Yes, one new to market firearm that Taurus introduced that had
teething issues. My question to you is,
does S&W, Ruger, Glock, Sig, Colt, Walther, CZ, FN, Springfield Arms, etc have the similar issues when they released new to market designs? I really want you to answer that question because if you believe that they are any better, I will happily cite all the recalls, "voluntary upgrades", serious safety issues, and early teething issues that the aforementioned companies have had respectivly.
The barrel issue with the TX22 has long since been resolved I assume as I no longer hear anyone one all popular firearm forums across the web or on YouTube bring up that issue anymore. All I currently see is people who were Taurus haters raving about the TX22.
Taurus of today and yesterday is night and day different. Even in this very thread, the overwhelming majority of negative experiences being cited are from older models. Yes, just like with any firearm manufacturer, some lemons still pass through the cracks. They manufacture nearly 800k firearms per year now, so yes, not all of them will be perfect. I see more issues with other manufacturers than with Taurus nowadays. It's just that other manufacturers get a pass when they have issues.
Yes, all those manufacturers have sent products to market that could have benefited from in house QC; not a big secret since that same thing has happened with nearly all consumer goods (I believe I even mentioned that in an earlier post if you care to look)
Smith& Wesson seems to be mentioned frequently as of late with their ongoing problems with their new M&P10.
There was a time when Ruger released a new model almost immediately accompanied by a recall notice, almost comical in a twisted way.
Specifically speaking about those 2 companies, they fixed their products and moved along not having to deal with poor QC reputations that have persisted for decades.
Yep, sure thing my friend, they've all had problems over the years (remember S&W's Bangor Punta days? I do)
however this thread
isn't about S&W or Ruger or Cz, Colt, Walther, Springfield, Sig or FN...it's about Taurus.
As I stated in an earlier post, they all seem to be shoving sub standard products out the door lately in the name of profit and relying on what (if anything)customer service is going to do about it.
Sure, S&W QC doesn't seem to be much better than Taurus at the moment, (is that what you want me to say? Fine) when It comes to initial satisfaction; subsequent lack of acknowledgement that there
even is a problem, or outright refusal to accept fault and make it right.
While Ruger at least seems much more willing to accept responsibility all while offering no explicit written warranty whatsoever.
So, I hope I answered your question, now back to you, when and
who decided that Taurus QC is better now than it ever has been?
You? Do you have a metric you could cite supporting or is that a "gut feeling" or are your "feels" hurt?
Because I'm still seeing a less than 50-50 satisfaction rate from real owners/users
in this thread alone (and there are hundreds more threads on numerous other websites echoing this exact
subject and conclusions of this very thread) I'm not going to cite any because IDGAF; I'm not buying a Taurus and all the 2nd and 3rd hand stories of "my friends, uncles, cousins bought a Taurus and it *******...type BS wouldn't help.
I suppose I could ask the 5-6 other people I'm aware of that purchased a Taurus product in the last 5 years and then just shoved them in a dresser drawer neglecting to even fire one, solitary box of cheap WWB to see if it even worked.
Hope I answered your question satisfactorily.