Taurus vs. Smith & Wesson


PDA






DD
January 18, 2004, 04:30 PM
Hi Guys:

This subject has probably been addressed more times than one can count. However, I'm new here The High Road and would appreciate a few moments of your time and your opinions.

Thinking about a 44 Mag. What is your opinion of either the S&W 629 or the Taurus Raging Bull in 44 Mag? There's about a $165 difference between the two at retail.

Thanks in advance for your comments.

Dan

If you enjoyed reading about "Taurus vs. Smith & Wesson" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
LoneWulf
January 18, 2004, 04:44 PM
If you get a good one, Taurus us just fine.
If you have my luck and get the ones that light strike and require work, then they suck.
Smiths are generally more reliable.

I know that didn't help a bit, sorry. ;)

Shootcraps
January 18, 2004, 04:51 PM
The Taurus is a great deal for the dollar. And with a lifetime warranty no matter who owns it, that sweetens the deal. I've owned a couple of them and always enjoyed them.

If money isn't a problem, go with the S&W. The model 29 is a great gun.

stiletto raggio
January 18, 2004, 05:04 PM
I know you didn't ask, but Ruger. I prefer the Redhawk for aesthetic reasons, and the 7.5" version has integral scope mounts. They are the toughest double actions out there, good triggers, good sights. I ahve a 5.5" Redhawk in .45 Colt that is a blast to shoot.

JDSlack
January 18, 2004, 05:05 PM
I have never owned a Taurus, but have fired several owned by friends. I found them to be good serviceable revolvers (have no experience with their semis). They are priced great too. I have always been a Smith revolver fan, and still am, but if there was a caliber revolver I wanted and taurus made it, I might go for it...especilly since it don't got that stoopid lock!

liliysdad
January 18, 2004, 05:17 PM
Smith and Wesson, hands down. I like Taurus stuff, but it doesnt compare quality wise.

You can get a slicker than greased owl ???? used 29/629 for less than a new Taurus.....thats what Id do.

cxm
January 18, 2004, 05:30 PM
ONly owned one... which was given to me... it was pretty bad... got rid of it muy pronto.

FWIW

Chuck

stans
January 18, 2004, 05:48 PM
When I was shopping for my first 44 Magnum, I looked at the Taurus offerings, S&W, and Ruger. I settled on the Ruger Super Redhawk. It was $100 less than the S&W and seemed to be of higher quality than the Taurus revolvers I saw. I have only one Taurus revolver, a model 96 which is very similar to a S&W K-22. But the trigger and accuracy are certainly not up to a K-22.

DD
January 18, 2004, 06:28 PM
Thanks Guys:

I didn't think of the Redhawk. Your comments confirm my thoughts about the Taurus; kind of in that maybe maybe not category. I own a Smith and a Ruger, so don't have any misgivings about their quality. I am concerned about Taurus though.

Thanks again for your thoughts. I appreciate your time.

Dan

Arub
January 18, 2004, 06:53 PM
Taurus and Rossi are both owned by Braztech. Same customer service organization. Braztech's customer service, based on personal experience, leaves a great deal to be desired. I sent a Rossi revolver back to Braztech 3 times for a timing issue. Three times they sent it back to me 'fixed'. Never timed out in DA rapid fire mode. I finally destroyed the revolver rather than put more money into it for more frustration out of them.

If you get a Taurus that functions well, no problem. If you get one that needs work, look out!.

I also had to return a Smith model 60 for a leading problem. From drop off at FEDEX to perfectly functioning revolver at my front door was less than a week. No problems with it to this day.

Anyone can turn out a lemon once in a while. You should deal with a company with very good to excellent service - Smith and/or Ruger (personal experience with Ruger, also - they were great also).

SnWnMe
January 18, 2004, 06:54 PM
I have never owned a Taurus, but have fired several owned by friends. I found them to be good serviceable revolvers (have no experience with their semis). They are priced great too. I have always been a Smith revolver fan, and still am, but if there was a caliber revolver I wanted and taurus made it, I might go for it...especilly since it don't got that stoopid lock!

Tauri have locks too.

HSMITH
January 18, 2004, 06:56 PM
If you are a single action shooter 98% of the time, plinker or want to shoot he-man loads all the time get the Ruger, no doubt about it.

If you want a nice double action 44 magnum handgun the S&W and the Taurus both are good. The Taurus has pathetic resale value, most of it because of internet discussion groups in my opinion but I digress. The S&W has good resale value. The Taurus Raging Bull is stronger and will hold up to heavy loads longer than the S&W will, but still not like the Redhawk. Each has strong points and weak points.

What do you plan to do with it? Makes a difference on which one will fit best.

Flipper
January 18, 2004, 10:14 PM
Get a Ruger Redhawk or Blackhawk, That's the kind of delivery system you want for the 44 Mag.

mustang45
January 19, 2004, 12:33 PM
100 bucks = 300 rounds of .44 magnum rounds.

If SW is better, go for it. The price different will be forgotten after 3 range trip. I have the Ranging Bull in .44 magnum and it is more reliable than me. That gun should last 134 years. I have shot 13k rounds through it and it still look brand new.

I now want a Ruger. I don't have a clue which is better between Redhawk, Blackhawk, and Vaquero. Can anyone help me out here. Which one is more durable and better?

the_return_of_thanos
September 12, 2008, 10:43 PM
I too am considering a .44 magnum. S&W is the best in my opinion, but I also would be just as comfortable with a Taurus or Ruger.

IMHO, people who say they ONLY will have an S&W, especially when it comes to the .44 is because they want to have that "Dirty Harry" gun. S&W is great, and you can't go wrong, but Taurus is under-rated, IMHO.

I have owned a taurus .38 snub 5 shot (got it for $280 new), and currently own a Taurus .357 magnum 7 shot (Got it for $350 new) model 66. It is very similar to my dad's police service revolver, a S&W Model 64 .38 special. In my opinion, is just as accurate, and quality is just as good.

I don't think anyone has mentioned this, but my understanding is that many Taurus guns are actually older S&W dies Taurus purchased from them.


When I get a .44, I will definitely look at Taurus, if I can't afford a model 629.

tinygnat219
September 12, 2008, 11:32 PM
Gyuh...

Get the Smith if the price difference is that small. You will save at least that much in shipping costs over buying the Taurus.

machinisttx
September 12, 2008, 11:36 PM
Taurus is not now, and probably never will be the equal of a S&W. They turn out way too many lemons and their customer service, by many accounts, is unsatisfactory.

IMO, if you intend on using the gun a lot with heavy loads, buy a Ruger. If not, buy the 629.

MikeWSC
September 13, 2008, 12:12 AM
Hey DD

Are you gonna hunting with the .44? Have a 629 in 6" and its a great gun, but you can really load the Ruger Super Redhawks/Blackhawks with some ground pounder loads. I've shot more deer with my Ruger SB than any other.

If you can find a used Dan Wesson .44 mag in the same price range, another nice shooter.

The S & W have a bit lighter frame..... Just something to keep in mind.

Best....... Mike

lanternlad1
September 13, 2008, 12:20 AM
Taurus and Smith were both owned by the same company at the same time, hence the great similarities in the weapons they make. That said, I have seen better quality in Smiths than Taurus, and Smith's service is top-notch. If you get a good Taurus, great. If you don't, be prepared for a long wait for them to fix it.

Norstrog
September 13, 2008, 01:23 AM
If your concerned about money buy the Taurus they are solid reliable weapons with a good warranty. If you can spare the extra bucks buy the Smith.

However, I have to ask. What are you shooting with a 44 magnum? Maybe it's because my .357 experience is with my SP101 with a 2.25" barrel but I flat ass don't enjoy shooting .357's out of it. I tried to like it and definitely see the advantages over the .38 special but I've decided it's just not worth it! Maybe I'm just wussy who knows.

Oh yeah, I agree with the others buy a Ruger. Smith guys well argue all day long but you can't beat 'em!

19-3Ben
September 13, 2008, 01:36 AM
Hey DD

Are you gonna hunting with the .44?

Look at the date of the post. If he were still considering which .44 he wanted over 4.5 years later...

Norstrog
September 13, 2008, 02:07 AM
Ben. You win the gold star for being most observant! I didn't even look at the date. I picked the thread up by looking at recent postings! I kind of have to agree putting the thought into it 4 years later doesn't seem worth my while.

weregunner
September 13, 2008, 03:09 AM
Yes, indeed. Seems a bit odd to drag a ancient history thread back out.

If anyone wants the links for legit reasons on the Taurus Raging Bull line or for the Tracker please PM me. Otherwise I'm wasting my time on a long ago dead thread.LOL

Maybe there should be an exorcism? LOL

weregunner
September 13, 2008, 03:24 AM
Since this was brought back for a reason or possible agenda why not stoke the fires if things are going in that direction?
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=945.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=9162.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=8478.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=7538.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=1382.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=1814.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=8345.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=1423.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=5747.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=1574.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=6016.0
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?board=22.0

Those are not about the Taurus Raging Bull or Tracker series.

Since something didn't seem to pass the smell test these links were put in place. LOL

Won't be back to this thread for any reason. Have duties elsewhere. LOL

Ala Dan
September 13, 2008, 08:02 AM
I would seek out an older (used, but not abused) S&W model 29; in ANIB
condition. Probably will be kind'a pricey; but well worth every dime spent~! ;)

Stainz
September 13, 2008, 08:39 AM
I will finally have to differ with my esteemed friend Ala Dan. If you want a shooter, a current stock 629 will have, along with that Infernal Lock, all of the 'endurance enhancements' and a round butt. The latter will enable the user to put some recoil absorbing Hoque .500 Magnum grips on it. Also, recent 629s, with that 'IL', have a lower resale value than period 29 & 629 models, making a little used one a real bargain. Of course, if you want a 'Dirty Harry' gun, get a 29 in good shape - it'll still be a great shooter.

Make mine stainless steel... with those .500 Maggie grips!

Stainz

Fat Boy
September 13, 2008, 10:02 AM
I have owned Taurus revolvers in .38 special, .357 mag, and .44 special. The .357 mag was new and the action would lock up when shooting periodically; I sold it. The .38 special and .357 mag both shot way off center; they too were sold/traded.

One thought on the lifetime guaranty, which is good; it requires shipping to and from Taurus, which may or may not cost the owner anything, and it involves time...

the s&w revolvers I have owned over the years have never given me a minutes problems...

I would try to find a used s&w, to avoid the lock...

Just my 2 cents...YMMV

indiandave
September 13, 2008, 10:25 AM
People always bring up the price differance between Taurus and S&W. If you can bearly afford a cheaper gun, you probably can't afford ammo,cleaning stuff, etc. Wait until you are in a better financial position. If you can't for some reason look at some used guns. you can get a better deal.

Friendly, Don't Fire!
September 13, 2008, 10:33 AM
I believe you will buy it once if you buy a S&W.

If you buy a Taurus and, if for some reason, you don't like it, you'll want a Smith until you get a Smith.

Pay the extra $165 and get the better quality.

Lifetime warranty means nothing. You can purchase a $40 watch made in China with a lifetime warranty. If the watch ever fails, just send in $14.95 for shipping and handling along with the piece of junk and they will ship you a new watch (it probably only costs a bowl of rice to make in the first place).

I've owned Smiths and always will until I die. I looked at the Taurus when it first came out and "I wasn't sold on it one bit."

That's my opinion, for what little it's worth!

Indifferent
September 13, 2008, 12:58 PM
I went looking for a Smith and ended up with a Taurus 85 in Blue Steel.

Love it.
Solid.
No Slop.
Feels Good.

4v50 Gary
September 13, 2008, 01:15 PM
Superior lockwork in the S&W revolver. Compare them (look at parts diagram). I also consider S&W customer service superior to Taurus. Finally, buy American (in this case).

Old Fuff
September 13, 2008, 02:23 PM
Gary:

I recently bought a H.P computer, thinking it was "made in America."

No such luck. Turns out it was made in China... :cuss::cuss:

Taurus revolvers are made in Flordia, using both domestic and Brazilan parts. :scrutiny:

jad0110
September 13, 2008, 05:16 PM
Use the revolver checkout procedure at the top of the revolver forum. You can find good and bad examples of either. Had a Taurus 66 that was wonderful.

Had a Taurus 94 that was crap. Go figure.

I will say though that Smiths hold their value better, and they have a much better customer service reputation than Taurus, whom I've had the unfortunate experience of dealing with on said turd Model 94.

SeanSw
September 13, 2008, 06:00 PM
I have a great example of a Taurus model 96. It has been the equal of my S&W 617, but without wanting a duplicate .22 in my collection I've contemplated selling it. No one wants to buy it for what I think it's worth, so here it stays.

"You want how much for a Taurus?" is the common reply.

JR47
September 13, 2008, 06:49 PM
If you want a fine revolver, S&W isn't the answer. They are what they are sold as, medium priced revolvers. While not a .44, I have a Korth in .357 Magnum that makes a S&W action, accuracy, and fit and finish look like a Yugo parked amongst Ferraris.

The various Colt offerings were also clearly superior to even the mystical "old models". The King Cobra, Python, and so on leave S&W fit and finish in 10th place in a six place race.

If you're going to advise someone to "save up for a better gun", at least have them do it FOR a better gun.

novaDAK
September 14, 2008, 06:33 PM
Taurus revolvers are made in Flordia, using both domestic and Brazilan parts.
They may do some work down in FL but if they were actually put together here, wouldn't they say "made in USA"? The Taurus I owned for awhile said Made in Brazil on the frame. I was under the impression that Taurus USA in Miami, FL was simply the importer and customer service 'hub' for Forjas Taurus of Brasil.

ArchAngelCD
September 14, 2008, 07:36 PM
I now want a Ruger. I don't have a clue which is better between Redhawk, Blackhawk, and Vaquero. Can anyone help me out here. Which one is more durable and better?
mustang45,
The Redhawk (http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/FAFamily?type=Revolver&subtype=Single%20Action&famlst=13) is a DA/SA revolver with adjustable sights.

The Blackhawk (http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/FAProdResults?function=famid&famid=13&variation=Satin%20Stainless&bct=Yes&type=Revolver) is a SA only revolver with adjustable sights. Currently they are chambered in .357 Magnum, .41 Magnum, 30 Carbine and .45 Colt so if you want a .44 Magnum you will need to buy a Super Blackhawk (http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/FAFamily?type=Revolver&subtype=Single%20Action&famlst=15).

The Vaquero (http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/FAFamily?type=Revolver&subtype=Single%20Action&famlst=57) is a SA only revolver with fixed sights. It's similar to a Colt SSA revolver and not really good for hunting. It's chambered in .357 Magnum and .45 Colt.

All are durable because Ruger overbuilds their revolvers. (and that's not a bad thing) Most who hunt with a revolver prefer a single action revolver because they are easier to shoot well. The trigger on a SA revolver usually breaks very cleanly which aids in shooting well. The Redhawk is also a good revolver for hunting if you want the capability to shoot Double Action since you always have the option to shoot SA too. The Vaquero really isn't a good hunting revolver, it's more suited for Cowboy Action Shooting than hunting.

Hope this helps a little....

Friendly, Don't Fire!
September 14, 2008, 07:38 PM
I never heard of it, but then there are a lot of things of which I am not aware.

I took the liberty to check the cost of a 6" 357 Magnum Korth revolver (blued).
Sit down. The MSRP is $5,000

The Korth series of Revolvers is one of the most expensive revolver designs in the world and many consider them to be the finest in the world. This German revolver design is carefully crafted. The revolver design is available is .22 Long Rifle, .22 Magnum, .32 S&W, .38 Special, 9 mm, and .357 Magnum. copied from http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Firearms/Revolvers/Korth_Revolver.htm

IMHO, I would rather purchase six to ten S&W revolvers than one Korth, or, perhaps the OP doesn't reload. With that kind of money, the OP can buy a brand new stainless S&W, put new Millett sights of his choice on it (or any other brand, for that matter) and, more than likely, have enough money left over to get into reloading with all new equipment -- possibly INCLUDING a progressive press (capable of reloading up to 600 rounds an hour). In which case, the OP could then work up an accurate load suitable for his/her needs.

The OP was questioning whether they should spend the additional $165 for the S&W over the Taurus. I highly doubt the OP is thinking about spending $5K on a revolver. Maybe I'm wrong. I have been wrong in the past.

Old Fuff
September 14, 2008, 09:32 PM
They may do some work down in FL but if they were actually put together here, wouldn't they say "made in USA"? The Taurus I owned for awhile said Made in Brazil on the frame. I was under the impression that Taurus USA in Miami, FL was simply the importer and customer service 'hub' for Forjas Taurus of Brasil.

The frame is marked "Made in Brazil," and it is. However if Taurus (or any other foreign gun maker) imports complete guns they pay a stiff tariff, which in turn would end up being paid for by the retail customer.

However if they just import parts the custom duty is much lower. So they import some parts, buy some here, and assemble the guns in Florida. In the end the customer saves. Some foreign car makers do exactly the same thing.

searcher451
September 14, 2008, 09:39 PM
S&W's customer service is generally considered to be a gold standard in the gun business. The customer service provided by Taurus can best be described as spotty (although, to be fair, it does have its advocates as well as its detractors).

I've had to use S&W's customer service on a couple of occasions, and it was a pleasure to deal with those folks. For that reason alone, I wouldn't ever hesitate to recommend an S&W-backed product.

Friendly, Don't Fire!
September 14, 2008, 09:44 PM
When Taurus first came out and I was in the market for a revolver, all I needed to see was "Made in Brazil" on the piece and "Made in USA" on the Smith & Wesson, and I bought the Smith & Wesson without hesitation - to the gun dealer's disatisfaction, as he wanted me to buy the Taurus (perhaps the markup was more for the Taurus than for the S&W).

When I looked closely at the workings, the cylinder locking, and other features, I could clearly see that the S&W was a much better revolver. That was my opinion. As shown in other posts within this thread, opinions vary widely. The "checkbook" has a lot to do with the purchase as well.

This was not my only experience with S&W. I have owned several S&W revolvers going back to around 1983. All have been stainless. I had a 357 6" and a 44 4". I currently have a new 500 4" for which I load and with which I hunt.

tinygnat219
October 2, 2008, 01:48 AM
Korth is a good revolver if one has a large bank account.

JR47
October 2, 2008, 09:02 AM
Yes, owning both the revolver, and the semi-auto, I can honestly say that they are so much superior to S&W's offerings as to make it no contest.

That's an extreme example of what we see here. Do any of us buy a Prius expecting it's performance to be the equal of a BMW? No, we don't. At the various price breaks, standard features, and fit and finish, vary. Guns are the same.

S&W is, on average, at least 25-30% more expensive than Taurus. Both shoot bullets with the same relative accuracy. My experiences with 12 (now) of them has been that they are quite durable. I have several pistols and revolvers that have passed the 15K mark, without any repair or replacement except my own regimen of recoil springs in semi-autos at 5000 rounds.

I own more S&W revolvers. These are all pre-lock guns, many from the pre-War era. I've had a brand new Model 625-3 fail on the first shot, when the hand broke. Took S&W six weeks to get it back to me. I have had a Model 29-4 shoot loose with 500 rounds of factory .44 magnum ammo. I have a Model 19-6 that showed cracks in the forcing cone after fewer than 2000 rounds, about three-quarters of them .357 Magnum factory loads.

The K frame S&W, when used with Magnum loads, will self-destruct in as few as 2000 rounds. The "L" frame was designed because of this.

S&W had to beef up the Model 29, but only after decades of production, because it became known that the revolvers would shoot-loose in an amazingly short period of time.

It's all a matter of opinion. I, for the one, have owned, and do own, many of the pistols made by both manufacturers. The Taurus guns get used, while the S&Ws tend to sit, and look pretty, which they are very good at.

As for buying six S&W pistols for my Korth, why? I wanted a gun that was the epitome of the art. Just like people who buy Pythons, or Performance Shop guns (pale imitations, to be sure). If we all were worried about prices, we'd be shooting .22s.:)

tinygnat219
October 2, 2008, 09:42 AM
Searcher451,

I am now dealing with my first ever S&W experience. I acquired a 686 in a trade, after firing a few cylinder fulls of .38 SPL reloads, then attempting to extract the shells, the cylinder came off of the crane. Kind of puzzling as to how this could happen, but it did. I don't know the history beyond "used".

S&W's customer service is generally considered to be a gold standard in the gun business. The customer service provided by Taurus can best be described as spotty (although, to be fair, it does have its advocates as well as its detractors).
How long did it take for your problem to be taken care of?

I've had to use S&W's customer service on a couple of occasions, and it was a pleasure to deal with those folks. For that reason alone, I wouldn't ever hesitate to recommend an S&W-backed product.
Since this is a first for me, I find this reassuring. Did you get a phone call, or an E-mail stating when your S&W would be back?

Thanks!

MCgunner
October 2, 2008, 12:25 PM
Smith and Wesson is crap. If you can't afford a Korth, save until you can. It's your life, ya know. You want that Smith crap breaking on you? I've had 'em break on ME! :rolleyes:

[/sarcasm]

glockman19
October 2, 2008, 12:32 PM
There are a few manufacturers I won't buy. Taurus & Rossi are two of them.

Pay a little more and get a S&W or Ruger.

tinygnat219
October 2, 2008, 01:08 PM
MCgunner,

Of Korth, if you want to endanger yourself that's up to you of Korth. By refusing to look at S&W, you open yourself up to a new Korth of options.

(Sarcasm too). For some reason the theme to Mr. Ed is in my head.

Oh, a horse is a horse of Korth of Korth...
and so on.

MCgunner
October 2, 2008, 01:14 PM
Of Korth, that comment was meant for the "get what you pay for" crowd. I'm carrying a M85 today. The other day on my collection rounds (usually have several hundred bucks in quarters on me in some bad areas) I was toting my 3" Taurus M66 with my M85UL in my pocket as back up. I was as well armed as anyone using Smith and Wessons. Both these guns are accurate, powerful enough, and reliable. I sort of like the combination as I can carry .38+P for reloads in speed strips and use 'em in either gun.

I actually beat 11 Smith and Wessons in a revolver shoot the other day with my Taurus 4" 66, bone stock, no trigger work. It was a pepper popper timed shoot, all DA. I quite enjoy that, whippin' up on thousand dollar revolvers with my 200 dollar Taurus that just happens to be the most accurate medium frame revolver I've ever owned among 2 Smiths and a Ruger. :D

tinygnat219
October 2, 2008, 02:12 PM
McGunner,

That was my poor attempt at humor.:barf:
Yeah, it was that bad.
Never even seen a Korth for sale.

Pure Kustom
October 2, 2008, 03:03 PM
For resale value S&W, for quality S&W. For a cheap price Taurus. I have one a Raging Bull .353 casull. It is in the shop for a trigger job and forcing cone reduction. It is to tight.

http://www.klubkustoms.com/cms/cpg142/albums/userpics/10003/normal_100_7794.jpg

4 of them are .44magnums:D

weregunner
October 3, 2008, 03:07 AM
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=8478.0

Own the Taurus revolvers. 3 older ones that are more than 20+ years of age.

Models 66,65,and 85CH. Dureability, reliability, and dead on accuracy have been the bywords.

Bought the Taurus 94 as an understudy gun to compliment the centerfire ones. It's cheaper to shoot .22lrf for most practice than the more expensive centerfire guns.

As a follow on I went and procured a newer 66 and an 82. All work well and hae given sterling service.

My experience has been duplicate to McCgunner's in the accuracy department with the .357 magnum/.38 Special ammo combos.

Fishman777
October 3, 2008, 12:07 PM
If I were to go out and buy a new revolver, I would consider two manufacturers: Ruger and Smith and Wesson. I'd also consider Colts, but Colt doesn't offer their DA, any longer. Colt may still offer them through their custom shop, or whatever they call it, but I'm not certain of this.

I prefer the Ruger designs, but also feel that Smiths are damn good revolvers, as well.

Rugers have solid frames, modular trigger assemblies, triple locking cylinders (ejector rods don't count as a third locking point - if they do, Ruger has four), and no locks. I also love the modular grip designs on Ruger's newer DA revolvers. Ruger DA revolvers are the most modern designs in DA revolvers, today. I certainly like Smiths, but Ruger's design features make for a more durable and reliable revolver. Rugers aren't perfect, but they really excell in the areas that are important to me: durability, reliability, flexibility (with grips), accuracy, and ease of maintenance. As much as I like Smiths, I suspect that I'll continue to buy Ruger revolvers in the future. I've bought three Rugers already and see no reason not to get more.

I would not put Taurus in the same category as Rugers and Smiths. Taurus revolvers are copies of Smith and Wessons. If you prefer Smith and Wesson design features over Ruger's, why get a Taurus (a copy), when you can get a Smith? The extra money is worth it. I'm not into buying expensive guns, but you get what you pay for. If you get a bad Taurus and decide to sell it, you're going to lose a couple hundred dollars. Why not spend a little more, get something that you know will be good, and be done with it?

MCgunner
October 3, 2008, 12:14 PM
I would not put Taurus in the same category as Rugers and Smiths. Taurus revolvers are copies of Smith and Wessons. If you prefer Smith and Wesson design features over Ruger's, why get a Taurus (a copy), when you can get a Smith?

Because my taurus was considerably less money and is a considerbly better gun than either my M19 or my Ruger security six were. It's just as simple as that. I was primarily looking for accuracy with magnum and .38 wadcutter in a medium frame 4" .357 and my Taurus is the only gun that can but BOTH into an inch or less at 25 yards off the bench. That matters in a field gun to me, maybe not to you. I can use the accuracy when I'm shooting at a rabbit's head at 20 yards. The gun is not just a self defense revolver for me. Don't hurt that the trigger quality is just as good as my Smith and better than my Ruger and that the design is better than a K frame in the forcing cone area of the frame and barrel, stronger, no worrys about split forcing cones.


So, IOW, my Taurus is superior to previous Smiths and Rugers I've owned for my purposes. Next question.

Fishman777
October 3, 2008, 05:13 PM
Some folks like the old Ruger security sixes, but I am not one of them. Those old guns appeal to some, but Ruger's newer offerings replaced the security sixes for a reason. The newer Ruger revolvers are better than the security six line.

I'd take a GP100 or a sp101 over a security six, any day. In fact, I'd take either of those two revolvers over any other revolver that is currently on the market.

There is at least one famous revolver smiths out there that refuses to work with Taurus revolvers. Grant Cunningham refuses to work on them, because in his opinion, they are not good revovlers. Grant, even though he is a Colt man, posted an article on his blog about the GP100 and SP101s. He thinks that they are the best revolvers on the market right now.

MCgunner
October 3, 2008, 06:05 PM
The GP100 is a 40 ounce pig. I can carry my blackhawk just as easy and it's a lot stronger gun than a GP100, built to take the .44 magnum, solid, no need for lock ups on the frame or where ever. I have a 4 5/8" stainless in .45 Colt that's uber accurate and can toss a 300 grain bullet out at 1200 fps. It's a bit more gun than a .357 and weighs no more than a GP100. I tote it sometimes when I'm working around my place for a hog if I see one. I've carried it elsewhere, but when I'm hiking and just interested in some protection and, perhaps, a survival weapon, the Taurus is a lot lighter on the belt, a K frame size and weight gun.

I had an SP101, but it's no pocket gun, very heavy at 27 ounces. I'd rather carry my Taurus M85SSUL at 17 ounces in .38 special. It's got 7K or so round count and still tight and accurate and you forget you have it in your pocket. I bought it new 12 years ago, actually traded a Ruger P95 for it. My 14 ounce Kel Tec P11 is an alternative. I sold the SP101 back to my son-in-law. If I get another one, it'll have a 3" barrel, no harder to carry IWB and gives you a better sight radius. Excellent little .357, much better than my six was, and I liked it a lot, but rarely carried it. Ruger doesn't make much for practical carry other than the LCP .380. If you want a practical pocket carry revolver, you're lookin at J frames or the Taurus equivalents. For outdoor carry, the SP101 would be fine if you could adjust the sight for elevation with .38 loads.

There is at least one famous revolver smiths out there that refuses to work with Taurus revolvers. Grant Cunningham refuses to work on them, because in his opinion, they are not good revovlers.

Everyone, even a gunsmith, is entitled to an opinion. My Tauri have never needed a gunsmith and if they ever do, I'll find someone that WILL fix 'em. There are smiths that won't touch a Ruger, either, but then there's Gemini and Bowen and others.

Shoot what you want, but you won't push your Taurus bash off on me because I actually own and fire 'em and know better.

weregunner
October 3, 2008, 06:49 PM
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=843.0
Just for the record Taurus revolvers are not S&W knockoffs or direct copies. Read the link.

And here's another to back up the first.
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=1814.0

Fishman777
October 4, 2008, 03:14 AM
I'm sorry, how exactly did I bash Taurus revolvers?

I told you that I did not put Taurus revolvers in the same quality category as Smiths and Rugers. I'm sorry, but I happen to believe that. That is a belief shared by many people that frequent this site. In life, you generally get what you pay for. There are only so many corners that can be cut to reduce manufacturing costs before the quality of any product suffers. Rugers are cheaper than Smiths, but they are cheaper because they've developed manufacturing casting processes that they are famous for.

I also happen to believe that Taurus copied other revolvers (Smith and Wesson *and* Colts). This is common in the firearms industry, but Taurus is pretty well known for copying other manufacturers. Heck, they bought a Beretta factory and license the Beretta 92 build. How original. If you call that bashing, then fine. I guess that makes me a Taurus basher. I guess by your reasoning, I can safely call you a GP100 basher. Your review of the GP100 was a lot more negative than anything that I said.

I'm sorry, but many shooters would agree with my opinions. If you've had good experiences with your Taurus revolvers, then great. I'm glad that your experiences have been good. I personally have no interest in buying any Taurus firearm.

JR47
October 4, 2008, 11:07 AM
they bought a Beretta factory and license the Beretta 92 build.

Beretta offered the factory for sale, as they had filled the contract with the Brazilian government. So, Taurus hasn't copied anything with the T92. The PT92 WAS a Beretta. Sort of like the Cougar, made in Turkey, and sold by Stoeger.

The existing PT92 has diverged from the Beretta over the years, a majority of the parts aren't interchangeable today.

Actually, as far as revolvers goes, all American made revolvers are clones of each other. There are only so many ways to make an appealing revolver. To sell in the American market, you have to look American. The internals of the Taurus are different than that of Colt or S&W. Tautus also has a better lock than S&W, as it lacks the automatic locking feature upon firing.

We own a pair of Security-Six revolvers, and find them to be fine guns. They are easier to conceal than similar GP-100 revolvers. However, the GP-100s that we own have also been flawless, and have marginally better triggers. Both designs seem to hold up better than K-frames with a steady diet of full-power loads.

You generally do get what you pay for in guns. However, that's an apples vs. oranges statement unless you add in the various differences that occur. Wages, EPA regulations, costs of materials and transport, taxes, licensing fees, unemployment paid, costs of litigation insurance, power costs, and the myriad of fees manufacturers pay to the governments that surround it. America is expensive to manufacture in, compared to many other places in the world. Add in the "necessary" profit margin, and a freaking spoon manufactured in America will cost five times what it costs when manufactured South America.

MCgunner
October 4, 2008, 11:21 AM
Fishman777, opinions are like, well, at least one fellow disagrees with you.

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

As to cloning guns, interesting last paragraph.

As I write these words, S&W is busy producing their knock-offs of Glock, High Standard, and Colt/Browning designs, and Walther pistols by agreement with the German parent company. Enough is enough; Smith & Wesson's history of quality control problems and as a corporate copycat is too long, and too nauseating, to delve into farther. Anyway, you've got the picture.

I'm only posting this to show you that you're not the only one with an opinion. I won't buy Smiths with locks, but beyond that, I don't share Hawes' hatred. But, that's his opinion. I do think Smith and Wesson is just as big a crap shoot as any other including Taurus when you buy one, so I check any gun I'm going to purchase out thoroughly before I put down my hard earned cash. I'll give about any brand a chance, good thing, or I wouldn't have found that Taurus 66, best medium frame .357 revolver I've ever owned or fired, at least for the purposes for which I wanted the gun. And, fact is, at 197 bucks, it was the best deal on a revolver I think that I've ever made! One helluva deal. I do appreciate people who think Taurus is junk, drives the used priced down in my area. Lots of Smith and Wesson koolaid drinkers around here. An equivalent K frame would be over twice that price and likely in lesser condition. Oh, but that Smith and Wesson Marcas Registradas stamp on the side is worth it, right? :rolleyes:

squinty
October 4, 2008, 11:43 AM
I like the Smith's better. I have a S&W 629 4" that I love to shoot, and a 649 j-frame in .357. I've shot a few Taurus revolvers at the range, and dry fired a few at the gun store, and there triggers feel sort of gross, like they are full of sand. If I had to do it over again, I might have bought Ruger revolvers instead, they are durable guns as well. So, yeah, go with a S&W or Ruger before a Taurus.

MCgunner
October 4, 2008, 11:45 AM
Often, for some reason, Taurus ships revolvers packed full of grease that must be cleaned out. My M85 has a better trigger than any Smith I've ever pulled and my 66 is the equal of my M10 Smith and my M19 Smith and a heckuva lot better than any out of the box Ruger. Trigger quality is fine enough on the Rugers, though. So long as the trigger is smooth, might not be as light and smooth as my M85, but I can shoot it fine. I liked my SP101 a lot. I'll buy what I wish without much thought of brand. I pick it up, look it over, make my decision. I've never been a "buy American" guy, either. I'll buy American, but it'd better be what I want and meet my standards. For instance, I've never owned a Harley Davidson motorcycle in my 40+ years of riding and racing motorcycles. Over half of a Harley is made outside the country, anyway, DID rims, Showa suspension, yadda, yadda. I own 7 Rugers, one Smith, and one Kel Tec. Those are all American.

DMZ
October 4, 2008, 11:56 AM
Often, for some reason, Taurus ships revolvers packed full of grease that must be cleaned out.

That grease reminds me of cosmoline as it is the same color and nearly the same consistency. My SOP is to remove grips, hose down liberally with carb cleaner, blow out with compressed air, lightly lube with Hoppes Elite or RemOil, replace cheap rubber grips with wood grips, take to range, shoot.

General Geoff
October 4, 2008, 12:06 PM
Suggesting a Korth to a guy debating between a S&W and Taurus is the same as telling a guy to buy an Aston Martin when he's currently choosing between Ford and Volkswagen...

MCgunner
October 4, 2008, 12:14 PM
There are those that suggest "you get what you pay for" and follow that by "it's your life, you wanna bet it on a cheap gun?" or some such BS. Me, I've carried Taurus, Rossi, Kel Tec, etc. LOL Hey, I do shoot my guns. If they work, they work, don't matter what price is on it. A Chevy Chevette got me where I wanted to go back in the 80s just as sure as would have a Corvette. :D The Korth comment was tongue in cheek for the "get what you pay for" crowd. I mean, if you're going on that with Smith and Wesson, there are more expensive guns than Smith and Wesson. Why trust a cheap gun, right?

Hey, DMZ, for lube, I've been using this stuff lately called Corrosion X for firearms. Clings really well; I like the stuff. I'm hoping it'll help protect my waxed shotguns in the salt marsh since it seems to cling and not evaporate or wash off easily, but a drop under the side place works great. :D

wyocarp
October 4, 2008, 12:23 PM
And with a lifetime warranty no matter who owns it, that sweetens the deal.


There is nothing sweet about a warranty. I'd rather have a quality gun that works well than a piece of crap with a warranty.

DMZ
October 4, 2008, 12:25 PM
Hey, DMZ, for lube, I've been using this stuff lately called Corrosion X for firearms. Clings really well; I like the stuff. I'm hoping it'll help protect my waxed shotguns in the salt marsh since it seems to cling and not evaporate or wash off easily, but a drop under the side place works great.

Thanks for the tip MC'. I will look into it, even though I don't live anywhere close to a salt marsh :eek:, out here, they all turned to alkali flats last time the climate warmed up.

Brian Williams
October 4, 2008, 01:55 PM
Had Taurus,
Have S&W.
b

Virginian
October 4, 2008, 03:20 PM
If there is a less objective subject on the face of the earth, that gets treated less objectively, than any X versus Y gun topic I don't know what it could be. I don't know why people love to bother with these. Everyone's mind is completely made up at the outset. Everyone has a horror story about "the Other" brand. Everyone is a quality expert.

TEDDY
October 4, 2008, 06:31 PM
Buna Punta owned both Smith and Taurus.they used smiths old machinery and added coil springs.they sold smith to Thomson inds.thompson ran smith into ground and bugged out.
thr taurus is imported by the florida group who do not own taurus. and does not warrent any taurus they do not import.
I have a model 10 I will put up against any.I have a Rossi in 22 it works good.
I have a Ruger blackhawk in 45 colt the chambers are excellent,it was bought new.I would not buy a Colt unless it was used and old.pre 60s.BUT I am a target shooter not a machine gun.I want the best accuracy the gun will give not the most shots.I will never wear my guns out.and they all work.:uhoh::rolleyes::D

JR47
October 5, 2008, 09:54 AM
Suggesting a Korth to a guy debating between a S&W and Taurus is the same as telling a guy to buy an Aston Martin when he's currently choosing between Ford and Volkswagen...

Thinking about a 44 Mag. What is your opinion of either the S&W 629 or the Taurus Raging Bull in 44 Mag?

No worse than the "my model 10" comments.

Buna Punta owned both Smith and Taurus.they used smiths old machinery and added coil springs.they sold smith to Thomson inds.thompson ran smith into ground and bugged out.

Bangor Punta is the holding company. They did NOT sell Taurus to Thompson, as Taurus was bought by a Brazilian national. I'd also like to see something that backs up the "used Smith's old machinery, and added coil springs" comments. It flies in the face of anything that I can find on-line, or in a library.

Questionable facts like these seem to surface regularly. It's amazing how nobody can ever seem to link to a source that isn't yet anopther old wive's tale.

tinygnat219
October 5, 2008, 12:08 PM
Had 7 Taurus models: Now 0
Had 0 S&W models: Now 5

JR47
October 5, 2008, 04:26 PM
Whatever.

Friendly, Don't Fire!
October 5, 2008, 05:19 PM
Re-mortgage the house and buy a Korth.

Then, when you can't make payments on the house, at least you will have a nice gun that you can trade in on a used tent so you can move onto the corner of Dad's property.

S&Wfan
October 5, 2008, 05:32 PM
THE JANUARY 2004 RESURRECTED POST THAT WON'T DIE!

Friendly, Don't Fire!
October 5, 2008, 05:35 PM
Must be because of Wall Street.

JR47
October 5, 2008, 07:04 PM
If $6000 requires that you refinance your house, or take out a second mortgage, you really should consider buying a Raven instead of a Korth.

I have two, a revolver and a semi-auto. Bought the Semi new, and the revolver used. Both are flawless examples of the gun-makers art. That said, they do the same thing as the Raven, but with more aplomb.

Currently have 37 S&W handguns.

Currently have 12 Taurus Handguns.

To get those 37 S&W handguns, I examined over 100 of them.

To get those 12 Taurus handguns, I examined less than 20 of them.

I regularly shoot all 12 Taurus handguns.

As part of my collection, I rarely shoot a S&W. many are out of production, and have zero factory support. The others are worrisome as to their ability to stand up to the listed Magnum loadings. I'll buy an L-frame soon, and will feel relatively safe feeding it a steady diet of .357 Magnums.

I have 18 Ruger handguns. Examined 20 for them, and also shoot them regularly.

So: Shooting guns:

Taurus-12
Ruger -18
S&W -0.

tinygnat219
October 5, 2008, 09:35 PM
Whatever.

JR47, I couldn't have said it better re: Taurus myself.

Friendly, Don't Fire!
October 5, 2008, 10:12 PM
Quote:
Whatever.

Fishman777
October 5, 2008, 11:05 PM
No question.

I'm not going to defend Smith and Wesson. When I saw that link, I laughed out loud. That article was one of the reasons that I started to look into Rugers. I don't believe everything that I read, but that article planted the "seed" in my mind to consider other manufacturers. As a result of this article, I started looking into Rugers, and then I got hooked.

I like shooting Smiths, but not enough to buy one. I still think that S&W makes better guns than Taurus, but you made your point.

Rugers aren't perfect, but in my opinion, Ruger revolvers are the best DA revolvers on the market. Just one man's opinion. I definitely respect yours, even if I disagree.

tinygnat219
October 5, 2008, 11:09 PM
Fishman777,

Which Ruger Revolver(s) have you picked up? How would you say that the Security Six compares to the GP100?

Thanks!

ZeroCool
October 6, 2008, 12:15 AM
There is no doubt in my mind that, generally speaking, S&W makes a better product than Taurus.

That said, I do not think that S&W makes a $200-300 better product than Taurus so I chose a Taurus 66 as my first revolver (in blue, which S&W doesnt deem popular enough to produce any longer :scrutiny:).

Will I be happy with my decision? I'll let you know in a week or so when the background check is complete.

JR47
October 6, 2008, 11:04 AM
Fair's fair. :)

gunut
April 5, 2009, 12:24 AM
I will not buy the new smiths with the lock...but would consider myself a S&W person [older ones]...but today I purchased my first Taurus revolver...a model 96 6in 22cal, box, papers, 99% $200 ....looks and seems to function like the older no under lug S&W model 17....hope it makes a nice plinker and for the price I wont worry as much about it as I would paying $500 or more 4 a nice S&W 17........

ArmedBear
April 5, 2009, 01:02 AM
JR47-

You own 37 Smiths, but don't shoot any of them.

But you shoot your 12 Taurus revolvers regularly.

The only conclusion I can come to is that you must collect fine Smiths that you don't want to booger up -- and that you don't own any S&W "shooters". That hardly means that they don't exist, just that you aren't into buying them.

When I have compared new Taurus revolvers with new Smith revolvers at the shop, there isn't one single Taurus I'd pick over the Smith, if money were no object. Every single Smith feels better.

Is the price premium justified? Do the triggers feel as good as an old one? Maybe not. But they feel better than the Taurus competition.

So, your choice to buy a bunch of low-round-count P&R Smiths with collector value, and a bunch of Tauruses to shoot at the range has nothing whatever to do with the question, really.

Mainer2009
April 5, 2009, 01:08 AM
I own several of each brand, and I think both companies make a a great revolver. I've read quite a bit about how durable, and tough, the raging bull series is. I have a 44 mag Taurus Tracker, my only complaint about it, is that it's a little on the lite side for the cartidge, but other than that, it's been a solid, reliable, accurate side arm. Out of all my hand guns, the 2 that I carry the most are the Taurus model 66, blued, 357 mag with a 4" bbl, and my S&W model 28-2 Highway patrolman 357 magnum with a 6" bbl, I like them both the same. I guess I can only speak from personal experience, and that is that I think you would be happy with either gun, good luck.

Dark Skies
April 5, 2009, 05:29 AM
I used to shoot various range-owned Taurus models at my now closed pistol club. Nothing wrong with them at all for the price. But when my firearm certificate came through I bought Smith & Wesson. Price was a little higher but you could see where the money went in overall finish and quality.

BHP FAN
April 5, 2009, 06:14 AM
I like 'em both.The only problem with the Taurus is that it wasn't made in .45acp. in 1917.

Merkelman
April 6, 2009, 09:20 PM
I think that owning 12 Tauri and shooting them regularly is called Masochism!

10-Ring
April 6, 2009, 09:39 PM
I have bought two -- will never buy another one & have never picked one up that I liked. I'd go w/ a pre owned safe queen S&W mod 29 ;)
I have a buddy who has collected several used Tauri wheelguns that he absolutely swears by -
As has been mentioned -- they're hit & miss -- so, the question begs to be asked..."Do you feel lucky?"

Stainz
April 7, 2009, 07:47 AM
Merkelman,

Having a dozen Tauri shooters is just good common sense, especially if they are the same caliber. In that case, you are bound to be able to shoot up a box of ammo on a range trip. Of course, after a trip or two, several would be back in Miami.

I just looked at 25 of my S&Ws - yeah, that's the ticket - resplendent in shiney silver with .38 Spcl +P on them. Sadly, they are like Tauri - destined to go bang but once. They are a partial box of old S&W ammo! That's the only thing with S&W on it that resides on a shelf or in a safe around here that doesn't regularly get dirty. S&Ws are made to be shot.

As I have said, I do have friends who swear by their Taurus revolvers - and never shoot them. Oddly, they are home or personal protection pieces. I also have friends who have tried them - as range guns. Only one still has such - a 4" blued 66 which I resprung for him - an anomaly, for sure. I'll stick with marques with good history - S&Ws, actually, for me. Besides, Taurus ports everything.

Stainz

bikerdoc
April 7, 2009, 08:56 AM
My 695 runs fine.
http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg134/bikerdoc1948/IM000793-1.jpg

ArmedBear
April 7, 2009, 11:57 AM
Only one still has such - a 4" blued 66 which I resprung for him - an anomaly, for sure.

I checked out one like that at the store a few weeks ago. Wish I'd have bought it. It was pretty cheap, and from what I could tell, was well-made and would make a wonderful shooter.

Other Tauri I looked at, new ones in particular, seemed to offer good utility but limited refinement (i.e. the triggers and mechanisms in general worked but felt crappy).

LaBulldog
April 7, 2009, 12:18 PM
Taurus :cuss: :barf:
S&W :D

ZeroCool
April 15, 2009, 06:35 PM
I said I would let you know my thoughts when I got my Taurus but I never did. :D

Anyway, the fit/finish of the gun is superb. The blue is really nice... really dark. The best blue job I have ever seen on a gun (but that isnt really saying much).

The trigger/action felt like someone dumped sand in there before they covered it. There was an audible griding noise when the trigger was pulled. Apparently its common according to the Taurus forum :uhoh:. Anyway, a few shots of brake cleaner and some CLP straightened it right out. The trigger is quite nice (though nothing like my buddies 686 - that trigger is insanely good!)

If money were no option, I would go with the Smith over the Taurus. Seems like you are less likely to run into issues with the Smiths. For my budget and for what I wanted, I think the Taurus is just fine.

Shooting .38 is quite pleasant. Hornady .357? Not so much. :D

ETA: How could I forget!!! My buddies uncle came down while we were shooting the Taurus for the first time to let us try out his 6" Python and Desert Eagle (both .357). The Python was really nice and the DE was just cool to fire (but really impractical imo- especially when you are a full grown man who only wears a size 7 wedding ring).

His Python locked up like a vault - no cylinder movement whatsoever on a well used gun. My Taurus is pretty tight too but its brand new. He actually said that my gun is pretty nice and that Taurus must be making them better than they used to.

kent e
October 23, 2009, 01:06 AM
I'm in the market for a CCW and all around revolver and I've had my heart set on a S&W. But this is what I've realized; J frames are too small for me, L frames are too stinkin large. I've been looking at this model and that.... then I saw the Taurus 617. It's like goldie locks, "just right".

I'm going back to the gun shop and I'm going to look the taurus over with a fine toothed comb and make sure nothing is out of whack. I sure hope it's not the garbage everyone claims them to be. If S&W had this option I'd have it by now but they don't, which is puzzling to me.

I'll post how this all turns out...

ArchAngelCD
October 23, 2009, 05:16 AM
Why does an almost 6 year old thread keep coming back from the Abyss? :rolleyes:

DMZ
October 23, 2009, 08:33 AM
Zombie thread. :uhoh:

FM12
October 24, 2009, 01:22 AM
S&W, hands down. It's a proven winner.

Extremely Pro Gun
October 24, 2009, 01:25 AM
S&W makes the sigma so I would have to say I will never own a S&W. For me.... Taurus is plenty good.

Lifetime Warranty
Good Track Record
Great model selection

This all = a winner!!!

jr4521
October 24, 2009, 10:04 AM
I have a S&W 44 N frame 3 inch, I love it .Not a fan of the Taurus. IMO the company started out in the beginning making sub standard guns,then got better the last 10 years.But then again I am one of those stubborn Smith and Wesson owners from the beginning.

Taurus_9mm
October 24, 2009, 10:19 AM
For me.... Taurus is plenty good.

Agreed. I have owned a few Taurus revolvers over the years and haven't experienced negative issues with any of them. My latest acquisition from their company is a .22LR Tracker 970 which has been a joy to take out for plinking sessions. I need a few more of their revolvers in addition to their 800 Series pistols in 9mm and .45 ACP.

www.taurusarmed.net

roaddog28
October 24, 2009, 11:21 AM
I know the subject of the post is Taurus or Smith in 44 mag. I would recommend a Ruger Redhawk or Blackhawk. The Smiths are too expense now and with the internal lock and mim parts are not work the extra money. Find a nice old Smith than your set. But as far as new the Ruger is much stronger and more durable than either the Smiths or Taurus. The Ruger will out live you. I can't say that for Taurus.

roaddog28

Stainz
October 24, 2009, 11:51 AM
A 4" Redhawk, KRH-444, from the latest (2010) catalog is MSRP $884 and weighs 46 oz. It's cylinder is slightly longer than the S&W 629's, permitting longer bullets to be loaded. It's cast SS construction necessitates more meat to meet the pressure requirements, while a S&W is still hammer forged and heat treated - more strength with less material. Their 4" 629, SKU #163603, has an MSRP of $1,035 and weighs 41.5 oz. They are both great revolvers. I have a 4" (... and 6"!) 629.

I started with Ruger SA's - my first DA was a 7.5" SRH in .454 Casull - because it would handle .45 Colts, too. I nearly diverted to Taurus - stopped only because they ported everything - very thankful for that, in retrospect. I got a gift from my wife over seven years ago - a new S&W 625 Mountain Gun - my first S&W. Soon, there were more - and, last year, the conversion was complete - all S&Ws. Sure, I had more revolvers before - but the fewer I have are what I want and perfect for their applications. It's worth some sacrifice to go S&W - they are nicer - they do work better - they will keep their value. Over half of mine have the IL - more have MIM parts - I have no problem with either. Most were bought new. YMMV.

Stainz

If you enjoyed reading about "Taurus vs. Smith & Wesson" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!