Old S&W vs New Taurus / Rossi


PDA






Davandron
February 9, 2010, 01:25 AM
I'd appreciate some guidance from those with more revolver experience.

I've thought to add a 4" 357 revolver to my collection. It would primarily be a range toy, but like anything could be called to hand during crisis or as a backup while hunting hogs.

I'm comparing ex-police S&W Model 19 / 66s vs new Rossi 971 & Taurus 66. Since used S&W seem to sell for about the same price as new Taurus models, I have to decide which is better to purchase.

My research has shown that people can't say enough good things about the S&W Model 19 / 66 series and that they are classics. I've shot both a Charter Arms 38 and a S&W Model 10 and could feel the difference in quality between the two, so when added to what I've read about Taurus, I'm thinking that I'll feel S&W are higher quality revolvers than Taurus or Rossi.

S&W seems like it would hold it's value better over the years, and because they are higher quality I don't have to worry to much about a used model falling apart with how I intend to use it. But maybe I'm wrong. Are ex-police revolvers pretty much at the end of their life? I don't want to end up regretting the S&W purchase. Would a brand-new Taurus (vs scuffed up and pitted S&W) serve me better in the long run?

Thanks for the opinions!!

If you enjoyed reading about "Old S&W vs New Taurus / Rossi" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Oro
February 9, 2010, 02:05 AM
For a general-purpose .357, I can't think of one better than a S&W 586/686. A little more robust than the 19/66 and excellent quality. The full lug and larger frame make them handle .357 with not only more durability, but also with more comfort.

I own several 19/66's - but when it comes to taking a .357 to the range or woods, the 686 (or a 27) always gets the nod. If you like the more "classic" lines you'll appreciate the looks of the 19/66. If you want to shoot a lot I think you'll like the 586/686 more.

ArchAngelCD
February 9, 2010, 02:54 AM
IMO if you pass up a Model 19 in favor of a new Taurus or Rossi you will be making a very big mistake. The Model 19 is one of the classic S&W Magnum revolvers and will outshoot anything else in it's class. Of course that's assuming the M19 is in good operating condition and the barrel isn't shot-out. (the barrel part is unlikely)

If you do buy the M19 you can shoot full powder .357 Magnum ammo in it as long as you stay away from the lighter bullets. If you shoot 158gr ammo you will do no damage to the forcing cone.

ArchAngelCD
February 9, 2010, 02:59 AM
IMO if you pass up a Model 19 in favor of a new Taurus or Rossi you will be making a very big mistake. The Model 19 is one of the classic S&W Magnum revolvers and will outshoot anything else in it's class. Of course that's assuming the M19 is in good operating condition and the barrel isn't shot-out. (the barrel part is unlikely)

If you do buy the M19 you can shoot full powder .357 Magnum ammo in it as long as you stay away from the lighter bullets. If you shoot 158gr ammo you will do no damage to the forcing cone.

evan price
February 9, 2010, 03:38 AM
Seriously? :rolleyes:

There is just no comparison to a hand-fitted S&W and a Taurus.

I own Taurii, and this isn't a Taurus-bashing moment. They are good guns.

But if you handed me (for example) a police-trade S&W Model 66-1, pinned & recessed, versus a new in box Taurus Tracker .357... well, the prices would be pretty similar. But the S&W will APPRECIATE in value if well kept, and the Taurus probably won't. They aren't making hand-fitted S&Ws anymore, and they churn out Rossi & Taurus pistols everyday. Just feel the trigger break!

As far as police trade condition- it varies from new in box to rough looking. Generally, most police weapons will be carried a whole lot, and shot for qualifications once a year. So prepare yourself for a lot of holster wear to the finish, grips that look pretty beaten up, and sometimes a surprising amount of lint and fluff in the lockwork. But once given a little TLC they will be very functional.

A recent batch of police trade guns came in my local gunstore, and they varied from carried and well maintained, to actually new-in-box never issued because they were spares and they changed platforms before they were issued.

ClemY
February 9, 2010, 08:23 AM
I feel there is no comparison between a good, used S&W Model 19 and a Taurus or Rossi. Grab the 19 and forget about the Brazilian junk.

Walkalong
February 9, 2010, 08:32 AM
IMO if you pass up a Model 19 in favor of a new Taurus or Rossi you will be making a very big mistake.Agreed. :)

19-3Ben
February 9, 2010, 08:39 AM
IMO if you pass up a Model 19 in favor of a new Taurus or Rossi you will be making a very big mistake.

+1 million.

I can't say it any better than the other people have. My 19-3 is one of the most elegant revolvers I've ever handled. Taurus makes a decent revolver, but they are downright pedestrian compared to the Smith.

Have you given thought to Ruger's Six series? It's the only thing I would consider as an alternative to Smith's K and L frames.

woad_yurt
February 9, 2010, 08:45 AM
If a new Taurus or Rossi breaks or is defective and needs to go back, you won't have it back for a long, long time. I know someone who could write a very angry book about their customer "support."

S&W is in another league entirely. Ruger would be a good choice, too.

fireside44
February 9, 2010, 09:33 AM
I'm comparing ex-police S&W Model 19 / 66s vs new Rossi 971 & Taurus 66.

I'd take the Smith and Wesson if it was a "sight unseen" purchase.

Many like to rag on Rossi but most have never owned one. The Interarms model 971 was a damn good gun for the money, and you can still find them for around $300. Find a well put together Rossi and it'll last a lifetime and be every bit as good as a S&W. Rossi has developed a cult following for more than it's price tag.

All the Taurus models I've shot were good guns, but I've never owned one.

Considering the low price of DA ex-police models though, you should probably go with S&W. Just saying that if you ever find a nice stainless Interarms 971 Rossi, grab it.

Guillermo
February 9, 2010, 09:36 AM
I cannot imagine ever passing on an older Smith, which is argueably the gold standard of revolvers, for anything new.

(this is not a Taurus bash, I would rather a new Taurus than a new S&W)

savit260
February 9, 2010, 09:49 AM
To me it's the difference between a Superb Classic Gun... and a decent gun for the money.

Easy choice.

I'd take the S&W

MCgunner
February 9, 2010, 09:58 AM
IMO if you pass up a Model 19 in favor of a new Taurus or Rossi you will be making a very big mistake.

Not in MHO. I've owned a 19 and sold it. I have a 10. I own 2 66s and they are more accurate, one of 'em has just as slick a trigger while the other one (older) ain't bad. They're just as well finished. The forcing cones are ROUND and the frames beefier in the forcing cone area. I've had a K frame crack just from a little lead build up. I much prefer the Taurus 66, stronger gun and the same size and weight for carry.

I like the older Smiths. The mid 80s 686s are pretty awesome, but then, so are their prices. For the money, I'll stick with Taurus. They are incredibly accurate and I can't really ask for more as shooters. You might dis 'em for "hand fitting" or something, but the proof is on the target board for me. I really don't care if some numb nut spent 10 hours carving on the frame or if a CNC machine did it, so long as it performs.

I'm not into the nuances, I'm into results on paper. Taurus fills that bill for me. I also like Ruger. If I didn't have such good Tauri, I'd look to Ruger before spending way too much money on a Smith. I've owned a Security Six and a SWEET SP101. Might like another SP101 some time, was real impressed with it, but was a deal with my SIL, sold it back to him. Love my Blackhawks, but that's apples and oranges.

Oh, BTW, I bought my two Taurus 66s USED. One is 80s vintage and one is early 90s. I got 'em for under 200 each! Man, you just can't find a deal like that on a K frame in the first place, and the fact that I really prefer them, well, I'm a believer. Those guns just keep on tickin', too.

Jonah71
February 9, 2010, 10:52 AM
I traded a Taurus Mod 65 SS .357 for an old 1958 S&W (+ a little more $) and I'll never regret it. I think you WILL regret not going for the old S&W no matter what the model.

Steve 48
February 9, 2010, 11:03 AM
All my revolvers are S&W's and I have 27 of them.

Landpimp
February 9, 2010, 11:05 AM
most any old S&W is better than the others mentioned, I go thru 1000's of used guns a year, we jut dont see S&W that dont still work, even beat to crap, now we often see the others that look good but dont work anymore......Taurus we just send them back for repair.....thats why they have a lifetime of the gun warantee ;)

John Wayne
February 9, 2010, 11:22 AM
The only Taurus revolver I owned (model 94, .22 LR) was absolute trash. Sights came loose and the cylinder fit was so sloppy I thought it might skip a chamber when I pulled the trigger!

Nathanael_Greene
February 9, 2010, 12:33 PM
I've owned and shot Taurus, S&W, and Rossi revolvers for decades, and I'll say this: overall, the Brazilian guns I've had are all fine, but dollar-for-dollar, I think the older S&W's are better.

ljnowell
February 9, 2010, 12:40 PM
I am in the same boat, but can find no used smiths for anything near a decent price. I am almost set to purchase a new Rossi 357 mag, but just cant bring myself to do it. I may end up buying the Ruger anyway, the extra 150 dollars is going to hurt though. That more than the cost of dies, primers, cases, and bullets to reload. I have to buy those too.

Bearhands
February 9, 2010, 01:54 PM
[QUOTE]IMO if you pass up a Model 19 in favor of a new Taurus or Rossi you will be making a very big mistake.QUOTE] Well, maybe not a big mistake, but a regret for sure.

p.s. Where are ya finding these mod 19's?! ;)

Ala Dan
February 9, 2010, 02:45 PM
A used, mechanically sound S&W model 19 trumps a NIB Taurus/Rossi
every day of the week and twice on Sunday~! ;) :D

Racinbob
February 9, 2010, 04:39 PM
I'll agree with John Wayne on that Taurus 94. A friend bought a new one recently and I believe it was after the third round it bound up. That's a good revolver for the money?

weregunner
February 9, 2010, 05:58 PM
Okay lets put things into perspective. If you do not have any Taurus experience then you anything you say is irrelevant as to the Taurus.

S&W if you have it? Then you can say something of import about the S&W only.

Opinions are like ears. We all have them. Lets deal with something more substantial, shall we?

If you have no actual recent or long past experience with Rossi then that cannot be spoken of in any manner as there is no solid basis for such "witty repartee" and that's all I've seen so far.

Facts and truth gentlemen, facts and truth. Lets go there, shall we.

To start off the show here's the following.

Like McGunner I do also own Taurus guns. Three older 20+ years models model 66& 65, two in rimfire versions, add to that the newer model 66,82 and a Rossi 642. I do one many other brands,makes, and models of handguns, but find the Taurus serve well for what they are and designed to do.
All of these guns are giving first class service, no problems, good accuracy, and are durable as well as reliable.

Just for the record there are two types of Taurus owner.

Those who have a large number of other brands,makes, and models and those who found that Taurus only fills their needs and niches nd they need look no further.

Oh,yes. There are Taurus owners who also own S&W products and like them as well. Things are as they should be in that area.

Sounds reasonable.

Remember, you folks did not start this out as S&W is a fine gun. This started out as defaming a certain brand. Otherwise all the other brands of revolvers would have hade to be included and those brands were not.

Let's get the uneductated and those who want a need to know up to date on what's going on with Taurus, Rossi, and S&W.
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=8478.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=4786.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=671.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=413.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=195.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=652.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=15969.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=10516.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=16135.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=945.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=1098.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=28939.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=14814.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=1321.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=6651.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=26123.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=16300.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=1519.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=1680.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=1098.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=27670.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=25719.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=22681.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=10815.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=1250.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=13112.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=8588.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=11767.0

The below is from TFL gun forum and says it all. Short and sweet.
boykinhntr
Senior Member


Join Date: March 19, 2008
Posts: 170 I own or have owned Taurus, S&W, Colt, SIG, Ruger, Browning, probably some Im not thinking about.

My 3 Taurus guns have been every bit as reliable and as accurate. I now have 2 new Taurus guns so I cant speak on durability of these 2 but performance is exceptional.

I now own PT101, PT145 Mil Pro, and PT738. All three are top notch guns and I will be adding some more Taurus guns to the stable. The PT101P is as well made as any gun I have seen. Its my new home defense gun. 16 rounds of Hornady TCP .40 S&W is a lot of heat.

I am not a fan boy and will continue to buy from other manufacturers. In fact my next is going to be the Kel Tec 30 round .22 mag(dont remember the model). Then I will be looking back to Taurus for either a PT92 or possibly 24/7 OSS. I base my opinions on my own experiences. So to me, Taurus guns are among my favorites.



Now for the long version. From TFl gun forum.

weregunner
February 9, 2010, 06:08 PM
Okay. Not only was the story second hand at first, but there are many many PT92/99 success stories here,at the Taurus forum, at The High Road, and other gun forums.

Mas Ayoob,Chuck Karwan and a goodly number of their kind,been there done that, and more qualified than anyone to comment on guns, recommend Taurus at times. The PT92/99 series is one of them.

The PT92 is still in production and in use all over the world.

So give me the definitive data that all PT92/99s are a train wreck.

I can go the other way of need be and bring in the posts from the knowledgable people/writers/instructors or from other showing this to be true, that PT99s work.

I do find it funny that an uncredible second hand story is used first and then we're supposed to believe the second story as well.
c

weregunner
February 9, 2010, 06:09 PM
Second of all we do not drink the Kool-aid. That's the troll's job.

You just went and claimed that anyone who owns a Taurus is some kind of moron or worse. Not a smart thing to do, but when others have no hat to hang with facts, then they go and trash the people.

Read all of the below links to the very end since you're in for trashing the people who own Taurus and the brand.
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=23177.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=8478.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=1814.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/in...0749#msg270749

http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=22006.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=22385.0

For those who appreciate nice good looking guns that work well and have proved to there is this.
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=2155.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=6329.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=29220.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=6938.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=4786.0

As for further evidence there are these.
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=22756.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=20422.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=1257.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=20731.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=22439.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=9189.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=30140.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=8532.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=2949.0
__________________




These are from here. Pay attention to the real owners. Note the so called "witty repartee" by those who know not of what they speak. No evidence, no facts, but plenty of sass. Also plenty of getting caught with telling lies by the anti- Taurus crowd. There are discredited people in here who changed the their story or got caught.
Pay attention to JR47's take on things.

http://www.thefiringline.com/showthread.php?t=231527
http://www.thefiringline.com/showthread.php?t=250771
http://www.thefiringline.com/showthread.php?t=248950
http://www.thefiringline.com/showthread.php?t=251264
http://www.thefiringline.com/showthread.php?t=254264
http://www.thefiringline.com/showthread.php?t=201102

As for the PT92 goes and it is a success.
http://www.thefiringline.com/showthread.php?t=244020
http://www.thefiringline.com.showthread.php?t=243398
http://www.thefiringline.com/showthread.php?t=232865

Owning seven Taurus revolvers, and four Taurus semi-autos, most over 20 years old, I can say that I haven't had any failures that were the results of Taurus QC. That includes .22, .22 WMR, .380, 9mm, .38 Special, and .357 Magnum.

I check every new, or used, gun that I buy at the dealer BEFORE putting my money down. How many people have bought a new gun, then complain bitterly that something "isn't right" that they should have seen prior to buying it? Lousy triggers, barrels misaligned, loose sights, barrel/cylinder gap issues, screws missing or buggered up, poor polishing, finish problems, and so on can usually be checked at the counter. If you don't think it's right, don't buy it.

I found S&W QC in the 1980's and 1990's to be abysmal, but the usual refrain is "send it back, they'll make it right." I also found Rohrbaugh to have a product that rarely worked in the beginning, and cost $1000. Yet, the same old song was repeated.

I expect a gun that cost me $600 to be better finished, and better in overall operation and quality, than another gun that costs $300. You don't buy a Ford Taurus and expect the same fit and finish of a Lincoln Mark. To do so is to guarantee that you'll NEVER be satisfied. Whether we like it, or not, it's the world we live in.
Reply Quote Notify


was invited. Seems that one of the mods noticed my posts on another forum, where I was playing with one of the "if it doesn't cost $1000, it's junk," members.

I've owned Taurus firearms since they hit our shores in the 1980's, away from Interarms. I also own the more expensive brands, as well. Guess which ones I've sent back the most often?

The snob was glaringly quiet after I PM'd him about my Korth revolver and semi-auto. Seems he wasn't quite a well-heeled as he thought.

I can afford anything that I really want. The reason for that is that I usually buy things that I feel will do the job, without the cachet of price, to make it "better".

I currently have four Taurus semi-autos, and seven Taurus revolvers. Two of the semis are of the older, non-decocker, variety, and ALL of the revolvers are at least 15 years old, a couple pushing 20. I use them when teaching, so a LOT of different people have shot them, without incident, over the years.
Reply Quote Notify

vs PT100 on: June 15, 2008, 09:19:49 AM
Both S&W and Taurus were briefly owned by the Bangor-Punta Group. S&W was sold to Thompkins, and Taurus was bought by the current owners, Brazilian nationals.

The reason that Taurus revolvers look like S&W is simple. EVERYONE's DA revolvers resembles S&W, as form follows function. That's why EVERONE'S 1911 looks like everyone else's, too.

The fact that Taurus used Beretta machinery for the PT92 has been amply documented. Beretta finished their contract with the Brazilian Army, and was faced with either selling the machinery, shipping it back to Italy as excess machinery, or producing civilian Berettas in Brazil, and competing with it's Italian plants. The only revenue producing choice was the sale, and Forjas Taurus made them the offer.

Had somebody decided to build a duplicate of the Model 92 Beretta, the company would have smothered them in law-suits. By buying the machinery, a deal was reached, allowing Taurus to produce, and market, the weapons.

You'll note that the bashers always refer to older revolvers, for the most part, as problems. They will then include ALL Taurus products in their sweeping pronouncements. There was such an "expert" on the 1911 forum recently. He announced that the Taurus "small parts" were all "too soft". When I asked him how he had determined that, I was told that a friend at a shop related to him a story about another customer's tale of a sear that "snapped" in a jig while a "noted", but nameless, gunsmith torqued it while setting up the jig. That meant that the parts were "too soft". With his telling making this at least fourth-hand, I asked him if he actually had real information to share. It went down-hill from there. The symptom that he stated would occur with any sear, as they aren't designed to be torqued. There was no actual attempt to determine soft or hard made. If anything, the parts were too hard, and brittle. Typical of bashers, the lack of facts, when pointed out, forces them to devolve into personal attacks.



No matter where you go, somebody always has bad things to say about every brand but the one they like. These are the same people who BUY brands that they don't like, and then complain. Also, would anyone actually but a revolver that has the sights noticeably canted to one side? With a trigger that feels like it has a pound of metal shavings in it? Or a bad finish? Well, they do.




You'll note that the bashers always refer to older revolvers, for the most part, as problems. They will then include ALL Taurus products in their sweeping pronouncements. There was such an "expert" on the 1911 forum recently. He announced that the Taurus "small parts" were all "too soft". When I asked him how he had determined that, I was told that a friend at a shop related to him a story about another customer's tale of a sear that "snapped" in a jig while a "noted", but nameless, gunsmith torqued it while setting up the jig. That meant that the parts were "too soft". With his telling making this at least fourth-hand, I asked him if he actually had real information to share. It went down-hill from there. The symptom that he stated would occur with any sear, as they aren't designed to be torqued. There was no actual attempt to determine soft or hard made. If anything, the parts were too hard, and brittle. Typical of bashers, the lack of facts, when pointed out, forces them to devolve into personal attacks.

Not too many years ago, the Norinco 1911 pistols were the object of derision on the new Internet Boards. Today, they are great base guns for a build. Supposedly, in the early 1990's, Colt 1911 were so "out of spec" that gunsmiths wouldn't use them. Yet, today, guns from that era are routinely used by national 'smiths for builds. In the '70s and 80s, S&W had serious QC problems with their entire line, but, again, today, the same people who bash Taurus recommend S&W, especially used ones, instead.

No matter where you go, somebody always has bad things to say about every brand but the one they like. These are the same people who BUY brands that they don't like, and then complain. Also, would anyone actually but a revolver that has the sights noticeably canted to one side? With a trigger that feels like it has a pound of metal shavings in it? Or a bad finish? Well, they do.



I also have all three. You're familiar with the manual-of-arms for the 92/99, and the 100/101 pistols. While getting to the range will be important, Home Defense is critical. Under stress, we revert back to what we've been taught, and, for you, that's the 92-100 platform. It would take a while with the 1911 before you reached that level.

The PT100/101 series ( I own a 101) has 12 round magazines available for it, so you'll only give up three rounds to the M9 you're familiar with. Premium defensive rounds, like the Gold Dot, HST, and Golden Saber, are producing the most successful results of any between the 9x19 and the .40 S&W.

I like the PT101 for use as a combination home and range gun. The chances of anything damaging the adjustable sight is rare in this scenario, and the gun can be adjusted for the weight of bullet used.

The .40 S&W recoils much like a +P or +P+ 9mm round, and is more expensive per round than the 9mm, at least for the near future.

The .45 ACP, in it's premium designs, does hold a certain advantage over both of the others. It's also the most expensive to shoot. The platform has a different manual-of-arms, a better trigger feel, and the full-size version can be CCW'd. However, it's far different in operating qualities (single-action) than either the M9 or the 92/100 platforms.

The choice is yours. Oh, the 1911 is actually easier to teach a new shooter. No "transition" from DA to SA, better trigger to learn, and the grips fit many more people's hands. The "recoil" of the .45 ACP is also mostly a myth in a full sized gun, as well. I've had little trouble teaching petite females to use the 1911, or younger males. They have little in the way of pre-conceived notions about calibers and recoil.

My PT101 sits next to the bed at night. However, I CCW a 1911. To me, the safety location of the PT101, being identical to that of my 1911, allows me to get it into play quickly. However, that first DA pull allows me to be sure of my target in those first few "heard something, saw something, am I REALLY awake?" seconds. I wake up easily after decades of Fire/EMS service, but I'm older now, and my hearing isn't what it was 45 years ago. A small war in SE Asia, followed by decades of sirens, air-horns, and barely muffled trucks and gas-powered accessories on the scene have left me with tinnitus, and moderate-to-severe loss of hearing in both ears. So, I tend to be VERY cautious about what I "hear' at night, or should have "heard".
Reply Quote Notify

I own 11 Taurus pistols and revolvers. Some are over 20 years old. All are still servicable, and are shot whenever I go out. Looking at another PT1911

Now, why would you spend the time examining a weapon for IDPA if you dfidn't know if it would qualify? Then sign on to a Taurus Board and complain about a matter that isn't wide-spread? You even go far enough as to talk about other guns that you like better, and already own.

If I'm looking for a gun to compete with, I try those that I know will qualify in the game that I choose, first. I'm not going to try a Ruger revolver and complain that it doesn't hold enough rounds for Service Weapon Class semi-auto.

The magazine release worked, but it didn't reliably release the mags to fall free. I've owned 1911s that this was a problem for the first few mad changes.One was a Wilson Combat. The folks there said to just go ahead and shoot it. After 40 rounds, it worked fine.

Had the poster presented himself in a more educated fashion, he could have received much more information, or advice. I've passed on some high-end pistols and revolvers because the sample I handled had a problem. I don't go to a forum devoted to that make, and declare that this is symptomatic of the entire line.

Despite his explanatiuon, it was obvious that he liked the XD and the M&P pistols going into this. His entire post reflected that. If you don't like a product, don't buy it. I don't care for the grip angle of a Glock, or the cheap plastic sights, or the fact that there are still a ton of magazines floating around that don't drop free. However, I'm not going onto the Glock forum to complain about the grip angle or the sights, and state that the poor ergonomics, and cheap sights, lost a sale.

He didn't like it. So what? There was nothing said that even merited notice on Taurus Armed.


Ok, I went to the closest store to me, today, and checked the mag release on three (3) OSS pistols. Two were still greasy with Taurus' packing lube. All three (3) released the mag cleanly. Effort between the three was noticeably different, though none was really hard for me to release.

There is no guarantee that the production variants of the OSS are perfect copies of the military entrant. Something as simple as a change in the coating of the mag release button, for whatever reason, could vary the thickness enough to allow problems with a maximum o.d. button, and a minimum i.d. frame hole. Seems that I can remember a simple change in the 1960's in type of powder in a certain ammunition that certainly had much more deleterious results. Yet, it passed, unnoticed.

To simply call the magazine release "poor quality", while extolling the release on the XDM, or the M&P, even though both pistols had the same problem, sticking magazines, reported, is wrong. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that continued use of the release button will result in polishing the excess coating, and a resumption of your mandated "feel". Remember, the Browning High Power was notorious for sticky magazines for decades. Some of the later magazines even had a spring installed in them to help "kick the mag loose". Glock magazines were originally designed NOT to fall free, as an Austrian Army requirement. It wasn't until Americans began criticizing this that the magazines were Americanized for those shipped here.

IDPA could care less about the efficiency of the magazine release, so long as it doesn't compromise safety. Your problem, and the IDPA, have nothing to do with each other. That you wished to use the OSS in IDPA competition was a random fact, hardly associated with the function of the pistol.

The best that I can gather from this thread is that it re-enforces the old dictum that you need to wait a while, until a new model works out the bugs, before judging, or buying, it.

THESE are all quotes from one of the members here who know is also at the Taurus forum.

He's taken apart all the old lies and trash about Taurus guns. Facts and the truth win out any day.

I've talked to him about my giving him away here or at the Taurus forum. However in this case I am not giving away the name.

Just that you get the picture.

There are others of us who are also on the Taurus bandwagon, but only because the guns work for us. Most of us do have many other brands,makes, and models of other firearms.

There are those for who own only Taurus firearms. They also have had their needs and niches filled by Taurus guns and have no reason to look any further. Why should they? The guns work for them.

These guns are all bought with well thought out,rational common sense,inspect the gun closely before buying, try it out, and then put the money down for the gun types.

Not starry eyed follow the ruler or brand with no thought to consequences of any kind.

People's lives depend on these guns and the purchases were done with great care. Other's lives are on the line as well. These are rational commons sense choices. Not snap decisions.

Nor are these guns bought because of info on the internet only. Shouldn't happen that way. The Net is just a tool. It is wise to go out,get training, and learn as much as possible about shooting, the guns, and anything that goes with all this. At least a good basic knowledge.

No we do not think Taurus are flawless and haven't had their share of troubles like other gun companies. They have.

However to broad brush stroke an entire brand of guns on just one instance is pure folly.

I've seen a few bad examples of major brand guns. Just about all of them. 1 example of each for the most part. This did not mean that all that particular maker's makes and models were trash. Far from it. Yet is is done to Taurus. Odd.

The massive influx of links has the evidence to prove that Taurus does make good to excellent products.

I think I may start bringing all the "I have trouble with this brand gun" to these kinds of goings on and trash the whole brand. Why not?

There are boards at this forum or the archives are full of problem gun threads.
Those can be brought here for the other brands. Why not? They all stink totally do they not? Hey, I have the proof so to speak.

Or I can make up an outrageous claim, have little or facts, and even draw it out over a long,long period. Seen that happen here with other brands as well.

Oh, yes. Forgot to add a couple.
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=6959.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=6230.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=8038.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=5529.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=7865.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=898.0

Blasts from the past on trying to trash Taurus. Nice try,guys,nice try. Missed it by thaaaat much!
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=1074.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=5374.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=3038.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=1096.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=8478.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=5783.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=4379.0

We all know that is bunk to trash an entire brand. Okay, that brand is not your cup of tea. No problem. Just move on.

Most of us have better things to do than be negative a majority of the time, totally obssess on a certain brand and can't give it up going negative, or those who love to spread misery and are cruel. Yet the same cast keeps showing up at these threads.


The above is the pro for Taurus and is ALL documented evidence.

zxcvbob
February 9, 2010, 06:11 PM
I've had enough problems with my Taurus revolver (both the fit and materials), and with my attempt to get a RA# from their Customer Service for repairs, that I warn people to stay far away from them.

Some people manage to get a good Taurus handgun and never have problems with it. I am happy for them. But I wouldn't take my chances on another one unless the price was *really* cheap and I wanted something to tinker with more than to shoot.

fireside44
February 9, 2010, 06:50 PM
IMO if you pass up a Model 19 in favor of a new Taurus or Rossi you will be making a very big mistake.

Opinion.

There is just no comparison to a hand-fitted S&W and a Taurus.

Opinion.

Grab the 19 and forget about the Brazilian junk.

Name calling and opinion.

My 19-3 is one of the most elegant revolvers I've ever handled. Taurus makes a decent revolver, but they are downright pedestrian compared to the Smith.

No one was asking whether they were "elegant" or not.

If a new Taurus or Rossi breaks or is defective and needs to go back, you won't have it back for a long, long time. I know someone who could write a very angry book about their customer "support."

Let me guess, a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend who read it on the web?

I cannot imagine ever passing on an older Smith, which is argueably the gold standard of revolvers, for anything new.

And yet daily we hear complaints about MIM parts, lack of pinned barrels, and the death of recessed cylinders, all coming from die hard S&W fans. A gold standard no more?

I'm not into the nuances, I'm into results on paper.

Better answer from McGunner, based on performance rather than speculation.

I think you WILL regret not going for the old S&W no matter what the model.

Opinion.

All my revolvers are S&W's and I have 27 of them.

And this is related to the discussion how?

most any old S&W is better than the others mentioned, I go thru 1000's of used guns a year, we jut dont see S&W that dont still work, even beat to crap

A crap S&W is better than a Taurus or Rossi?

Sounds like an opinion.

The only Taurus revolver I owned (model 94, .22 LR) was absolute trash.

So what do you say to the guy who bought one S&W and it was trash? You are drawing from very limited experience by your own admission.

I've owned and shot Taurus, S&W, and Rossi revolvers for decades, and I'll say this: overall, the Brazilian guns I've had are all fine, but dollar-for-dollar, I think the older S&W's are better.

At least your opinion was somewhat balanced by experience.

I am almost set to purchase a new Rossi 357 mag, but just cant bring myself to do it. I may end up buying the Ruger anyway, the extra 150 dollars is going to hurt though.

And look at the kind of result all these uninformed opinions bring. A guy is afraid to buy a gun from a company that for the most part, has a decent track record quite possibly on account of all smack talk a few opinionated forum members have.

A used, mechanically sound S&W model 19 trumps a NIB Taurus/Rossi
every day of the week and twice on Sunday

Actually, a used, mechanically sound NIB Taurus or Rossi would give every bit as good as service as the S&W. Mechanically sound is mechanically sound. Simply having "S&W" on the side doesn't mean it's greater in any way except for the price, more than likely.

A friend bought a new one recently and I believe it was after the third round it bound up. That's a good revolver for the money?

I don't know, why don't you ask your "friend"?

Facts and truth gentlemen, facts and truth. Lets go there, shall we.

Weregunner, I want to personally thank you for taking the time to lay the endless opinions to rest. Facts are that a good gun is a good gun. Good job dude.

Racinbob
February 9, 2010, 07:27 PM
Fireside44, I was going to pass on all this crap until I saw your post. You stated that I should ask my friend about "a good revlover for the money". No problem. He was pursuaded by another employee of his that a Taurus was great. Want to ask him now? I did. I don't have the time...make that desire to spent all night typing my response with my two fingers. He won't buy another Taurus needless to say.

MCgunner
February 9, 2010, 07:30 PM
I've actually got 3 great taurus revolvers. I have one Smith left, my M10. I had a 1917 that was a clapped out old POS. I did have a smith work it over, make it shootable. He told me to take it easy with the loads. The thing wouldn't shoot cast lead worth a toot. I sold it. I sorta regret that as it was an old war horse and I didn't get much for it. But, I won't shoot something that won't shoot cast lead and these particular revolvers had some rather shallow rifling in 'em, were designed for FMJ ball of course.

Thing is, there are so many Smith koolaid drinkers out there that the price has skyrocketed around here. I went to the gun shows for a while looking for a 2.5 or 3" 13, 19, 65, or 66. Hell, I coulda bought a new Smith. I never found a 3". God knows I could never have afforded it, anyway, even if it was clapped out. I found a 3" 66 Taurus for 180 bucks! It's one of my carries. Hell, I shot a hog with it just the other day. It's 1.5" at 25 yards accurate off the bench, perfectly timed, very little play, even though it obviously has had a tough life. When I got it, the "checkering" on the Pachmayr on it was worn flat on the back side from all the rounds fired. It does winter duty in a Hume JIT slide. 3" medium frame guns are awesome. If I ever get another SP101, it'll have a 3" tube. It's no pocket gun, anyway. But, I'm iin no hurry to get one. The Taurus fills the niche quite well, thank you very much.

I bought my 85UL new in 1996. It's been doing pocket back up duties, but summer, it's a primary. That little gun has the slickest DA trigger I've ever felt on an out of the box DA revolver and it's very acccurate, too, within a 2" barrel's limits. It'll group 3-3.5" at 25 yards from the bench. That's about as good as any 2" gun does for me.

You're free to spend your money as you see fit. I like the bargains that I can find iin a used Taurus, though, and the new ones, well, I don't care much for new Smiths for what they cost. I personally thank all you Taurus hating fanatics for running the price down on Taurus revolvers. Gave me some great deals and hopefully will continue to in the future. Yep, trade in your trash old Taurus. Hopefully it'll be something I've been wanting, like a .41 mag tracker. :D

19-3Ben
February 9, 2010, 07:32 PM
Fireside-

My 19-3 is one of the most elegant revolvers I've ever handled. Taurus makes a decent revolver, but they are downright pedestrian compared to the Smith.
No one was asking whether they were "elegant" or not.


No. But when making a comparison to decide which one to buy it is relevant. When you have a good quality but relatively 'ordinary' revolver, compared to a truly elegant masterpiece at the same price you can make a direct qualitative comparison.

And I never said that Taurus is bad at all. They are good. Just not up to the level of the old S&W's.

And yet daily we hear complaints about MIM parts, lack of pinned barrels, and the death of recessed cylinders, all coming from die hard S&W fans. A gold standard no more?

That's why people are talking about the old ones. Before the days of MIM and no P&R, etc... New S&Ws are irrelevant to this conversation.

As for sticking to facts vs. opinions...Let me quote the OP:

Thanks for the opinions!!

He wanted opinions, so people gave. You don't like people's opinions and that's fine. But it's the OP's thread. Not yours. When it's your thread ask for facts and not opinions.

content
February 9, 2010, 09:00 PM
Hello friends and neighbors // Yep I was there briefly, the 1983 6" S&W 586 6 round or the new 6" Taurus 8 round, both .357/.38 blued, about the same price.

I got the 586 and never looked back.

Guillermo
February 9, 2010, 10:18 PM
these Taurus lovers are very sensitive.

It is really kind of funny to watch

ljnowell
February 10, 2010, 01:52 AM
And look at the kind of result all these uninformed opinions bring. A guy is afraid to buy a gun from a company that for the most part, has a decent track record quite possibly on account of all smack talk a few opinionated forum members have.


Yeah, thats part of it. Then I went over to that taurusarmed.net site that was posted and read some in the complaints forum. Oh my. It was ugly. I dont want any part of it. I am not a rich man, by anyones standards. That makes every dollar I spend on a gun more critical. I dont want a 400 dollar paperweight. I will cough up the xtra scratch and get a ruger I think. I just think the ruger is ugly.

ArchAngelCD
February 10, 2010, 02:31 AM
fireside44,
Was you post really necessary? You spent a ton of time picking out everything you didn't like in the whole thread and quoted it. For the most part this thread was civil but your post seemed to me to bring this thread down. BTW, your first quote was from me and then you said "opinion", funny thing is I said it was IMO when I made the post so why bother? I gave my opinion because the OP asked for opinions. No reason to knock what others say just because you don't agree with them.

The only post you seemed to like was those made by "Weregunner." I saw all the links to the Taurus forum and what does that prove? I'm guessing those who post on the Taurus forum like Taurus handguns. I could post just as many links form the S&W forum which would support buying a S&W revolver but then again, what would be the point? :rolleyes:

evan price
February 10, 2010, 02:53 AM
Fireside- I said "There is just no comparison to a hand-fitted S&W and a Taurus."

Sure it's my opinion. I freely admit that. I own a Taurus 605 in .357. It's a nice gun for what it does. IT works fine, it shoots well. I can't complain about it.

If the choice of the OP were between a NEW Taurus/Rossi VS a NEW S&W, well, imho, I can't stand modern Smiths and their locks and crummy finishes. S&W has lost something in their products, I can't really quantify it...soul, perhaps. But again, that's opinion.
If the choice were a NEW Taurus/Rossi VS a New Smith, I'd take the Taurus.

Since the OP is considering a vintage S&W and not a new one, I stand behind my original opinion.


McGunner- I have no problem with used Taurus pistols. I bought my 605 used. A bargain is a bargain!

Oh, and Weregunner, seriously, do we need a dissertation? Nobody was talking about PT92s, or Taurus 1911s, or anything else.

ljnowell
February 10, 2010, 03:04 AM
If the choice were a NEW Taurus/Rossi VS a New Smith, I'd take the Taurus.


You honestly think that the new S&Ws arent as good as the new Tauruii? I dont mean this sarcastically, but I was pondering paying the coin for the smith, and now I am seeing something like this.

ArchAngelCD
February 10, 2010, 03:10 AM
I don't think it's because they think the Taurus guns are better it's just some buyers refuse to buy a new Smith because they refuse to remove the lock.

evan price
February 10, 2010, 03:20 AM
The only reason I would buy a NEW Taurus/Rossi versus a NEW Smith & Wesson is as I said above- their products aren't made with the same level of attention that they once were. Holding one in your hand and comparing to an older model, they just aren't the same. The quality of the finishes. The machining. The feel of the gun. They just aren't the same. The new S&W feels much more mass produced consumer commodity than the older ones, even the Bangor-Punta guns feel good.

For the price of a new Smith, I don't think you get a product that's 1.5 times better than a comparable new Taurus. The value per dollar just isn't there to me.

With both the Taurus and S&W being equally machine-made consumer commodities, and S&W still using the G-D lock, I'd take the Taurus, if for no other reason than the Taurus lock isn't as obtrusive and annoying as a Smith lock.

However, to get back to the question from the Original Poster, given the choice of a NEW Taurus/Rossi and a quality USED S&W of equivalent style and equal price, the Smith would go home with me nearly every time. I've bought 4 used vntage S&W revolvers in the past 2 years- and ONE Taurus.

evan price
February 10, 2010, 03:39 AM
Oh, to Fireside: You can honestly, with a straight face, tell me that a pinned & recessed S&W Model 29 and a Taurus Raging Bull .44 are equal in every way? That if a new Raging Bull .44 and a lightly used pinned & recessed S&W 29 were both for sale in a gun case for the same price- you'd take the Raging Bull?
Heck, throw a Ruger Super Redhawk .44 in there- all 3 of them, same price, and the Ruger and Smith are both lightly used and well maintained specimens. You would still take the Raging Bull?

HisDivineShadow
February 10, 2010, 04:55 AM
Buy used Smiths, new Rugers and shoot other peoples Colts.

Rossi and Taurus probably gets the job done and give value for the money, but I wouldn't want one, I'd gladly put in an extra 100, 200 or 300 for a Smith. And a used smith... now those are very good value for your buck...

Ala Dan
February 10, 2010, 05:47 AM
I'm very surprised that a moderator has not stepped in too settle this
argument~! :( :cuss:

CajunBass
February 10, 2010, 05:48 AM
I'd like to know where you found a used Model 19 for the same price as a new Taurus/Rossi. Around here, unless the price of those has gone up a LOT, a good used Model 19 costs a LOT more than a new Taurus.

I've owned three Taurus revolvers. They all worked fine, but under the conditions outlined by the OP, I'd pick the Smith & Wesson.

fireside44
February 10, 2010, 07:52 AM
He wanted opinions, so people gave. You don't like people's opinions and that's fine. But it's the OP's thread. Not yours. When it's your thread ask for facts and not opinions.

Yeah, you are right.

When you have a good quality but relatively 'ordinary' revolver, compared to a truly elegant masterpiece at the same price you can make a direct qualitative comparison.

Elegant masterpiece? It's a mass produced pistol.

Was you post really necessary? You spent a ton of time picking out everything you didn't like in the whole thread and quoted it. For the most part this thread was civil but your post seemed to me to bring this thread down.

Is your post necessary? I picked out those comments because they were pure opinion backed by what? Nothing mostly. If I didn't know better, I'd be left thinking that Taurus/Rossi never made a functional weapon in the history of their company.

Sorry if you feel that I brought the thread down. My intention was to clear up the smoke blowing in regards to the generally reliable nature of Brazilian revolvers. If you think calling Taurus/Rossi "trash" and "crap" and "junk" is somehow high road, then you are mistaken.

You can honestly, with a straight face, tell me that a pinned & recessed S&W Model 29 and a Taurus Raging Bull .44 are equal in every way? That if a new Raging Bull .44 and a lightly used pinned & recessed S&W 29 were both for sale in a gun case for the same price- you'd take the Raging Bull?

I'd take the one that was the most accurate and felt best in my hand, which is what the OP ought to do as well. Generally speaking, I just want a gun that functions properly, regardless of what brand is etched in the side. No one revolver maker has failed to turn out lemons at some point in their production.

19-3Ben
February 10, 2010, 08:09 AM
Elegant masterpiece? It's a mass produced pistol.

Yes it was. But, let's take my 19-3 for example. It was made in 1973. Back in 1973 there was a LOT more hand fitting and finishing going into pistols than there is these days. So I don't contest at all that it is mass-produced, but a mass produced pistol from that era is very different from a mass produced pistol these days. Heck, if the OP were asking about an older used S&W vs. a new S&W, I'd be telling him the same thing. It has more to do with the 'old vs. new' debate, than S&W vs. Taurus.

ljnowell
February 10, 2010, 09:52 AM
SO, general consensus in this thread NEW S&W vs. NEW Taurus/Rossi? Whats the take? Are you more likely to get a junk one with Taurus?

MCgunner
February 10, 2010, 10:42 AM
SO, general consensus in this thread NEW S&W vs. NEW Taurus/Rossi? Whats the take? Are you more likely to get a junk one with Taurus?


http://www.chuckhawks.com/smith-wesson_dark.htm

I consider the Taurus far BETTER considering price. But, some don't. Turkeys slip out of both factories, it seems. The one anti-taurus argument I can understand and agree with is that the customer service sux and that has been a valid argument, though from all reports they're doing something about that recently. I wouldn't know, though, as I've not had to send one of mine back. I do know that I much prefer my 66s to the M19 I had and it was bought new in 1980 (and for only 20 bucks more than I gave for my stainless Ruger Security Six in 1978).. Why I, personally, don't buy Smiths is the pricing now days and the hole in the frame doesn't help. That lock design scares me. I'd have to disable it. the Taurus lock is reliable, will not lock itself, and you don't even notice it. Only my 85 has a lock on it. My two 66s are pre-lock.

Buy what ya want. It's a free country....so far. I ain't going to prognosticate the future, but you better get it now if ya want it. That's why there haven't been many firearms on the shelves, or ammo, in over a year.

MCgunner
February 10, 2010, 10:48 AM
Yes it was. But, let's take my 19-3 for example. It was made in 1973. Back in 1973 there was a LOT more hand fitting and finishing going into pistols than there is these days. So I don't contest at all that it is mass-produced, but a mass produced pistol from that era is very different from a mass produced pistol these days

In the 18th century, essentially all pistols were hand fitted. Are they better than your M19? :rolleyes: Ruger uses investment casting. Ruger design is MUCH stronger than either Smith or Taurus side plate designs.

The hand fitting argument is a crock. Only thing that matters to me is how it shoots, when it comes right down to it. Both my Taurus 66s out-shoot that M19 AND that Ruger Security Six I had. While it's not as strong a design as the Security Six, it does have a ROUND forcing cone and more room around it. I've had a K frame forcing cone crack on me. They also outshoot that SP101 I had, but that's an unfair comparison due to it was a 2.3" snub. It shot better than my Taurus snub, apples and apples. But, I kept the Taurus because it's better in a pocket. I'd have kept that SP101, too, except for an arrangement with my SIL.

Guillermo
February 10, 2010, 10:54 AM
You honestly think that the new S&Ws arent as good as the new Tauruii?

There are a lot of reasons not to buy a new Smith revolver, sagging quality is among them.

Are new Smiths worth the extra cash? I don't think so.

MCgunner
February 10, 2010, 10:57 AM
I will buy an old Smith if I can find one for reasonable I really want. I can't say that for the new ones. I guess that's how I should put it. :D Problem down here is that the used market runs the price up on the old ones, too. If I could get my hands on, say, a 2.5" M65 round butt (did they make one?) for 250, I'd jump on it. But, well, I find 'em at night in my dreams. :rolleyes:

19-3Ben
February 10, 2010, 11:52 AM
In the 18th century, essentially all pistols were hand fitted. Are they better than your M19? Ruger uses investment casting. Ruger design is MUCH stronger than either Smith or Taurus side plate designs.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that hand-fitting makes a gun stronger, or better. I just said it adds to the elegance of the gun.
And if you look on the first page, I was the first one to mention Ruger as an alternative here. I'm a Ruger man at heart, and believe in the strength of their products above those of Taurus and S&W. So you're preaching to the choir. Stop fighting with a guy who agrees with you.

Thaddeus Jones
February 10, 2010, 12:08 PM
To the OP's original question, I would always take a model 19 over anything else.

For the thread drift questions, yes, the older S&W's.....say anything 1999 and prior, are the gold standard.

Yes (hypothetically forced to choose), I would take a "new" Taurus revolver over a current production S&W revolver. The Taurus does not have a firing pin that is too short, has an IL that is NOT tied into the lock work, and is priced reasonably for what it is.

The only current production revolvers I would opt to spend my cash on are Rugers.

I will always choose a nice pre lock S&W over any other revolver.

Oh, and YES, the model 19 is an elegant design. TJ

joed
February 10, 2010, 12:08 PM
I always thought Taurus revolvers were junk. Many that I handled had a terrible action, probably the worst I'd ever seen.

Four years ago I bought a used Taurus 445 in .44 Spl. I admit I like the gun a lot. It is about the size of a Charter Arms Bulldog and makes a great carry gun. Should something happen and I lose it I won't cry.

That said, I've owned about 40 S&W revolvers. They put any Taurus to shame. It depends on what you want and plan to use the gun for.

I've heard horror stories about Taurus customer service. I have no experience with them so can't comment.

Guillermo
February 10, 2010, 01:09 PM
Thaddeus pretty much summed it up (I agree wholeheartedly except for the Ruger thing)

Davandron
February 10, 2010, 02:16 PM
OP Here
Wow, sincerely thank you to everyone for your input, I made a point to read every post. I did not realize how highly charged this topic would be, but in hindsight I can understand it a little bit.

A bit of a story with why I asked. As life flows onward, I've been unfortunate to inherit both my father's and grandfather's firearms. Both were avid hunters, but my grandfather had more disposable income and purchased higher quality items. Today, on the resale market, his purchases are still have much of their original value and are valued, where-as my father's have almost no resale value. That said, my father's are perfectly functional and filled every one of his needs (which were greater than mine). It has taught me that, when I can afford it, purchase quality, but that the measure of a tool is how well it does the job not its price tag.

Where I'm at now, I'm looking for a S&W, but I don't think I'll pass up a deal on a Taurus if I find one.

BTW, to those asking where I'm finding things; you've got me spooked that I'm sitting on honey pots so I'm hesitant to publish a map :^) That said, I'm just looking in the usual places and will openly talk about them to people who are willing to share their honeypots with me. ;^) Just send me a PM

Confederate
February 10, 2010, 03:01 PM
I've found that while the Taurus revolvers are beautiful in finish, it's best to spec them out before purchase. Take six virgin .357 JHP bullets and drop each into a chamber. If three or more catch, you can be reasonably assured that the throat size is being watched. If they all catch, buy the gun if everything else checks out. If they all fall through, try six .358 lead bullets. All of those should catch. If any of those fall through, I wouldn't buy it.

My advice is that you probably can't do better than a S&W 686 4-inch. After that, a Ruger GP-100 4-inch is the ticket.

MCgunner
February 10, 2010, 05:48 PM
Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that hand-fitting makes a gun stronger, or better. I just said it adds to the elegance of the gun.
And if you look on the first page, I was the first one to mention Ruger as an alternative here. I'm a Ruger man at heart, and believe in the strength of their products above those of Taurus and S&W. So you're preaching to the choir. Stop fighting with a guy who agrees with you.

Sorry. I guess, when it comes to tools, I think more about performance and practicality than "elegance". I ain't gonna impressed the bad guy with the elegant hand fitting. He's going to be more impressed by a round center mass. And in my search for medium frame .357s, the Tauri have been the most accurate of the guns that have passed through my possession. .

Guillermo
February 10, 2010, 05:58 PM
the Tauri have been the most accurate of the guns that have passed through my possession

that is not a sentiment that I have ever heard expressed before

fireside44
February 10, 2010, 06:02 PM
I've found that while the Taurus revolvers are beautiful in finish, it's best to spec them out before purchase.

I think this is an appropriate line of action to take whenever possible when considering ANY gun purchase because we are basically resorting to buying guns that are mass produced using cost cutting measures.

Glock Holiday
February 10, 2010, 06:02 PM
Buy the S&W gun.You will like it better,the resale is much better and the over all fit and finish will be better.
I had a Taurus M85 and it was a good serviceable little gun.
It never gave me any problems but my advice to you is get the Smith and Wesson revolver.

w_houle
February 10, 2010, 06:14 PM
I would say to take the old S&W over a new S&W
Glad:eek::uhoh:http://thefiringline.com/forums/images/smilies/barf.gif to see the taurusarmed threadsh*tters in full force on this one:rolleyes:
Comparing New S&W to Taurus/ Rossi is one thing but this?

1911Tuner
February 10, 2010, 06:26 PM
Speaking strictly from a mechanical standpoint/gunsmith's view...

Although the lockwork of the Smith & Wesson and Taurus revolvers are very similar, after having been into a few Taurii...just recently up to my neck in a badly abused 3-inch .357/Model 65...I have to say that I'm not at all impressed with the overall quality. I especially don't care for the hammer block design, which is a weird rack and pinion arrangement that...if not positioned correctly...will lock the gun up solidly. The hand spring is also a little strange, though workable.

I was able to return the gun to working condition...barely...and only took it in on request from my cop nephew in-law for his cop bud. Otherwise, I wouldn't have touched it.

The Taurus isn't a bad revolver if all you want is a relatively inexpensive piece to keep around the house or in a tackle box for emergencies and such...but if you plan to shoot it a bit and want to experience the gun getting smoother with use...the Smith & Wesson has it beat, hands down.

Note that I'm not very much impressed with the new generation Smiths, either. The MIM lockwork doesn't seem to lend itself to the same slickerin' techniques that work magic on the older revolvers. Plus, it just plain looks funky.

wlewisiii
February 10, 2010, 07:27 PM
i didn't have any trouble with my Taurus 650. Nice revolver that did what it was supposed to do, every time. If I came on a good deal for another current model Taurus, I'd grab it.

That said, I decided I needed a 4" barrel and when I found an older Model 64 at my FLGS, I traded in the Taurus for the Smith & Wesson. I expect the S&W to be a good shooter & the Taurus was a good shooter. The S&W just meets my current needs better than any .357 magnum snub nose would - I'd have traded any snub nose just as fast.

William

Glock Holiday
February 10, 2010, 08:20 PM
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x42/Glockholiday/357a.jpg
My "old" 4" S&W .357 wheelgun.
I think they are just classy.

jad0110
February 10, 2010, 10:21 PM
Thing is, there are so many Smith koolaid drinkers out there that the price has skyrocketed around here. I went to the gun shows for a while looking for a 2.5 or 3" 13, 19, 65, or 66. Hell, I coulda bought a new Smith. I never found a 3". God knows I could never have afforded it, anyway, even if it was clapped out. I found a 3" 66 Taurus for 180 bucks!

Strangely, in my neck of the woods, used Taurus Model 66s sell for as much or nearly as much as S&W Model 66s. Maybe it is because they look similar and have the same Model number, I dunno. But I know I wouldn't buy a used Taurus M66 4" for $499 (yes, actually saw one priced that high recently), especially when you can buy a new one for less.

The one anti-taurus argument I can understand and agree with is that the customer service sux and that has been a valid argument, though from all reports they're doing something about that recently.

I guess I can't speak for their CS as this moment in time, but 3 years ago I experienced their crappy CS first hand. They actually managed to return my gun in worse condition than when I shipped it to them. And they seemed rather annoyed that a customer actually had a problem with one of their products.

I decided at that point that although I might by a used Taurus in the future, I won't be giving them any of my money on a new one, what with a lousy attitude like I saw first hand.

If I could get my hands on, say, a 2.5" M65 round butt (did they make one?) for 250, I'd jump on it.

I'm 99% certain S&W didn't make the 13 and 65 in 2.5" barrels (only 3" and 4"). But like anything else, a few oddball configurations may have left the factory.

MCgunner
February 10, 2010, 10:32 PM
I'm 99% certain S&W didn't make the 13 and 65 in 2.5" barrels (only 3" and 4"). But like anything else, a few oddball configurations may have left the factory.

Heck, I prefer the 3" tube. Rather rare in K frames and certainly not for the $180 I gave for my Taurus 3" 66. That, and my 4" nickel 66 at 197 dollars, both at small gun shows in Victoria, Texas, are a couple of the best deals I've ever pulled off, at least in that I love the guns and they were both such bargains. Both guns are square butts. I'd really prefer a round butt on the 3", a minor detail I guess.


.I have to say that I'm not at all impressed with the overall quality. I especially don't care for the hammer block design, which is a weird rack and pinion arrangement that...if not positioned correctly...will lock the gun up solidly. The hand spring is also a little strange, though workable.

My older gun is the 3" 66. It has the hammer block. But, my newer 4" gun has a slicker trigger and it has a transfer bar, is NOT the hammer block of the older models. All newer Tauri, far as I know, from the early 90s are transfer bar systems, totally different from the old ones and it is an improvement. My 4" is as slick as my M10 from the early 60s. One place the 3" differs, even though it has the hammer block of the older design, is that it uses a coil spring, not the Smith's leaf. I think that's an improvement, myself.

shockwave
February 10, 2010, 10:43 PM
The Rossi .357 with 4" barrel has outperformed my S&W 686 in competition. They are both excellent weapons and I can vouch for the Rossi. Neither gun has ever FTF.

Jonah71
February 11, 2010, 11:05 AM
I still have a Taurus revolver and a 9mm24/7 (2000 rnds without a FTF), a S&W, H&R, Kimber, Bersa, and an old Merwin Hubert (retired that one), and will soon have a CZ. And I may even buy a Charter Arms .357 after that. All of these function according to my needs or even just my mood at the time. The ONLY gun I ever had that was imo totally useless was a Jennings I bought in the 80's. But again that's just my opinion. If I had to pick a favorite? Right now it would be the 1958 S&W .38 spec. But that's what I'm carrying today. The point is, they all work, and they all serve a purpose. I don't have opinions about guns I've never fired. Except for knowing when I can't afford one....but that's on me. Not the gun. lol

StormCloud601
February 12, 2010, 12:13 PM
I own a Taurus J frame .38Spl and I'm VERY fond of it. Only reason I own it is I didn't have the money for S&W. Will I ever trade it in for a S&W? In a heartbeat if the opportunity ever presents it's self. Happy Trails, God Bless. John

WVMountainBoy
February 12, 2010, 01:23 PM
I just bought a 66-2 for a hair under $600 that was till in its original box with all its original documentation. I own several .38/.357's and while this one hasn't had work outs to move it ahead of my Ruger Security Six, it is easily the prettiest revolver I own.

If you enjoyed reading about "Old S&W vs New Taurus / Rossi" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!