Eh, comments seem about exactly what I expected when I clicked on the thread.
I think what gets lost in almost every discussion about Taurus is that the company sells a lot of guns at a (usually, much) lower price point than most other handgun manufacturers, and most of the company's sales are probably to first time or less experienced gun buyers/shooters. Pretty much every single time I've been at the gun counter, someone's been filling out the paperwork for a new Taurus handgun.
My recommendation for anyone starting a thread about Taurus should ask that respondents note whether or not they've actually -- themselves -- owned a Taurus (not refer to their brothers, buddies, uncles or some guy they talked to in a gun shop or down at the bar). Everyone who's been on this board for more'n ten minutes knows every gun that we're all supposed to hate on. Even though we're posting anonymously, few want to swim against the tide and offer forth minority opinions.
I've owned a 1991 Taurus Model 85, exceptional revolver, better than many S&W revolvers put out during the same era. My 94, not so much, trigger was heinous, but the four-incher was accurate and reliable. I'd traded into the 66 and an 82 back in the mid-90s, both were solid, reliable, decently accurate but I traded them off when I was working toward upgrading the quality over quantity of my personal armory.
As over-priced as other manufacturer's offerings in .44 Magnum are, I'd give a Taurus a try; while I don't like the esthetics of current Taurus revolvers, if it checked out okay and tested sufficiently well with a variety of loads, I'd probably trust my life on it. No mechanical device ever made by humans is incapable of failing at some point, and I've seen brand new revolvers from all the other major manufacturers (sold at far higher prices than the Taurus guns) fail, sometimes totally, and a couple times, spectacularly.
The 3 were a PT99, PT145 and an early 85. The question is whether I'd trust one or the 3 against an Anything. No, but not why as expected.
