 that has fired thousands of rounds and is every bit as good today as when t left the factory).

I must admit I have never owned a Taurus. However, several friends have and ALL have eventually had to return their weapons to the factory for repairs (some successful and some not).

A fundamental, life-long lesson is QUALITY counts. Frequently, you get what you pay for.

Regards.

[Richard2003]

At the recent Shot Show I was able to handle many Taurus guns and S&W and in every case the Taurus has a cheaper feel to it.
Hard to describe but the Smiths are more solid.
And I never have a problem reselling a Smith often at an appreciated price, while the Taurus guns are harder to sell and lose value.

[Tamara]

I have seen powder residue spit from a S&W's gap - but never lead or copper cladding.

I've got a 581 you might want to see... ;)

[Ala Dan]

I agree with those who believe that Smith & Wesson
stands on the better side of Quality.:D In most
cases, if it ain't right when it leaves the factory; they
will strive to make it right for their customer(s).:)

And the Tauri "Limited Lifetime Warranty"* seems
to be somewhat of a big joke!:rolleyes: :uhoh:


*FootNote- if in doubt, just re-read the many threads
on this subject.

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

[Black Snowman]

My only wheelgun is a Taurus 669 and it's good, but the quality is definately not up to S&W or Ruger levels. I don't mind a little extra heft so I tend to prefer Ruger revolvers.

My Taurus has been reliable and accurate and the trigger has improved over time but I haven't shot it as much as my automatics. I've maybe put 500 rounds through it . . . one of which was a double charge (oops). The metalurgy is good, I'll give them that :D

However if my life was on the line I had to use a wheel gun I'd definately rather have a Ruger or a S&W in my palm. Can't make good on a warrantee if you're 6 feet under.

[jar]

When looking for another wheelgun, I always seem to pick the well used $300.00 S&W over the brand new Taurus. The only Taurus that I've owned was a Millennium that had such a bad trigger I traded it before I even shot it, so I can't speak about the capabilities of Taurus.

BUT...

so far, every used S&W I've found has still felt better and had a better trigger than any New Taurus I compared it to.

[DennisE]

Taurus bad! Smith good! Taurus metal bad - forcing cones erode on revolvers with factory loads, follower on semi magazines break apart - poor quality metals/metalurgy. Bad, bad triggers. Smiths last a lifetime. Spirit that dwells in Smith revolvers is very strong. Taurus spirit is weaker and speaks poor English. Dennis

[Tamara]

Spirit that dwells in Smith revolvers is very strong. Taurus spirit is weaker and speaks poor English.

Now that is funny! :D

(That's why I'm not into "Brand X" revolvers; you know, off brands like Taurus, Rossi, Ruger, Colt... ;) :p )

[Tamara]

The one area where I think Taurus has really caught up with (and maybe passed) Smith is the J-frame-sized guns.

Taurus uses a crane-mounted detent, rather than one on the end of the ejector rod, providing a longer ejection stroke. Taurus also relocated some pin locations in their small-frame guns back around '99 or so which provided increased leverage for the trigger, giving their small frames a lighter DA pull, on average, than their S&W equivalents. Lastly, Taurus seems to be more adventurous with materials and calibers, leading to a wider variety of guns than Smith offers.

They may lag slightlyelsewhere, but I think they've pulled even in the small guns...

[AUTIGER04]

Taurus use to copy S&W. Now S&W copy Taurus.:D

[Rob96]

Originally posted by Stainz

I have never had a S&W lock up.

I had a 686 that would reliably lock up when shooting magnum loads.

[caz223]

To me the difference is clear.
Once a S&W earns my trust, I will carry it and trust my life to it.
Smiths have never let me down.
My taurus tracker has never earned my trust, and I had it before I had many of my smiths.
It has always found some way to mess up every few hundred rounds, and it's never been accurate for me.
As a result, it sits in the back of the safe, and never gets shot.
And because it's a taurus, it has very little resale, so it's not worth selling.
This has been the result of my time with one taurus firearm since 2001, and I have no intention of buying another.

[SnWnMe]

I've had to use Smith's Lifetime Service deal three times over the years. Granted that some issues really shouldn't get past the QC guys. But each time, all I had to do was ship the gun FEDEX to them on their tab and they got the gun back to me within a week and a half tops.

Service. That's Smith's biggest pro to me. Living in Kali's oppressive (AFA gun rights) climate, I especially need my firearms to last awhile.

[Kevinch]

I've purchased (1) new S&W revolver & (1) new Taurus revolver.

The S&W, a 6" 686 of 1989 vintage, had to go back for excessive cylinder play in the early 90's. That was fixed for free, but when I asked them to replace the front ramp insert they saw fit to charge me $25. Not a big deal, but I still feel good customer service would have replaced it for free.

The Taurus, a 2" 85 snub of early 90's vintage, was sent back for both a light hammer strike on a DA trigger pull, and the barrel was machined wrong resulting in the front sight being canted off center & the gun shooting way off POA.

Both guns, when returned, performed flawlessly. I still have the 686, the Model 85 was sold to a friend to fund another purchase. He has it to this day & it still functions flawlessly.

I'd examine product from either manufacturere closely before a purchase, but I'd only buy a used pre-agreement Smith - there are a lot of them out there.

[Felonious Monk]

Kevinch was the first person to respond to MY main issue between the two gun companies:

The & Sellout.

&'s product is VERY desirable.
I will NEVER darken their doorstep with a NEW gun purchase, until they RENOUNCE the Klintoon agreement and not just let it lay fallow, waiting for someone to revive it.
You're either with us or agin' us.
They're agin us, until they FORMALLY say otherwise. :fire: :fire:

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I believe that the S&W that entered into the deal with the devil's spoor was owned by Thompson LLC of Britain. Sales did suffer tremendously. Thompson sold S&W to Americans who have a different philosophy. I do not know if that agreement is still binding on them. If it is, then count me out. If the agreement is not binding, then I will again consider S&W (I have boycotted since the Klintonian Kaving).

[Tamara]

Folks, we've reached our quota of "agreement" posts in this thread; L&P is down the hall, to the right.

[Geezer]

I bought a Taurus version of the S&W model 60, mostly because I didn't believe I was worth spending the extra money on myself. Within 9 months the Taurus had pits in the barrel (This was years ago, before wierd ammo from Russia and Outer Boodonia was on the market, and I am old enough to recognize the smell of mercury primers.)

I went back to the shop and immediately traded in the Taurus for a S&W. I've never looked back. We (wife & I) own seven S&W revolvers and we are very happy with each one.

God bless and y'all be careful out there.:cool:

[sm]

I grew up with older smith revos. The workmanship, the action, one can "feel" it. After many rds the smith still has the "feel". I'm slow to change/hate to change.

New stuff just doesn't feel right to me. Perhaps I recall a time where quality of workmanship meant more than quanity of production to appease bean counters. Before lawyers decided what features a firearm needed instead of shooters. Before Wall Street told us we couldn't hit squat if we didn't buy a certain product.

[Lightsped]

I own five Taurus wheel guns. ALL have performed perfectly. No problems whatsoever.

http://www.neospeed.org/images/my5taurus.jpg

[TonyB]

I've had a taurus revolver.....soory I got rid of it.
I still have a Taurus auto(pt99).....never misses a beat
Had a S/W j-frame...sold it.....not sorry.
Maybe I got lucky.......a lot of people at IDPA kind of ribbed me about my PT99...the poor man's Baretta...etc...then they saw how it shoots,never jams and takes a pounding.......they don't say much anymore..not bad for 1 $200 gun(used) :cool:

[mtnbkr]

I've had experience with two Taurus Revolvers:

First was a Model 94 22lr that I bought used at a gunshow. It had several problems, so I sent it to Taurus to be fixed. They sent me a new gun for free. New gun had different problems and wasn't worth another trip. It shot reasonbly well in other people's hands, but not mine. Plus, the cyclinder gap was too tight and it would bind up after 30-40 rounds. I sold it.

Second is my Dad's Raging Bull in 45Colt. That gun is great. It locks up tight, is accurate, and feels like a quality firearm. If I found one for a good price, I'd buy it (in any of it's calibers).

Chris

[Taisho]

Smith revolvers actually work. :p

Five out of my seven Taurus revolvers have had light strike problems.
I had a few of them fixed, but I have lost confidence in the Taurus product.

[KahrKarrier]

Bottom Line----------------About $200 to $300!!

[Serpico]

My dept. only authorizes Colt, SW or Ruger for offduty/back-up....that tells me something.....

[Tamara]

My dept. only authorizes Colt, SW or Ruger for offduty/back-up....that tells me something.....

Your department also got its Hanes in a half-hitch over the fact that Glock includes NRA literature with its pistols. That tells me something, too... ;)

[Serpico]

Tam....tell me more....I haven't heard of this.....

[FunYet]

I’ve had nothing but problems with all but 1 Taurus that I’ve owned. I’ve also had trouble with a S&W now and then, but the difference is, I can send my gun to Smith and will have it back in a reasonble amount of time, repaired correctly. The last Taurus I sent for repair was gone for months (can’t say I missed it much). The initial lower price of a Taurus isn’t much help if you end up paying an additonal $25+ to ship it off to the factory. Also, Smith tends to pay for shipping of rpairs that they consider warantee issues.

Of course, this is based on my experience only. I know there are a lot of happy Tauri-owners out there.

FunYet