I guess I'm starting a herd.

Very nice.
Those two look goood.
I think those 431s have a cult following.

Nice finds.

Yeah, I would love to have a 431!

Hi...
I have the adjustable sight model of that Taurus .44Spl.
I shoot it regularly and it is reasonably accurate and reliable enough that I occasionally carry it in my coat pocket in cold weather.
I think you will enjoy shooting your new Taurus.

Jealous

Those older "Taurii" are really pretty good, and the sleepers of the revolver world.

In many cases a Taurus is actually as good of a gun as a S&W, especially guns from the 70s and 80s, even early 90s. Clinton era is when they started dropping quality a bit. Collectability aside, it’s a tossup on what gun is better. Compare a 689 Taurus to a 686 S&W and let us know how the 686 is meaningfully better... or a 608 Taurus to a 627S&W... or a Taurus 85 to a S&W60.

That 431 is a beautiful gun. That 82 is pretty slick too with the 3”. A couple more to look for would be a 607, a blued m44, and anything else built on the raging bull frame.

CajunBass

A couple of days ago, I spotted this one, a Taurus 431, 44 Special, in the case. I knew what it was right away, and I many have hesitated almost 44 seconds.

Click to expand...

That's the one I'm looking for! Would go great with my Ruger Flattop Blackhawk in .44 Special.

The OP has a couple of real nice Taurii. I've handled several older Taurus revolvers , and they certainly have merit. That said , I must challenge the following :

WestKentucky said:

Compare a 689 Taurus to a 686 S&W and let us know how the 686 is meaningfully better... or a 608 Taurus to a 627S&W... or a Taurus 85 to a S&W60.

Click to expand...

I own a stainless Taurus 85 and a S&W 60 ; I've put a lot of rounds through both. The difference in trigger characteristics is significant. The Smith trigger is lighter and smoother by a good
margin. I will say this - one can stage the Taurus trigger in such a way as to achieve slow , controlled da shooting very nicely. This characteristic is , of course , useless in a self defense situation. The Smith is much easier to work on.
As to the 689/686 comparison , set up a table full of each, line up a bunch of forum members and give them the choice as to which one to choose as door prize and see what happens.
Now , at $150 my clean 85 is a very good value - you couldn't get a good 60 for twice that - and it is a great looking snub nose revolver , as are the two posted by the OP. To say that the 85 is equal in all ways to my 60 is not realistic. We are talking about two different firearms , each with it's own merits. Equal in all ways ... not in my opinion.

Waveski

Have to agree with you, especially with the S&W Model 686 comparison. At one time I had a Ruger GP100, a Colt Trooper Mk.V, and a S&W Model 686. Three high quality, well made .357 revolvers. If I had to place a Taurus revolver (like the Model 689 or 66), in the ranking back then I would probably rate it close to the Ruger in overall quality.

At some point I had to thin the herd to pay for school so I could only keep one. The GP100 was the first to go as it really was the least refined of the three and I just didn't take to it all that much, especially compared to the Security Sixes I use to have.

Toughest decision was choosing between the Colt and the S&W. Both were top notch and exhibited first rate fit and finish. While the Colt handled very nicely and felt perfectly balanced, the S&W had the sweetest out-of-the-box trigger of any revolver I ever had. That tipped the scales for me. I went with the S&W and still think it's overall design, build quality, and performance make it one of the best .357 revolvers.

Waveski said:

Equal in all ways ... not in my opinion.

Click to expand...

I will concede that point. But take that $250ish 85 and that $500ish model 60 and compare them side by side. Put a $20 spring kit in the Taurus when you detail clean the gun AS ALL GUNS SHOULD BE occasionally cleaned, and then run that same comparison. Taurus should do it from the factory but they don’t. That levels that trigger variable out pretty even, with a good $230 left to almost be able to buy another Taurus.

I stand by my comment, but will add that all of those comparisons are with the caveat of $20 in parts and a 30 minute process of cleaning and swapping springs.

No pictures yet, but I do have some older (pre-2000) Taurus wheels.

M66, .357 Magnum, purchased new in 1987. Even carried it on the job for a little bit back then. Stolen in 1989, and recovered in 1991.

M85, .38 Special, three-inch, in stainless, a rare version, dates from 1995, purchased in 2016, I think. I love this gun; it's a "poor boy's SP-101."

M941, .22WMR, three-inch, in stainless, also pretty uncommon. Dates from 1991, I think. Purchased about three months ago. Haven't shot it yet.

I also have a newer M94 in satin-stainless, dating from around when I bought it, in 2014. Great shooter, poor extractor (chambers too loose; cases swell into place when fired.)

(I also have some of their pocket-autos in .22LR, .25ACP, and .380ACP.)

CajunBass said:

A couple of weeks ago, I bought a Taurus Model 82, from the mid 70's or so. A 3", 38, it's turned out to be a nice shooter at a (reasonably) cheap price.

View attachment 818995

A couple of days ago, I spotted this one, a Taurus 431, 44 Special, in the case. I knew what it was right away, and I many have hesitated almost 44 seconds.

View attachment 818996

View attachment 818997

I don't think it's ever been fired, (outside the factory test firing) but can't prove that of course. When I ran a patch through the charge holes and barrel, I got back dust. No scratches on the recoil shield, The grips are very comfortable, and quite nice looking.

I'd been sort of half looking for a Smith and Wesson Model 24-3 (44 Special), but they're twice/three times what this one cost.

Click to expand...

Had a 431 years ago- very nice, accurate gun, but the price and availability of ammo turned me off and I foolishly sold it.

Good score, bro!

I would agree that the quality of Taurus revolvers from the late '70s through the early '90s was close to that of contemporary S&W and Rugers, and better than current S&W.

Now , if you are factoring in current S&W quality , that changes the playing field . I had not considered that.

CajunBass said:

A couple of weeks ago, I bought a Taurus Model 82, from the mid 70's or so. A 3", 38, it's turned out to be a nice shooter at a (reasonably) cheap price.

View attachment 818995

A couple of days ago, I spotted this one, a Taurus 431, 44 Special, in the case. I knew what it was right away, and I many have hesitated almost 44 seconds.

View attachment 818996

View attachment 818997

I don't think it's ever been fired, (outside the factory test firing) but can't prove that of course. When I ran a patch through the charge holes and barrel, I got back dust. No scratches on the recoil shield, The grips are very comfortable, and quite nice looking.

I'd been sort of half looking for a Smith and Wesson Model 24-3 (44 Special), but they're twice/three times what this one cost.

Click to expand...

Someone must have had Bull collection as they also had Model 17 clone in the cabinet. Virginia is now a Blue State, therefore, if you live here buying revolvers is smart thing to do.