Glock 26 or Taurus G3c

357smallbore

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2015
Messages
902
Location
Leavenworth KS
Is the Glock 26 really that much better of a gun than the Taurus G3c?
I've got the G3c, just thinking about the possibility of the Glock being an addition to my collection.
But if there really isn't a huge difference, I won't spend the dough on the Glock
I've never had an issue with my G3c.
 
Not looking for an argument here. I'm a Glock 19 owner and fan all the way. Here we have Hugger talking round count. In all honesty, the vast majority of gun owners are not regular shooters. By that I mean most will only shoot a 1000 rds a year if that. So when round count is being put out there, it's gonna take a long time just to get to 10k.
Jerry says G26 all day. Why, what makes the G26 superior?
In the Swamp says Always Glock, I say prove your point as to why Glock is superior.
Yes Glock has been around since the mid 80's and yes they are a pretty good build of a gun. Accessories galore for them.
Taurus has had spotty quality in the past and with several models. But this is now and it's different all together.
I have a 1984 Taurus P92 AF in 9mm. I'd stack the build, quality, reliability, accuracy and round count against a Beretta 92 all day and any day. I have over 45k of rds put through it. Locks up tight still, very minimal ftf or fte shells out of that 45k.
Have a Taurus 85 from 1988. 20k of 38 Special through it. I'd stack that one up against any S&W 36 or 60.
I'm just saying, just because Glock is Glock doesn't make it better than everything else.
My G3c has 2500 rds through it so far. 1 failure to fire because of a bad primer. Eats everything put through it. I'm gonna say it will easily do 20k without any issues.
 
As I said, I have a G3c and shoot
a mag or two thru it weekly. No complaints. I think Glocks are ugly and boring, but they just work, so I own a few of them also and shoot them regularly as well. I would wager dinner at Ruth's Criss that you can buy a 100 G26"s and a 100 g3c's and the G3c gonna have a few with issues and the G26's will have zero problems. I still wouldn't hesitate to buy another G3, but I don’t kid myself thinking it is equal to a Glock.
 
FWIW, I had a G2c and a G26. They were so similar that I kept the one with the slightly better trigger (G26) and let the Taurus go.

I got the Taurus for an insanely cheap price and didn't realize that it was so similar to the Glock (they could use the same holster).

However, if I already had the Taurus, fired a few hundred shots through it and knew it worked, I wouldn't have replaced it with the almost identical Glock.

I'm 58, been shooting regularly since I was a teenager, and have never worn out a handgun.

Keep the Taurus until you wear it out. If you finally manage to do that, thousands of rounds and a bunch of years from now, go ahead and replace it. If you're like most of us, though, that day will never come.

There's no use replacing a handgun that's been reliable and you can shoot it well, just to go chasing after a brand name.
 
I’ll never understand this mindset. This is a carry gun discussion. We are not talking thousands of dollars difference.

Lawyers, Bail, etc. will quickly exceed any amount you have invested in firearms, should you actually use it.
Yea, you can find used G26's for under $400 all day long. I paid $300 for mine. A G3 is what, $250? $50 is nothing.
 
Is the Glock 26 really that much better of a gun than the Taurus G3c?
I've got the G3c, just thinking about the possibility of the Glock being an addition to my collection.
But if there really isn't a huge difference, I won't spend the dough on the Glock
I've never had an issue with my G3c.
Your first mistake was comparing anything with “Taurus” on it to anything with “Glock” on it.
 
My problem with Taurus is, between my, not so great experience with a couple over the years and for whatever its worth, allowing for the internet and the litany of bitching about them pretty much anywhere you go, their rep is just too sketchy to want to bet my life on one.

I have a couple of 26's, and have been shooting one a couple of times a month for over a decade now, and at last count, when I quit counting with it, it had over 25K through it, and all Ive had to replace were routine maintenance RSA's.

I think a lot of the problem here with this sort of thing too is, how much do people really shoot what they have to even know? I dedicate a couple of duplicate guns I use to just practice and do my best to shoot the snot out of them every week. I have a real good idea as to what to expect from the guns and if something is going to go south, and break or be a problem, Ill know about it and in a realistic time frame.

One thing I get a kick out of is when people say they have "never" had a stoppage of any kind in thousands of rounds. Doesnt matter what it is, if that's truly the case, "Matheeewww, thats amazzzzzing". :) If you shoot enough, you are going to have stoppages. Just too many variables going on not to.

I have random stoppages with every gun I shoot on a pretty regular basis, mostly due to worn out reload brass, but they do happen, and it doesn't matter what the gun is.

Only way I know to find out if you like one better than another, is to get one and shoot the snot out of it. Youll figure things out and know whats likely the better gun. At the very least, you'll have learned something new about both.
 
I bought a brand new Taurus one time. It worked sometimes, sometimes it didn’t. I gave it away. I’ve bought Eight Glocks since then, and carried a few others Glocks that belonged my employer. I can’t imagine trying to decide between the two.
 
I guess it would depend on how much you plan to shoot. For the occasional shooter a $250 Taurus will probably last as long as the $500 Glock. But if you're a high volume shooter I have confidence the Glock is the better gun. And over time you'll spend a lot more on ammo than you paid for either gun.

And there is the proliferation of used Glocks. Around here $375-$400 is the going rate in gun shops, closer to $300 if you buy from an individual. That narrows the gap. I'd have zero issues buying a used Glock. Even if something is wrong with it Glock will fix it. That narrows the price gap.

For me $500 isn't a lot of money to spend on a gun so I'd not even consider the Taurus. But for a lot of people the $250 difference is certainly a deal killer. I'd rather see someone have a gun than do without.
 
If you have, use, and like your Taurus, and are satisfied with it…why ask random strangers on the interwebs?

I’m a Glock guy myself…but these days, I’d not talk anyone out of a Taurus. They are stepping up their game.

 
I have the G3. I'm happy with it considering its price tag. It is the least accurate gun in my collection but I'm not surprised there.
I bet the Glock 26 has a better accuracy and will be more durable when the round count begins to be counted in some ten of thousands. As far as the quality of the barrel there's also no comparison between the two.

This video shows that, with the right ammo selection, the G3C can go from mediocre to good accuracy.

In my opinion they are so different that a choice, based on their features, excludes one over the other. The G3C has an optional thumb safety and a second strike capability. The Glock has no safety and no second strike capability. I personally prefere the features of the Taurus in that category.
In the end, if you are uncertain between the two, I'd purchase the Glock and then decide which one to keep and sell the other.
 
Back
Top