Would you trust a Taurus against dangerous game?

Yes

No

4v50 Gary said:

No. Transfer bars are notorious for breaking.

Click to expand...

Like a S&W, Taurus uses a hammer block not a transferrer bar like a Ruger. The hammer block never see the stress of the hammer striking it unless you release the hammer without the trigger being held to the rear.

Nope. I went down this road. I live in Alaska, and everyone has a bear gun. I looked closely at the Tracker. I bought a Redhawk.

The Tracker is, on paper, an attractive option. But it ends there. I know of several Taurus revolvers that have had critical failures. Raging Bulls and a Model 10 knock offs with cylinders locked up tight as Ft. Knox. Timing issues, etc etc. (The internet is full of stories.) The Tracker is, as you say, light to carry and cheaper than both the Ruger and Smith. The Taurus is fine as a range gun. I just don't see the Tracker holding up to serious use.

Here is where the rub is: if you're carrying a gun to protect against bears/dangerous game, you better be very proficient with it-just as you would an EDC/CCW self defense gun. I've put literally thousands of rounds through my Redhawk. The majority of that is, of course, 44 spl., but I've run my fair share of super hot hand loads through it as well. Would a Tracker hold up to that? Possibly. But I know that I can put my Redhawk through anything, and it will always go bang.

The Redhawk is a boat anchor. I never, for a moment, forget that it's there. No matter how I carry it. I considered trading it for the Scandium 329PD, but even those have stories of cylinder lock-ups or the Hillary hole failing under heavy recoil.

If you're truly in need of a big bore revolver for dangerous game, skip the pretenders, buy once-cry once, and get a solid gun. It took me a few years to save enough to buy the Redhawk. I'm glad I did, even though it's a beast.

Nope. Sold a bunch of them back in the day and had too many come back broken.

Taurus makes some interesting stuff and I am always hopeful that they will improve their quality.

I will start by saying that I have never owned a Taurus, but I would take the advice of folks in this regard. All guns can fail, some just fail more often than others. Why play the odds when it could be your life or the life of a loved one on the line?
I would buy a quality gun.

I trust a Taurus for EDC, why not for 4 legged SD? Unless you mean for dangerous game hunting, then I'd go with a Single Action in a caliber not found in a Taurus.

ontarget said:

I trust a Taurus for EDC, why not for 4 legged SD?

Click to expand...

If you trust Taurus for EDC, then most certainly you should for wild game.

I don't carry a Taurus for either.

If I had owned it for years, put thousands of rounds through it, and found it to be reliable and accurate, why not?

Sometimes good ones make it through Taurus quality control and out to the general public.

Nope

Since you asked, Nope.

I don’t even trust a Taurus at the range.

I’m with Tallball. If it has been reliable and accurate..yep.

I was just handling a Tracker .357 at the LGS the other day, felt like a quality revolver to me. Good lock up, trigger was fine, straight barrel and well balanced. I have been tempted to pick one up as my “beater”/camping/fishing gun.

I currently have 3 Taurus revolvers that I have put through their paces. If they were chambered in the appropriate calibers for dangerous big game, then yes I would use them for such. While 38 Sp is fine for close up self defense work, I would never use it for big game except for a backup to a bigger revolver.

To add: I would not trust any brand of firearm until I have used it a while and it has proven to be reliable. That goes for Colt and S&W revolvers too.

The last Taurus I owned, blew up in my hand on the 7th round ( due to improper forcing cone). Granted it was 25 years ago , and they reportedly build them better now but I'll never know. IMHO, any Taurus is marginally better than a sharp stick.

Yes I would trust a Taurus! And I do!
I carry a Taurus 415 41mag while hiking. I have never had a problem with this handgun. I also carry a 605 357mag. As you mentioned size, weight, and price make them a good choice.

Taurus did have a quality issue in the 1990s. The past twenty years there quality has improved. I also had a Taurus 66 that was a trouble free handgun that I bought in 1986.

I'll say no for me. Taurus does make some good guns but if it's a life or death wilderness type scenario I prefer the over built revolvers over something lighter and possibly more fragile. Ruger for me.

The joke at USPSA and IDPA matches on Taurus revolvers was always, "They are great revolvers you just need three, the one you're shooting, a spare in your range bag, and a third back at Taurus being repaired, rotate frequently!"

In all honestly I do not own a Taurus but my father and brother both do. Dad's Judge has been reliable for the few hundred rounds put through it. My brother has a Taurus M44 and I have a nearly identical S&W M29 Both 6.5 inch full under lug 6-shot 44 mags. He has put several thousand rounds of 44 Mag through it. Its been a reliable revolver but when you shoot them side by side against my S&W you really feel how much smoother the S&W operates and how much tighter all the fitment is. The Taurus has been a good revolver but you can feel the quality different as you pull the trigger and manipulate the revolver loading and unloading.

Would not own one, so not a problem.

In a word...No! I would go with a Ruger Redhawk .44 Mag with a 5 1/2" barrel.

I have owned two Tauri. Both older models. An 85 in .38 and a 1970’s .32 Long

WisBorn said:

Yes I would trust a Taurus! And I do!
I carry a Taurus 415 41mag while hiking. I have never had a problem with this handgun. I also carry a 605 357mag. As you mentioned size, weight, and price make them a good choice.

Taurus did have a quality issue in the 1990s. The past twenty years there quality has improved. I also had a Taurus 66 that was a trouble free handgun that I bought in 1986.

Click to expand...

I was going to say in my limited experience the 1980’s Tauri were good guns. My good buddy has a nice .357 Tracker. Not my 66 but it’s a good one. I am not a person easily influenced by others opinions but I would say in this case where there is smoke there is fire. Just based on the huge numbers of complaints I would not trust my life to one. A range toy yes but my life is worth more than the $200 price difference.

WisBorn said:

Yes I would trust a Taurus! And I do!

Click to expand...

Like WisBorn, I have, and would again. In my wife's and my backpacking days, I carried a Taurus "Tracker" 41 Mag for imagined grizzly bears.
However, I'd probably carry my Smith Model 69, 44 Mag nowadays. But the Smith Model 69 hadn't been invented yet when my wife and I enjoyed galivanting around in the Idaho wilderness with about a quarter of our body weights strapped to our backs.
Nevertheless, as I've said before in other posts, when my wife and I were into backpacking, the times when I felt most ill at ease was when we were at the trailheads. Sometimes there are 2-legged miscreants hanging out at trailheads. So the truth is, I would have probably felt a little more secure if I would have been carrying my CCW (a Glock 19) on our backpacking trips rather than a 41 Mag or a 44 Mag revolver - no matter what brand the revolver was.
BTW, day in and day out, whenever I'm outside puttering around the place here, I wear a little Taurus 32 H&R Magnum. Sometimes it's concealed - like when I'm wearing a long shirt or jacket. Usually it's not. There's not a doubt in my mind it will go off if I need it to though.

No I won’t own a Taurus

I have to admit to a bit of a surprise at the Taurus hate. I've used them for several decades, and while the early ones weren't the quality of older S&Ws, etc. they certainly were strong and reliable. Given the improvements in Taurus and the troubles I've experienced with recent S&Ws, I'd say the odds of getting a better or worse one from either company are about 50/50.