Quantcast
Taurus 38 special "View" - THR
THR  

Go Back   THR > Tools and Technologies > Handguns: Revolvers

Welcome to THR
You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have, access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!


If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit the help section.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 11, 2014, 07:38 AM   #1
snooperman
Member
 
 
Join Date: May 4, 2009
Posts: 1,910
Taurus 38 special "View"

Anyone shot this 9.7oz revolver in 38 special? Opinions? It must be painful to shoot. My old Colt Agent at 15oz is enough for me to handle.
snooperman is offline  
Old September 11, 2014, 07:42 AM   #2
Sam1911
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: October 22, 2007
Location: Central PA
Posts: 28,264
I haven't shot one, but I played with one a little at the big PA Outdoors show last year.

The grip is about the same size as my big toe. I asked one of their reps if they'd made him shoot it yet and with a bemused look he said, "Uhhhh....no."

You certainly could start with powderpuff loads and work your way up. Probably should.
__________________
-- Sam

"...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 18. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.)
-D. Stanhope

Sights Practical Shooters -- IDPA

My Knife Showroom
Sam1911 is offline  
Old September 11, 2014, 08:44 AM   #3
GRIZ22
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 4, 2006
Posts: 4,211
Haven't fired the Taurus but the 9 oz Smith is painful with wadcutters and std grips.
GRIZ22 is offline  
Old September 11, 2014, 08:48 AM   #4
Yo Mama
Member
 
 
Join Date: June 4, 2008
Posts: 2,484
I had an old 85 that just sucked. Very unreliable with a forcing cone issue, and was a pain to shoot. The ultra lightweight View can't be much better.
Yo Mama is offline  
Old September 11, 2014, 09:14 AM   #5
snooperman
Member
 
 
Join Date: May 4, 2009
Posts: 1,910
GRIZZ22, I didn't know S&W made a 9oz 38 sp revolver?
snooperman is offline  
Old September 11, 2014, 10:29 AM   #6
bannockburn
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 24, 2007
Posts: 7,276
I might try it with some very light wadcutter loads but it sure wouldn't be at the top of my list of things to do.
__________________
"An elegant weapon for a more civilized age."-Obi Wan Kenobi
bannockburn is offline  
Old September 11, 2014, 10:30 AM   #7
bannockburn
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 24, 2007
Posts: 7,276
I might try it with some very light wadcutter loads but it really wouldn't be at the top of my list of things to do today.
__________________
"An elegant weapon for a more civilized age."-Obi Wan Kenobi
bannockburn is offline  
Old September 11, 2014, 01:34 PM   #8
armoredman
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 19, 2003
Location: proud to be in AZ
Posts: 15,618
Would be absolutely excellent with wax loads...
I can easily conceal a much larger and easier to use sidearm than that View...it's a curiosity, and oddity, something that will be looked at years from now with the same eye we cast on Edsels.
__________________
If total government control equals safety, why are prisons so dangerous?

http://czfirearms.us/ The original CZ Forum, new address.
armoredman is offline  
Old September 11, 2014, 04:12 PM   #9
Haywood
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 12, 2006
Location: N. Ohio
Posts: 482
The few articles I have read about it stated that it is not somthing you would want to shoot a lot. I also saw a video wear it drew blood on a lady shooting it. As much as I like Revolvers and dislike small semi autos, before I wood carry a view I might have to go with a small semi auto.
Haywood is offline  
Old September 11, 2014, 04:16 PM   #10
Cooldill
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 19, 2011
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,163
I'd image it would be... interesting... to shoot this gun with Buffalo Bore Heavy .38 special +P 158 grain loads!
Cooldill is offline  
Old September 11, 2014, 08:18 PM   #11
Jaymo
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 21, 2010
Posts: 3,241
The only way I'd shoot one is with blanks,.
__________________
Who do you trust when everyone's a crook?
Jaymo is offline  
Old September 11, 2014, 09:51 PM   #12
Hoppes Love Potion
Member
 
 
Join Date: May 11, 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 462
I'd load it with these and call it good:

Hoppes Love Potion is offline  
Old September 12, 2014, 12:37 AM   #13
C0untZer0
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 7, 2010
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,819
Maybe they should chamber it in 380 AUTO, it is lighter than the M380 by about 6 ounces.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old September 12, 2014, 01:12 AM   #14
Old Fuff
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 24, 2002
Location: Arizona
Posts: 21,910
Actually Taurus makes a slightly smaller/more conventional revolver chambered in .380 ACP in combination with moon-clips; and I've given it some consideration. Why they didn't use this platform as the basis for the View I'll never understand - but as a larger .38 Special I have no interest in it whatsoever. I will be surprised if it's still in the catalog next year.

Incidentally the .380 tips the scale at 15 ounces, and that's light enough for me.
Old Fuff is offline  
Old September 12, 2014, 07:31 AM   #15
snooperman
Member
 
 
Join Date: May 4, 2009
Posts: 1,910
Ljke Old Fuff, I would be surprised to see this revolver in its present form in the marketplace for too long. I also think in a 32 H&R it might fair better. One could shoot 32 long or even 32 ACP since it is semi rimmed. I like the size and concept but not in 38 special. For now I will stay with my trusty Colt agent with 6 shots.
snooperman is offline  
Old September 12, 2014, 07:45 AM   #16
snooperman
Member
 
 
Join Date: May 4, 2009
Posts: 1,910
That said, there are some new dandy loads for the 80gr 380 ACP that probably would have been a much better choice for this revolver that would have gotten my interests.
snooperman is offline  
Old September 12, 2014, 10:31 AM   #17
JR47
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 16, 2008
Location: N. Georgia
Posts: 1,257
Quote:
I had an old 85 that just sucked. Very unreliable with a forcing cone issue, and was a pain to shoot. The ultra lightweight View can't be much better.
I have an older Model 625-3 that broke on the first shot. Therefore, the newer S&W revolvers can't be much better.

It's actually amusing that, although we've had such tiny revolvers for decades, people always come up with the "I bet that recoil is terrible" comment. For all of those years, Police carried the I-frame and J-frame as back-up, or, in the case of detectives, for primary. This in the day when soft grips, or even custom grips, were unheard of. The mantra of the day was "carried a lot, shot a little".

Why do we seem to insist that we fire hundreds of rounds every outing with every gun? You best believe that hunters don't shoot two or three boxes of .500 S&W, or .460 S&W every time they practice. Yet, they do quite well in the fields.

The little guns are not for everyone. However, just because one doesn't personally have a use for them does NOT make them useless to others.
JR47 is offline  
Old September 12, 2014, 10:59 AM   #18
snooperman
Member
 
 
Join Date: May 4, 2009
Posts: 1,910
Well, I have a S&W "I" frame in 38 S&W and it weighs twice as much as the "View" from Taurus . Hardly an equal comparison in recoil. That said, I like to practice with my carry guns here at my farm range and do so frequently by drawing from the pocket and/or belt Holster as well. I think it helpful and fun to do so. My 2 cents,,, Snoop
snooperman is offline  
Old September 12, 2014, 11:31 AM   #19
Old Fuff
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 24, 2002
Location: Arizona
Posts: 21,910
Quote:
Well, I have a S&W "I" frame in 38 S&W and it weighs twice as much as the "View" from Taurus
Those little I-frame revolvers are neat, but (excluding the stocks) all steel construction. The .380 Taurus is about the same size, but has an aluminum frame that drops the weight to 15 ounces. If ultra-lightness was the principal consideration that could be further reduced, and a complete View package would weigh less then 9 ounces, combined with a cartridge that was much better then .38 Special for this application.

I agree with your views concerning an I-frame size revolver as a 6-shot/.32 H&R Magnum, but Taurus has already tried that and it didn't go over. Should I find one in the used market I'll likely jump.
Old Fuff is offline  
Old September 12, 2014, 11:38 AM   #20
Sam1911
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: October 22, 2007
Location: Central PA
Posts: 28,264
Wow, if they went like the M380 and made the View a .380 instead of a .38 Spc, they could make the cylinder shorter and frame smaller and then that thing would be TINY.


Instead of the 9 oz., 3-1/2" long behemoth that it is...
__________________
-- Sam

"...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 18. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.)
-D. Stanhope

Sights Practical Shooters -- IDPA

My Knife Showroom
Sam1911 is offline  
Old September 12, 2014, 01:04 PM   #21
snooperman
Member
 
 
Join Date: May 4, 2009
Posts: 1,910
Old Fuff , there is a Taurus 32 H&R 6 shot on gunbroker now for $350 #440612715 ,, but it is compensated and I hate those little holes in a carry gun for up-close work. This gun was in the market for several years and weighs 16 oz, and it did not sell well. But to me the "VIEW" may change that a bit since it is so light and small, a 32 with 6 shots could make it more attractive to a much larger conceal carry market that we have now.
snooperman is offline  
Old September 12, 2014, 01:48 PM   #22
Waveski
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 28, 2014
Location: 43 north
Posts: 217
No , thanks.
Waveski is offline  
Old September 12, 2014, 04:11 PM   #23
19-3Ben
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 5, 2006
Location: CT
Posts: 4,560
I actually agree with one of the above suggestions about making it in .380. As long as they were marketing to the "make it as small as humanly possible" crowd, they should have gone with a .380 so they could shorten the frame and cylinder by just that little bit more.

Honestly, for me, the Ruger LCR at only 13oz is so light that anything lighter would just kind of be a waste.

One thing I can't see at all, is how they used titanium cylinder and barrel and kept the street price so low.
__________________
"You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough." Mae West
19-3Ben is offline  
Old September 12, 2014, 05:42 PM   #24
shlike
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 19, 2014
Location: Shelby Township, MI
Posts: 13
That has to be the ugliest gun I have ever seen!
shlike is offline  
Old September 12, 2014, 06:01 PM   #25
MCgunner
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 3, 2005
Location: The end of the road between Sodom and Gomorrah Texas
Posts: 23,213
Quote:
That has to be the ugliest gun I have ever seen!
You've never seen a Nagant revolver? How's about a Dardick?

I love my old M85UL i bought in 96 and is still one of my preferred carries. It's 17 ounces and has a rubber boot grip that is actually decent. i cannot fathom that the View would be very comfortable to shoot, but it sure would be light in the pocket. I'll pass, though. 17 ounces isn't intolerable. I begin to notice revolvers when they reach low 20 ounces unloaded, like steel J frames. I'd rather have a better grip and more bulk in my pocket just for shootability.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
Ben Franklin
MCgunner is offline  
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise.
This site, its contents, Shooting Reviews, and its contents are Copyright (c) 2010-2013 Firearms Forum, Inc.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.