"Judge" owners I need your thoughts..

Status
Not open for further replies.
What "you" don't want to take responsibility for your own words?
You are making a false dichotomy since "good enough" is not a black and white line.
I'm not and I don't think any judge detractors here would even try to make the jump to ineffective. I have not seen any compelling evidence that 410 buckshot loads are more effective than a single 250gr Speer gold dot 45 Colt even at close range, I do however know that they aren't going to be more effective as range increases.
Even many of the judge's capabilities are exaggerated just to make them seam more effective than it really is.
Implying that it's as effective as 4 9mm rounds is laughable while it does throw 4 36 caliber balls they weigh what a 32 acp round does at a similar velocity.
 
We're still hung up on the indignation that comes from the hyperbolic claims made for the guns. That doesn't mean I and others cannot enjoy owning a Judge.
 
There's one thing I don't think I've seen mentioned in this thread yet, but it's worth mentioning.

lehigh_expanded_45_large.jpg

This is the Lehigh Defense Maximum Expansion .45 Colt that's designed only for use in .410 handguns. This will expand to 1.5" inches in diameter and penetrate to about 10" deep in ballistic gel and has a velocity over 900 fps in the 2" Pubic Defender.
 
"Judge" owners I need your thoughts..

It's a fun gun. I don't use mine for self defense, it's more of a fun toy. Taurus's warranty/service is great, but it's a shame you may have to use it. I sent mine in once and it's messing up again. The cylinder won't rotate all the way and the hammer will drop between rounds, and/or it'll all jam up and I can't get it open.

For any revolver, I recommend sticking with S&W, or Ruger. Especially if you need to trust your life to it. Revolver malfunctions often cannot be quickly resolved in the heat of the moment. Tap and rack wont be an option in this case.

If you're looking for something fun at the range, get the 3" magnum Judge and go have fun. If it messes up, send it to Taurus. They'll fix it.
 
Last edited:
For any revolver, I recommend sticking with S&W, or Ruger. Especially if you need to trust your life to it. Revolver malfunctions often cannot be quickly resolved in the heat of the moment. Tap and rack wont be an option in this case.

It is a sign of the times in general that there is no safe haven for gun quality in a price range that is remotely affordable for the average Joe. Smiths and Rugers have issues too. I have experienced that S&W, Ruger, and Taurus are all good about guns sent back to them. I have limited enthusiasm for buying any more new guns.
 
From my experience all gun manufacturers have a bad one every so often, but I wouldn't put Taurus in the same group as S&W or Ruger. And buying old from times of yore doesn't always mean getting a piece free of malfunctions either.


Skimming through and seeing a common theme and from my perspective theres a few things possibly that can be agreed upon.
-The Judge could be used in a self defense role but there are far better options available.
-It could be considered effective in certain settings but there are far more effective options also available.
-The Judge can be great fun at the range.

Just another 2 cents.
 
Your reference to Taurus is out of context. I have sent guns back to Ruger, S&W, Charter Arms, and Taurus, and my customer service and repair experience was identical with all of them. I don't think any of them can afford to perform poorly with owners of their guns. I think a buying decision is a different topic.
 
I'm not sure context is the word you looking for. You may disagree obviously YMMV but its my opinion Taurus is not in the same class as Ruger or Smith.
 
Well, people don't even want a Smith because of the lock system, and Ruger has severe issues with cylinders from my experience and awareness of others posting on that issue. Any stigma laid on Taurus relative to other brands is fading in validity, when referring to new guns. My Judge has had no issues, which is more than I can say for other brand guns bought since, especially Ruger revolvers. No one has to apologize for owning a Taurus.
 
In my position, the manufacturer has to EARN that pride. If you get a gun that has problems, the manufacturer is at fault.

To a degree I suppose. Still even if a tool I use is sub par its still mine and I will use to my best ability and take care of it as best I am able. I guess I derailed the thread a bit my apologies.
 
Last edited:
In my position, the manufacturer has to EARN that pride. If you get a gun that has problems, the manufacturer is at fault.

Well that eliminates all of them, certainly in the sub $1000 range.
 
Well that eliminates all of them, certainly in the sub $1000 range.

Not quite -- at one time there were some well-made guns. Among my favorites are a Colt New Service made in 1906, a Colt Woodsman made in 1938 and a Winchester Model 70 made in 1939. I got all three of them for well under $1,000.
 
It was enjoyable to me to read this thread. My original take on this platform is justified, a multipurpose gun that doesn't do either task well. For sure it serves a purpose for some. If I ran across a good deal I may go for one for giggles.
 
Well that eliminates all of them, certainly in the sub $1000 range.
Not quite -- at one time there were some well-made guns. Among my favorites are a Colt New Service made in 1906, a Colt Woodsman made in 1938 and a Winchester Model 70 made in 1939. I got all three of them for well under $1,000.

Now, about current production or guns that are not priced for moneyed collectors. What makers of sub $1000 guns are exceptional in terms of quality and accuracy, deserving of respect above others, not too often requiring a new gun to immediately need to be sent back.
 
not too often requiring a new gun to immediately need to be sent back.
I've owned and bought dozens of Ruger's and Smiths including recient production guns and have had to send exactly 1 back, of the many Taurus's I've owned I've had 2 that didn't.
IMHO 70-80% failure rate is "too often" where as 1 or 2% would not.
If you're happy with your Judge that's fine no need to appologize (though it seems odd that you question a need to) but by the same token there shouldn't need to be any reason to resort to hyperbole to make it seam better than it is.
 
If you're happy with your Judge that's fine no need to appologize (though it seems odd that you question a need to) but by the same token there shouldn't need to be any reason to resort to hyperbole to make it seam better than it is.

Can you quote anyone in this thread who used hyperbole to describe their ownership of a Judge?
 
I'd be interested in a Judge, but only the one with the 6" barrel. The short barrel is marketed as a concealable gun, but it's one of the least concealable guns I've ever held. The 6" is actually fairly well balanced, and as a home defense gun, loaded with .45 colt or any of the defensive .410 rounds, it'd be no slouch.

However, note that I have not purchased one, and I'm not likely to purchase one. I'm much more capable with my S&W 469, Maverick 88 12 gauge, or AR-15 for home defense.
 
Can you quote anyone in this thread who used hyperbole to describe their ownership of a Judge?
Man apparently Judge ownership causes a lot of internal strife. You addmitted yourself that hyperbole was used.
RealGun said:
hyperbolic claims made for the guns
 
Now, about current production or guns that are not priced for moneyed collectors. What makers of sub $1000 guns are exceptional in terms of quality and accuracy, deserving of respect above others, not too often requiring a new gun to immediately need to be sent back.
Well, let me see -- I have two Model 82 Kimbers (one in .22 LR and one in .22 Hornet) that cost me less than $1,000. I have a Kimber Custom Classic .45, a Ruger Blackhawk in .45 Colt, and a Ruger MK II -- and none of them cost all that much.
 
Man apparently Judge ownership causes a lot of internal strife. You addmitted yourself that hyperbole was used.

Check your wording. You accused me of hyperbole, yet I only referred to Taurus's marketing claims and those who parroted them.
 
Well, let me see -- I have two Model 82 Kimbers (one in .22 LR and one in .22 Hornet) that cost me less than $1,000. I have a Kimber Custom Classic .45, a Ruger Blackhawk in .45 Colt, and a Ruger MK II -- and none of them cost all that much.

We'll go 'round and 'round on this, because my Kimber Compact CDP II had to go back for a defective barrel (rifling). Production was probably 10 years ago. One of my Ruger Blackhawks went back for a new cylinder. My Single Seven went back for what they decided was cylinder replacement, which they couldn't supply, instead of simply reaming the chambers. One person's good fortune doesn't belie problem reports by others any more than bad luck doesn't necessarily condemn an entire product line.
 
Last edited:
S&W Governor is the only way to go, every person I know that got a Judge (Or any Taurus for that matter) regretted it.
 
S&W Governor is the only way to go, every person I know that got a Judge (Or any Taurus for that matter) regretted it.

I wouldn't say that because I have compared the two guns and own the Judge in the shorter cylinder and barrel length. No problems.

My older Taurus 441 shoots one hole groups, so I tend not to be too negative about guns that the big dogs continuously bash. I will say that I have moved on in how much I am willing to pay and enjoy my S&W guns the most.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top