Taurus best years.

I think you can go back a good bit farther.
I have a 1970's era Taurus (Spesco "Falcon") in 38 spl that is a good quality revolver.
Also a mid 80's 669 that I will put up against any mass production revolver of that era in a quality comparison.

My 431 is from early 80s, IIRC. Nice revolver, very nice trigger.

I also have a mid-90s M44 that is faultless over 25 years.

I've never owned anything Taurus built newer than that.

I have several Taurus revolvers. A late 80s 689 that is just perfect. An M85 from 2002ish polished stainless that I love and a 2012ish M85 ultralite that I carry all day every day. Although I agree that the older models were probably better I like the newer ones too.

The ones I've owned from the mid-80s until 1990 or so have been the best. This Old Model 66 is from 1984 or so IIRC. Its trigger is absurdly good.

Late 70s to Clinton era. Quality peaked in the 66 frames and PT92 frame guns in late 80s for sure, but there are a lot of other guns that are great but from other eras.

I have a Taurus model 96. It's a blue 6" target .22 with hardwood grips. Lovely gun with case hardened target trigger and hammer. The bluing is rather nice and both DA and SA are good. I have no idea when it was built but it had to be from the glory years because I've never come across anything remotely as nice as this one.

Tallball said:

The ones I've owned from the mid-80s until 1990 or so have been the best. This Old Model 66 is from 1984 or so IIRC. Its trigger is absurdly good.

Taurus Model 66

• Tallball
• Jan 6, 2018

Click to expand...

My circa 1990s Taurus 669 has the best trigger of any handgun I own, straight from the factory.

Listen to the podcast (?) Or read the transcription...then decide what the best years were.


https://firearmsradio.tv/handgun-radio/handgun-radio-208-running-the-bull-a-brief-history-of-taurus

Late 80's to 2000ish.

Kabic said:

Listen to the podcast (?) Or read the transcription...then decide what the best years were.


https://firearmsradio.tv/handgun-radio/handgun-radio-208-running-the-bull-a-brief-history-of-taurus

Click to expand...

Interesting, though I couldnt find one defining moment when the quality slide began. As their debt mounted, they eventually came to the realization that they needed to stop making good guns and start making money, if only in the short term.

Ive had several Taurus revolvers from the "Golden Age," which rivaled their contemporary rivals from S&W, but only one of their more recent products- the CT9 carbine, which is based on the Brazilian Army submachine gun platform:

Its a fun gun, though MUCH heavier/longer than an AR and the magazines are made of an Unobtanium/Unicorn horn polymer blend. These were only imported for about a year, and are decently put together, though a few parts, such as the charging handle, are a bit flimsy.

I wouldnt touch any of their current handguns.

In the mid 80's my buddy's were buying them because the S&W variants were more $. (Forget Colt for struggling college aged buyers.) They liked them and between us, my 586 to their version seemed pretty comparable. Their Beretta variant was not as well liked with one of my buddy's reporting his was rough and needed gunsmithing.

I bought my first Taurus about 1977,,,78, somewhere in that area. It was a Model 82, 4", 38 with fixed sights, and a heavy barrel. I remember the dealer tried weakly to talk me out it, telling me that a Smith and Wesson was a nicer gun. Well...duhhhh...it was also about $30.00 more which to me was a BIG deal in those days.

I shot the snot out of that gun, and it was as tight the day I sold it as it was the day I bought it. I was surprised I shot as well as I did with it. The only thing I didn't like about that gun was the wood grips looked like they'd been hacked out of a 2x4 by someone using a pocket knife. I added a T-grip and went on with it.

I've owned probably a half dozen or so Taurus revolvers since then. They were all made in the late 70's, early 90's maybe. Most of them came from the era when Taurus still used wood grips. And the grips got better as time went along, and probably more importantly I moved up in the grade of gun I was buying. That first one however was the only one I ever bought brand NIB. The rest all came used. A few, a 66 seven shot 357, a 65 fixed sight 357, a 431 44 Special, I would put those guns up against anything Smith and Wesson made, and I'm a Smith and Wesson guy. The others, various 38's, a Model 94, 22, and a Model 96, 22 may not have had the really nice finish of the others I mentioned, but that doesn't mean they were bad. Just not as nice.

I've never owned one made since the mid 90's, so I have no idea what they're like. I just don't like the way they look, so I don't buy them.

I agree that this era pretty much encompasses the "golden years" of Taurus revolvers. Three of my four Taurus steel-wheels hail from it. My first handgun, bought the day after I turned 21, was (is) a M66 four-incher. I still own it today, though it did spend a couple of years running the streets of South Florida after being stolen in a vehicle burglary.

I have a 1995-manufacture stainless M85 with a three-inch barrel. These are rare, and this one is possibly my favorite revolver I own. It's easy to carry, and easy to shoot. I often think of it as a "poor man's SP-101".

A few months ago, I came into another three-inch Taurus, also in stainless, from around 2003 (I dated it, but can't remember.) This one is a 941, a version of the 94 chambered in .22WMR. Like the M85, it almost appears as new. I have not yet gotten around to shooting it.

For me, a good rule for Taurus wheelgun selection is a round cylinder release and no internal lock.

MedWheeler said:

For me, a good rule for Taurus wheelgun selection is a round cylinder release and no internal lock.

Click to expand...

So about the same rule for a Smith and Wesson?

My view is a bit different. I don't see any particular time period as a "golden" era for taurus. Their quality has always been hit or miss. If you get a good one they can be quite good and aren't that much below a Smith & Wesson, if you get a bad one they can be total junk. I have a 32 long speco revolver from the early 70s that's a good one, I have 5 inch barrel 44 special from the 90s that's also very good. Lastly I have a snubbie 44 special from the early 2000s that's simply outstanding. Those are the ones I've kept. The flip side is I also have had a tracker revolver in 357 from the early 2000s that would lock up the cylinder after a few rounds every time, a 22 revolver from the 90s that would spit lead something awful, had a horrid trigger pull, and at least one badly oversized chamber. Also had a couple of semi autos that regularly broke various springs due to poor quality steel or poor control in the manufacturing process. I'll still buy a taurus if the price is right, but they are one of those brands where it's extra important to check them out carefully first in my opinion.

ontarget writes: (about round-release Taurus revolvers being from a seemingly-better generation.)

So about the same rule for a Smith and Wesson?

Click to expand...

Seems to be a common consensus, but I have little experience with their revolvers. I've only had two. One was an agency-issued M67, old enough to have the hammer-mounted trigger. It shot very well in my hands once I put a Pachmayr grip on it. Turned it back in in 1991 when I was issued an autoloader. The other is a 63-3 I've only had a couple of months and haven't even fired yet.

SPW1 writes:

...a 22 revolver from the 90s that would spit lead something awful, had a horrid trigger pull, and at least one badly oversized chamber. Also had a couple of semi autos that regularly broke various springs due to poor quality steel or poor control in the manufacturing process.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the .22 revolvers in themselves didn't seem to have a "golden era." My 2013-ish M94 shoots beautifully and on point, but empties are extremely hard to remove. Could be a case of oversized chamber diameters, as it's true with all nine chambers. My 1988-ish M94, as I recall, was a handy and decent shooter, but I let my then-wife take t when we divorced in 1996.

Autoloaders were made in different plants, some in Brazil and some here in the US, and usually aren't included in the "best-years-for-Taurus-revolvers" rules.

The Taurus revolvers of the '90's were some of the best new gun deals of my lifetime. From that era I've owned a 66, two 65's, an 85CH, and three 431's. They were all tight, lovely, reliable revolvers, almost indistinguishable from the Smiths that inspired them. OTOH, I bought a recent production 94 (for some reason neglecting to examine it closely) and it was an appalling piece of crap, with enough daylight between the frame and the crane to illuminate a coal mine.

Talking to my LGS the other day someone I have known for years, he told me Taurus are the number one sellers. I was surprised by this, until I thought about it. And they sell a lot of revolvers with very few coming back. I do not own a Taurus, never have, so have no dog in this fight. But thinking about the sales to the public, I can see why Taurus would sell a lot of firearms. My guess is that Taurus firearms now are as good as ever.

Their best year was 1940...and if anyone says: “ Wait a minute. Taurus didn’t exist prior to 1941.” You understand exactly what I’m talking about.

whatnickname said:

Their best year was 1940...and if anyone says: “ Wait a minute. Taurus didn’t exist prior to 1941.” You understand exactly what I’m talking about.

Click to expand...

I understand typical internet disparagement, What models did you or do you own?