Experienced opinions wanted....taurus 94

[115grfmj]

Okay I saw one of these the other day in 2". I was originally going to get
a Ruger single six, since my wife just authorized a purchase. I mainly wanted
it for plinking, but now Im thinking the 94 could double as a backup, or a
deep cover gun. (yeah, I know what everyone thinks of .22 as a defensive
round, my main gun is a 686+). How does the 94 stack up in accuracy,
ruggedness (?), reliability, and quality. Are any of you that own them happy,
or unhappy, and why. Is it likely to last a lifetime? Where I live the Single six
is $385. and the 94 is $350., please help. Also I'm just looking for info
on these two. I understand that there are other options, but these have
some draw for me.

 

[craig]

i had a 94. it was reasonably accurate when you could get it to fire more than two shots. the cylinder kept locking up. took it to a smith and he fixed it. had some brass in the works. this was a brand new gun. the trigger pull was very heavy. if you tried single action the hammer serrations would wear out your thumb. do i think it'll last awhile? not the one i had. when you buy a taurus you have a 50/50 chance of getting a good one. buy the ruger.

 

[BryanP]

I have a 4" 94. The DA trigger pull is quite heavy, but it is accurate and reliable.

 

[ChristopherG]

My experience with the 94 extended to exactly one pull of the DA trigger, which told me all I needed to know. I would surely take a SA Ruger over any DA that bad (of course, that could've just been that specimen).

The ideal gun for what you're describing is a new S&W 317, but that's over 4 bills; or maybe even better, a used 2" 34; but you'll be lucky to get that for under 400, too.

Realistically, I'd suggest you look for/at a Ruger SP101 in .22 before you jump on either of the ones you've seen so far. Better DA and sturdier by far than the Taurus, but capable of concealment in a short-barrelled version (they do make a 4" sp101, too, I think).

Poke around gunbroker to see pics of these and other models; just search the 'revolver' section for "22", and you'll get several pages of results, new and used, and an idea for what's out there and what it generally goes for.

 

[115grfmj]

I like the 317 too, but its an all aluminum gun, with clear coat. I'm sorry but
I'm not paying over $500. for that. I would rather buy a smith but the only
other thing they make is HEAVIER that my 686+ (the 617). I want a steel
revolver that will hold up to both me and my kids lifetimes. For some reason
the ruger sp series just doesn't do it for me, and while I love the single six,
I can't use it as a hideout gun. There lies the crux, thats why I wanted
people with experience with the 94. I have heard of peoples complaints
about cylinder binding with 22s, and I have also heard that very frequently
this is do to oil in the chambers. Cylinder should be left dry, other wise
the rimfire rounds have a tendency to back out under fire and bind them up.
Has anyone else heard of this??

 

[Nick96]

115grfmj,
If you want a light "deep cover" .22 DA revolver, you are pretty much stuck with the S&W 317. I believe the 317 Kit Gun is all aluminum - but as I recall there is a steel / alloy model in 2" as well that's a bit less pricy.

Ruger only makes the .22 SP 101 with a 4" barrel now. That approches the size & weight of a 3" K frame S&W. I've got an older, somewhat rare, 2.25" SP in .22 that weighs in at around 26 ounces or so. A good all around plinker and understudy for my .357 SP - but not what I would consider to be a "deep cover" gun.

I've not been impressed with the Taurus .22 DA revolvers I've handled. I actually paid as much for the Ruger SP101 used than a brand new Taurus M-94 just because of the superior fit, finish, feel & trigger action of the Ruger (and I understand the S&W's are even smoother than the Ruger). And from what I've read - getting a Taurus is a 50 / 50 gamble. You may luck out and get a good one. But if you get a bad one it's my understanding they are not particularly fixable (factory worked anyway - and not worth the cost of a good action job).

Another thing to consider with a .22. Ammo is dirt cheap, and you will literally be shooting 50 to 1 more rounds through whatever gun you get than a comparable centerfire. So getting one of good quality, durable and with a decent action out of the box is going to be critical. So my recommendation would be to avoid the Taurus - and spend the extra bucks on a Ruger or S&W. Years and thousands of rounds down the road you'll be glad you did.

 

[Al Thompson]

Had one of each (Ruger and Taurus) sold both. Save up for the S&W M34 - much better gun. My Taurus had both a crappy trigger and poor accuracy. Ruger was much better, but quite heavy for the six shots.

 

[115grfmj]

alright....

alright well I guess since no seems to have anything really good
to say about Taurus products, then I won't get one. Although I must admit that I'm sort of suprised. I'll stick with my original idea of the single six.
Thank you kind sirs.

 

[seeker_two]

Not so fast, 115grfmj...

I bought my wife a 94 to teach her how to shoot. She's really taken to it and can sometimes outshoot me with it. And, all the way, that Taurus has been accurate & reliable. I wouldn't trade it for anything....


...but I wouldn't recommend it for your stated use.

Get the 941 in .22Magnum. A lot more power at tap, better bullets, and you still have eight rounds instead of five. And, if you still feel you need a S&W brand, S&W has a 7-shot .22Mag too.

Also consider the Ruger Bearcats. A lot smaller than the Single-Sixes, and you can have them modified to .22Mag as well.

Good luck shopping...