[Hand_Rifle_Guy]

And this doesn''t have anything to do with porting. ;)

I have three different Taurus revolvers, spanning a wide time-span of production. First is a very early Model 82 .38 Special purchased used, second's a 441 (431?) .44 Special purchased NIB, and last is a 425 Tracker .41 Magnum in stainless, also purchased NIB.
[list=1]
They all work fine. In fact, they're all some of the most accurate guns I've GOT. That tired-looking .38 M-82 is the standard that the rest of my handguns get measured against at 100 YARDS!. It'll outshoot my Mountain Gun.

All of the machine work on these guns is top-notch. They're well made, with good fit and finish, with one glowing exception which leads directly to:

They all have the same issue. Strange as it seems, and without detracting from their reliability in any way, all of these guns have Ratchets that are ROUGH. Crudely made. Inconsistent to themselves. Embarassing to look at. Not consistent with the quality of the rest of the gun.
[/list=1]
This is three different iterations of ratchet geometry, over a manufacturing span of some twenty-ish years. They're all drastically different from one another, and strangely, they all work without problems. One of the only consistent complaints I've been able to sort out from the various threads about Taurus guns is that they have timing problems, which is DIRECTLY related to the ratchet geometry.

It makes me wonder why Taurus cannot figure out how to make a decent ratchet. Seems like you're lucky if yours works good, as obviously a lot of 'em don't. I imagine that MOST of 'em work ok, but enought don't to give a lot of folks pause before buying a Taurus, and a bunch of folks good reason never to buy another one.

I checked both my Rugers and my Smiths. Both of those builders have nicely symetrical, self-consistent ratchets. Heck, I have a Smith from 1902 whose ratchet is a thing of beauty, the same as my -4 generation Mountain Gun. For that matter, my two old Colt revolvers also have nicely crafted ratchets. All the ratchets on all of these guns have nice consistent wear marks. The shiny streaks on every tooth is the same as mark on every other tooth on a given cylinder.

Not so with the Tauruses. For them, EVERY TOOTH IS JUST A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. Well, maybe a lot different. Different enough to show with just a casual examination, and a close examination is like "Whoa!" :what:

So: Would all of you Taurus revolver owners do me a favor? Get out your gun, good, bad, or indifferent, and closely examine the ratchet to see if it's self-consistent. I want to know if the teeth are well-formed and nicely machined, or rough and different. Check the wear tracks from the hand, and see what they look like. Get out a magnifying glass, and see what you find.

And then report it here, of course. I am VERY curious as to whether or not my three-for-three record extends beyond my collection.

I LIKE Taurus. I have good reason too, as all of my guns work GREAT. I'd like to reccomend 'em without worry. But I cannot in good consceince do so in the context of the plethora of justified complaints that exist. Revolvers are ANCIENT technology, and there's really no excuse for any manufacturer to not know how to make these parts. Heck, Ruger, S&W and Colt have been doing it correctly right from the get-go. Taurus has some really innovative ideas in the market right now, but it does them no good if they can't get the fundamental aspects of the mechanics correct.

Additionally, if they can't make the ratchets right, what about the rest of the internals? Guns need to WORK RIGHT more than look good. Modern CNC manufacturing methods allow for some of the best-made guns in years to be mass-produced at reasonable costs. How can Taurus still be missing the target?

The ratchet on my Tracker, a latest-generation release, shows a lot of room for improvement. Shouldn't they fix something like that before expanding the line? Just because it works MOST of the time doesn't mean it doesn't need fixing. Especially in the context of the rest of the manufacturers that don't have a problem in this area.

So get out your magnifying glass and take a look. Maybe we can identify an issue, and let 'em know so they can improve their product. Taurus doesn't have any stupid political decisions on their record yet, so if they can improve a bit, they stand to gain some serious business.

Of course, it would help if they would pay off the Cal-DOJ Extortion Racket so I can ACCESS some more of their line. Mayperhaps their politics COULD stand some imrovement? :rolleyes:

Naah. 'Snot THEIR fault. Just my STUPID STATE. :fire: :cuss: :banghead:

[Brian Williams]

My problem is stiff triggers in my 2 Trackers: a 45 colt 4" and 357 6"

[braindead0]

Funny, only problem my Wife (and I) have with her Tracker 627 is it hits too light to ignite anything except Federal primers with any reliability. The trigger is pretty light (no work done on it) and very smooth. She took a revolver class and brought it alone, they had about 15 different revolvers for the ladies to try out (ladies class, I was helping out on the range) mostly S&W.

The instructor was absolutely amazed at the Tracker, she liked the trigger better than the S&W's! I can't help but feel like we just got lucky.

[DeltaElite]

Light primer strikes on five of the seven I have owned.
Now I wanna but another one, the Titanium 357. :D

[Kentucky Rifle]

I've noticed a distinct difference in the looks of the "ratchets" on the cylinder of the 731UL that Taurus built for me from the ground up, and some of the others I've seen. The "teeth" on mine are perfect. In fact, everything about the revolver is perfect. The double-action trigger pull weight is half what the norm is. (I've GOT to start carrying this jewel more.)

KR*

[Kilgor]

Light primer strikes... yep
Poor machining on the rachet star... yep

Is there anything besides a heavier hammer spring (with the resultant heavier trigger pull) that can be done to cure the light primer strikes?

[bpisler]

The last 2 i owned shot to the right, the 606 was off by 2",i opened up the rear sight notch and corrected it.My NIB 85 would shoot 4-5" from POA depending on the load.I returned it to where i bought it and used the money for something else.

[Hand_Rifle_Guy]

Ok, a rundown of problems is nice.

And yes, I talk too much. :D

BUT, what I am SPECIFICALLY asking about is the quality of the machine work on the ratchet star.

That means examine yours CLOSELY. Hence the reference to the magnifying glass.

I don't want to know how it runs, I want to know what it looks like. Mine RUN fine, but LOOK terrible! How about yours?


Are the teeth ALL the same shape?
Are the CONTACT MARKS from the hand PRECISELY the same, or not?
Are the machine marks on the teeth CONSISTENT, or do they vary from tooth to tooth?


Admittedly this question would have little or no bearing on light primer strikes, but it COULD have EVERYTHING to do with stiff triggers. The ratchet is the interface where the reciprocating (Back and forth.) movement of the trigger is translated into the rotational movement of the cylinder. Inconsistency in these tiny little surfaces is going to directly affect things like cylinder alignment and consistency of the trigger pull.

Cylinder alignment is a key factor in mechanical accuracy. When carried to a bad extreme, you get lead shaving and keyholing bullets.

The surfaces involved are small. Tiny, even. Minor differences in dimensions on the contact points are going to have big effects on the leverage available to move the cylinder. It's like changing the length of the lever arm as you index from chamber to chamber.

That's mostly backround, however. What I'm trying to determine is if there's a pattern of sloppy-ness around a very critical set of mechanical interfaces in Taurus products.

I freely admit that this qualifies as a highly technical question aimed at people who might not neccessarily be mechanically inclined. For that reason I appreciate any and all efforts to give me ANY kind of answers. Thanks for your help.

And I'm taking a magnifying glass to the next gun show. I'm going to look at every Taurus revolver I can lay my hands on.

Kentucky Rifle: Exactly WHAT was the difference you noticed? It's nice to hear that Taurus is CAPABLE of producing a perfect ratchet, but it shouldn't be neccessary to have a gun "built from the ground up" in every case. Care to elaborate? This is precisely the info I'm searching for.

[Kentucky Rifle]

The difference is that the ratchet teeth on my 731UL are perfectly formed and smooth, with exact alignment. Each one looks like the one behind it--all around the circle. On SOME of the Tauri I've looked at, the ratchet teeth looked...well, just ugly and crooked. Maybe that doesn't effect function at all, but I'd sure take the one with "perfect teeth" every time!

KR

[10-Ring]

I bought a 22lr revo many years ago. My complaints w/ it are:
1. The trigger was heavy, long and a little gritty when new. After several thousands of rounds, it's not gritty, smoother still on the heavy side & still a long pull.
2. My other complaint is what I call "sell adjusting sights." I'll adjust them, shoot 100 rounds or so an have to re-adjust.

Funny thing tho, after all the shooting I've done w/ it, I've gotten use to it. I shoot it almost every week.

[AR-10]

I got out my M425 (.41 Mag Tracker) and looked closely at the star. The teeth are almost unform and even, but one tooth has an extra bit that the hand must push past as it moves. The machining on the face of the star is not good, but that would not affect function.

The star on my M650 (.357 CH snubby) is noticeably different from tooth to tooth. Not uniform at all.

I looked at several Colts, a Ruger, and a Smith. The workmanship on the stars was noticeably better on all of them.

I like Tauri, but this does bother me some. I'll have to inspect future purchases more closely.

[Hand_Rifle_Guy]

Thanks AR-10, that's just what I'm after.

KR, you too. Perfect answer.

OI! The rest of you!

This is not a general "What's your beef" survey.

I'm asking about RATCHETS!

Please pardon my yelling. Describing problems is all well and good, but I'm fishing for CAUSES here. I need more responses than this.

Go get your gun out of the safe and look at it please!

BTT.

[BLiTzNicK]

The star on my 85UL looked like it was made by an overworked monkey with a hammer and a flat head screw driver. I think the sloppiness was causing some accelerated wear on the notches in the cylinder (timing?).

I didn't need a magnifing glass to see that. It worked fine, but I traded it off.

No more Tauri for me! (for this and other reasons off topic to this discussion)

[WonderNine]

I used to have a 415T Titanium .41 magnum that had a timing problem after only a few hundred rounds. I wish I still had it to examine and take pictures of for you because I'm really interested in the new Titanium 9mm revolver that Taurus is making. I'm just hoping that they come out with a non-ported version and then it will also work without moonclips. 4" barrel version would be nice and of course 6 shots instead of 5!

Sorry for the detour I took. Hope I didn't hijack the thread :uhoh:

:D

[jjmorgan64]

I just picked up a NIB 450 45 colt 2" barrel Titanium, The rachet on it is perfect, completely uniform, Guess I got lucky.

[Kentucky Rifle]

However, my Taurus 731UL is one of the best revolvers I own. Everything about it is perfect. The crane moves like it's on ROLLER bearings! When I pull the hammer back, it's as smooth as glass. And, I've already told you about the trigger. Now, if I could just get the thing back from my wife.... :)
(AWWW, not really. She asked, I gave. What was I supposed to say? "NO, you can't have my Taurus"???) Hummmm. Last night she asked me for her OWN safe. I'd better go to mine and "take inventory".
She HAS been going back to the gun room pretty frequently lately.:scrutiny:

KR

[MarineTech]

I've have owned 2 Taurus revolvers (445T Titanium .44SPL and M850 CIA .38 SPL), and here is what I learned about both of them.

The trigger pull is gritty and overly heavy. (Both)

The cylinder binds up (445T)

The frame cracks (M850)

And I will say unreservedly that Taurus customer service is the epitome of frustration when you try and get them fixed.

Taurus shows some real brilliance in ideas and design, unfortunately this is quickly offset by poor QC and service.

I will not consider owning another Taurus until the problems in those 2 areas have been addressed.

[sctman800]

Looked at mine and the rachet is not a good quality machine work, actually kind of ugly. Mine is a 415 stainless steel .41mag The one problem I had was the pin that locks the rear of the cylinder, Taurus sent me a new pin with spring, no charge and I had it installed by a local gunsmith. The origonal pin was stainless the new is hardened carbon steel. Jim.

[JohnK]

Is there anything besides a heavier hammer spring (with the resultant heavier trigger pull) that can be done to cure the light primer strikes?

A lighter firing pin spring might help with the problem. Since the hammer strike forces the firing pin against that spring switching to a lighter one should result in a heavier primer strike.

The down side would be that it would also be easier for the firing pin to move forward and strike the primer if the gun was dropped. Enough easier to be a problem? I doubt it.

[Matt1911]

I just picked up a taurus model 627,and the star looks perfect.My model 44,looks a bit ruff,but i've had thousands of rounds through her with no problems.
Matt

[SodaPop]

I had a T-85- 38 special. I sold the thing because I couldn't put more than a box of ammo threw it without getting a blister on my finger. It cost me $260 used and I didn't want to pay for trigger work. The darn "rigged trigger" really tore up my finger. After shooting it 50rds my finger just didn't want to pull anymore. Whats with those rough triggers?? If it was just smoothed over it would have been better.

IT was a decent gun for the money but not something you can shoot all day.

[Hand_Rifle_Guy]

In response to Chaim's gigantamous Taurus quality poll, I shall fish for a little more statistical data to further my analysis. Therefore the magical ressurecting revolver thread.

If you own a Taurus, go get a magnifying glass. Peer suspiciously at your cylinder, and report back here.

Take a good CLOSE look!


Thanks, all.

[WonderNine]

The ratchets were very bad (and crude looking) on my Taurus 415T and I suspect as well that is what caused its timing problem.

It makes me hesitate to buy one of their new 9mm revolvers, especially a titanium one, which is what I really want.

[P95Carry]

H_R_G ......... well, seemed like I oughta take a pic or two ..... and here they are.

Time did not permit complex setting up ... so these are rather quick shots ...... lighting not ideal. The M66 has had maybe 1,000 rounds thru it .. and was NIB ... and actually is still near immaculate. Shoots very well, as it did straight from NIB ..... and I have been well pleased with it. (wife also! :p )

The M85 snub has suffered from prolongued carry, and also is a much older gun ... impossible to say how much has been thru it really!

The ''ratchets'' do look somewhat rough, certainly when compared with Smith - but then also they are a different profile. There does appear to be quite some difference from one tooth to another.

See what you make of these - if in fact pics show much useful at all. Amazing how bits of lint show when close up!


M66 rear cylinder

http://www.bedford.net/design/shoot/m66_cyl_s.jpg
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


M85 rear cylinder

http://www.bedford.net/design/shoot/m85_cyl_s.jpg

[WonderNine]

Both of those look better than the ones that were on my gun.

[tango3065]

P95 thanks for the picture of the 85 that makes me feel so much better knowing that my 850cia isnt the only one with very thin cylinder walls, also how many rounds have you fired in it. Maybe i'm just to dumb but these thin walls scare me, is smith j frames the same. Also on a side note both of those rachets look horrible I wish I could post a picture of the new ones they are absolutly perfect or at least mine is. Upon looking at my rachet star closer it is also a completely diffrent design than either one of those.

[tango3065]

MarineTech were did your 850CIA frame crack at also was it blue or stainless.

[Okiecruffler]

Pulled out my 650 that I've had for a few years to take a look. Ratchets look like someone skipped the finishing process. One is obviously out of shape with the others and there are tool marks thru-out. Then I checked the wife's that I bought just a few weeks ago, and it's like a whole different gun. Everything is uniform, to the naked eye at least, and polished nice and smooth. Just the other day at the range I was wondering why her trigger pull was so much nicer than mine, even tho I had put wolf springs in mine. Now I think I know.

[P95Carry]

mastinson ..... also how many rounds have you fired in it as I mentioned ... all but impossible to know really. I bought that lil fella used .... tho since it has gotten rather shabby due to lot of carry, some effects of sweat etc! I have put a fair quantity thru plus quite a lot of dry fire too.

The walls are thin yes but .... both the M66 and M85 have the cyl notches exactly between chambers ... so none of your ''Smith wall thinning'' effect ..... I expect the effective thickness is not too bad functionally.

Outa interest ... compare these figures ...... just measured quickly ...... +/- a thou or so probably .......

M85 ...... 60 thou (proofed 38 spl)

M66 ...... 65 thou (proofed .357 mag)

M27-2 Smith ........ Max thickness 115 thou .... BUT!! Subtract 60 thou for depth of cyl notch and weakest and thinnest part of the cyl is .... a mere 55 thou ... for an N frame .357 mag!

So in relative terms, the M85 is maybe not so thin!

The ''style'' of teeth differs between M85 (relatively old gun) .... and the M66 (much newer).

I'll reiterate ..... the M66 functionally is sweet as sweet .. Mike Irwin tried once and was quite complementary.

If there are different versions yet (Okiecruffler?) ... any chance of a pic for comparison' sake?

[Invisible Swordsman]

My only Taurus is a blued model 94 (.22) purchased about three years ago. I followed instructions and checked the ratchet with magnifying glass (kind of necessary anyhow given the small teeth and my aging eyes). Sure enough, not very well finished, but it does not seem to have affected functioning in the limited shooting I've done with it

[SavannahSteve]

I have owned four Taurus revolvers. The two stainless steel guns -- new 2-in Model 85 .38-spl and used 3-in Model 431 .44-spl -- were both trouble free; however, the two blue guns -- new 4-in Model 66 seven-shot .357 and used 6-in Model 96 22LR -- both had timing problems that took trips back to the factory. The only one that I still have is the Model 96, which is now working well and is currently my favorite 22 pistol. Part of the repairs for the Model 96 required replacing the whole cylinder/extractor star assembly.

By way of comparison, I have owned four used S&W revolvers (two Model 10 M&P .38-spl, Model 15 .38-spl, and Model 19 .357) and never had a problem with any of them.

[Okiecruffler]

I don't think there are different versions, both of mine seem to be the same, I think that either there was a problem with QC at some point, or there still is a problem and some people are still getting "not so finished" guns. FWIW, my old Rossi M88 Looks much better although much more worn than my 650. I wonder if I could clean it up alittle with some fine grit paper. I can take a pic, but I'm still in the stone age of using film, so it would be a few days.

[Biff]

Two things can be done:

1. Insert a small flat washer on the hammer strut between the mainspring and the spring seat. (wear safety glasses & use a padded vise to hold the hammer strut)

2. Fabricate a new spring seat out of slightly thicker steel or aluminum. I did this in about 20 minutes with a hacksaw, drillpress and file. I now have 100% reliable ignition on my 606.

[Mike Irwin]

Taurus revolvers have come light years ahead in quality over the last 20 years.

[Tropical Z]

The star on my Rossi 972 is even but rough.No better or worse than my S&W 34,Ruger security six or Windicators.I just looked at all of them.

[Erich]

Ratchet on my 415 Ti (only Taurus I presently own) is surprisingly uniform, although not perfect. Much better than the revos in the photos posted uppage. Three of the five teeth on my 415 Ti have an extra little machining slant/step that the other two do not - I doubt this is due to wear, given how little I've fired this little monster (though I carry it plenty - it just rode along for a 2.5 hour hike up in the Sandias). I wouldn't say it was crude, but it's not as cleanly machined as the ratchets on any of the Colts, Smiths or Rugers that I own.

FWIW (to comment on an off-topic subject that's popping up on this thread), my first gun was an 85 (way back in the mid-80s), and it, too, suffered from light primer strikes. Taurus fixed it, and I traded it away (I was carrying a S&W 2nd Gen. 9mm at the time) for a Mossberg 500 ATP (that I still own).

[LoneWulf]

5 of the 7 Taurus revolvers I have owned have suffered from light strikes.

I'll stick to Smith and Colt. :D

[Hand_Rifle_Guy]

My life stinks. Broke. Lost my Net access. Etc. assorted misery.

Not selling stuff though.

YET.

Anywho, been a gazillion years since we talked about this, and I noticed we've passed 17 THOUSAND members in the meantime.

Whoa! :cool:

TFL's old reputation, stand back--we are well-mannered and polite, hear us reasonably discuss in intelligent and well-considered discourse!

New folks means new members who haven't added to my pseudo-survey of Taurus q-a issues around a particular aspect of revolver manufacture, to wit: Ratchet stars.

Dig out those revo's and magnifying glasses, folks. Enough results on this try and I'll forward this directly to Taurus Forjas Customer Service for a look-see. They oughta at least look at it.

I'll be back to check on this when I can at some un-predictable future time. One of these days I'll get solvent.

Thanks for your time and attention, this is a pet-peeve of mine. I can't stand the idea that the guns i admire so much can STILL be produced with what amounts to such a FUNDAMENTAL flaw. Geeze, everyone ELSE can do 'em right in their sleep, so it just can't be THAT hard or expensive. it just needs a little judicious attention and a couple of fires lit under the right behinds. :D :rolleyes: ;)

After all, Sellou & Worthless have YET to repudiate the Klinton sales agreement, providing a holdout card for ol' Josh Sugarman. ('Lessen I'm wrong, but I'm way out of touch these days.)

BTW, what and when in Sam-heck did the Roundtable go? Been writin', me. Got some cool stuff to post but it's less than gun-related. I was hoping for a capive-but-receptive audience for friendly honest review, but I find myself lost. Someone point me at the appropriate info? Shan't dilute if it's no longer given space, but I'd like the history/circumstances of what-all hoppen-ated. :confused:

Thanks-a-much.

And wish me luck, re: Solvency. I need it, so as not to have to liquidate the collection. :(

[BluesBear]

This is Lady45's Taurus 651. Blued steel. Approximately 1000 rounds through it and at least twice that much dry fired.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=24035
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=24036
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=24037

There are a few tool marks and some wear but it's not too bad. And it shoots great. Accuracy is awsome and there's NO spitting or splash.

[Brian Williams]

I'd play along but since this thread started I have sold both of my Taurii, because my S&W's are better.

[MillCreek]

I just looked at my new Taurus total titanium 651. Although I only have about two hundred rounds through it so far, my ratchet star teeth look pretty sharp and even. No discernable wear so far.

[Old Fuff]

Taurus is aware of the ratchet teeth problems. Looking backwards, as Mike Irwin said, "Taurus revolvers have come light years ahead in quality over the last 20 years."

Older Taurus revolvers followed the S&W style of ratchet, as can be seen in the picture in P-95Carry's post. They were difficult to machine, and often required hand fitting in each revolver which left them looking even more messed up (and sometimes they were). As each tooth had to be file-fitted each one could be different, but usually the revolvers timed out O.K.

More recently they have changed to a new pattern, as seen in BluesBear's picture. If you compare the two photographs the difference is obvious. The new pattern resulted in stronger teeth and less (or maybe no) hand fitting. The machine work is also cleaner. Tool marks - yes, but not too bad.

Hand_Rifle_Guy, I'm sorry about your problems and I hope things get better, but if you look at the respective pictures you can see the improvement between the different ratchets. Rest assured that Taurus is trying to address its shortcomings. They remain one of the best revolver buys on the market today.

Light hammer strikes are sometimes caused by excessive clearence between the transfer bar and hammer - as well as a too-weak hammer spring. Also check for cylinder end-shake.

[Crownvicman]

The ratchet on my year old Model 82 does seem a little rough, but it has not seemed to hurt reliability or accuracy. The gun does not seem to lock up as tight as some Smiths or Rugers I have seen, but it does not seem to make much difference on the target.

[rockstar.esq]

My .44 Mag has a rough and uneven ratchet. Mine is so bad that the cylinder "freewheels" on one chamber! Needless to say it's going back to Miami for the much needed repair!

[Hand_Rifle_Guy]

Whoa. I made it. For the moment.

Hokay, pardon my whining, please, one and all. My frustrations are not YOUR problem, and in retrospect I sound a little over-the-top, even to ME.

It was a bad day. Sorry folks. :o

Anyheck, seeing the somwhat muted response to my latest bump on this, plus what material is already here, I will have to say that I think Old Fuff's sum-up of the current situation is the correct one. I don't see a need to abuse a deceased equine if the issue's been SOLVED, after all.

Context 1: I started this thread after I got my .41 Tracker, which RUNS fine, but LOOKS like a ham-fisted blacksmith built the ratchet, which made me go look at the others I owned. I was three-for-three in the it-makes-me-cringe-to-look-at-it class, and the .41 was a LATEST-ISSUE product. Hence my perception of a stubbornly persistent bug-a-boo. (But they all RUN GOOD, mind you.)

Context 2: That was one of the last guns I bought, coming up on three years ago. :( That qualifies me as way out-of-touch re: the current state of Taurus q-a. I haven't so much as looked at a Taurus gun of more recent manufacture. Truth be told, I haven't darkened the door of a gun dealer or show in at least a year or two, not even to buy ammo.

Rats. (Done whining. Oops.)

So:

Official H_R_G Opinion Change now registered. I'll put 'em at snapping at ol' S&W's rights to the top spot on a dern-near equal basis, which is what I always wanted anyway. I like Taurus' product line a lot. It lines-up nicely with my eclectic tastes.

Now if they'd just sell 'em HERE. And if I could actually afford 'em. (That'll happen at some point. Can't stay poor forever.)

Fixing the STATE's a bit tougher, but we're workin' on it. I shall summon up a bit of optimism to brighten my outlook, is what.

Off I go. Shall plug-in again at an indeterminate future instance.

And if you catch me complaining again, yell at me! :o :rolleyes: ;)

[Old Fuff]

Do come back and join us more often, if for nothing more then to have an enjoyable conversation.

Concerning your .41 Tracker. While the .41 Magnum is in many ways an excellent cartridge, the Tracker's and other models chambered to use it were relatively slow movers. Consequently later orders were sometimes filled with revolvers that had been made some time earlier. But the company's products are looking better, and I hope the same happens for you.

[BluesBear]

By the way. Lady45's 651, that I photographed above, is a 2005 model.

My 445 is I believe a 2002 vintage. But since I don't have access to it right now I can't inspect it for comparison.

[bakert]

I have an old model 66 and the ratchet on it is pretty rough. Got to say though it's had thousands of both .38s and .357s through it and still going. Kind of loose but locks up tight when cocked. Bought a new steel 85 a few years ago and it's one nice little gun. Finish is great and the trigger is perfect both SA and DA. Like most small guns a bit harder to shoot with +P ammo than with something bigger but it does conceal well.
Baker