Glock vs Taurus.

[giggitygiggity]

I've shot them both. Both shoot good, but I'd be a fool to expect the Taurus to hold up to the same rd count as the Glock. That's why its $150 less, +-.

Having owned and shot loads of guns, I have more confidence in Glock than Taurus. However, I caution making arguments about the quality or potential of firearms based on price.

I’ve heard the same or similar arguments before regarding the pricing of different guns. Specifically, some people assume that price generally reflects the quality of a product and claim that lower-priced guns must be inferior to those costing more. While my experience generally aligns with the premise that you get what you pay for, there are many instances in which I paid substantially less and got substantially more when compared to another product.

What if I were to flip the script?… If Taurus priced the GX4 $150 more than a Glock, would you similarly claim that the Glock is less expensive because it would not hold up to the round count of the Taurus? I would certainly hope that my more expensive pistol could endure more rounds than a less expensive pistol, but the price of a gun offers no such assurance.

The price discrepancies between two similar products offered by two different brands may reflect something other than the quality of the product. For instance, perhaps a product from Brand A costs more because Brand A desires a higher profit margin than Brand B. Perhaps Brand A has more expenses than Brand B because it spends more in advertising, research, and pays their employees more and, therefore, must charge more than Brand B.

Without knowing the finances and nuances of each company and the specific products, it is difficult to make a compelling argument as to why one brand’s product costs more than another’s or to assert that the price is an indicator of the round count that can be expected.

Differences in the quality of materials, manufacturing processes, metal coatings/treatments, etc. may reflect a difference in cost, but an argument strictly on the basis of cost without explaining what contributes to those price differences and how the differences may enable a pistol to endure a higher round count is not entirely convincing.

Sorry, nothing against you. I just wanted to point out a flaw in the argument.

All that said, if given a choice, I’d pick Glock (due mainly to its reputation) over Taurus although Taurus has been putting out some good stuff over the past few years.

 

[Hugger-4641]

Having owned and shot loads of guns, I have more confidence in Glock than Taurus. However, I caution making arguments about the quality or potential of firearms based on price.

I’ve heard the same or similar arguments before regarding the pricing of different guns. Specifically, some people assume that price generally reflects the quality of a product and claim that lower-priced guns must be inferior to those costing more. While my experience generally aligns with the premise that you get what you pay for, there are many instances in which I paid substantially less and got substantially more when compared to another product.

What if I were to flip the script?… If Taurus priced the GX4 $150 more than a Glock, would you similarly claim that the Glock is less expensive because it would not hold up to the round count of the Taurus? I would certainly hope that my more expensive pistol could endure more rounds than a less expensive pistol, but the price of a gun offers no such assurance.

The price discrepancies between two similar products offered by two different brands may reflect something other than the quality of the product. For instance, perhaps a product from Brand A costs more because Brand A desires a higher profit margin than Brand B. Perhaps Brand A has more expenses than Brand B because it spends more in advertising, research, and pays their employees more and, therefore, must charge more than Brand B.

Without knowing the finances and nuances of each company and the specific products, it is difficult to make a compelling argument as to why one brand’s product costs more than another’s or to assert that the price is an indicator of the round count that can be expected.

Differences in the quality of materials, manufacturing processes, metal coatings/treatments, etc. may reflect a difference in cost, but an argument strictly on the basis of cost without explaining what contributes to those price differences and how the differences may enable a pistol to endure a higher round count is not entirely convincing.

Sorry, nothing against you. I just wanted to point out a flaw in the argument.

All that said, if given a choice, I’d pick Glock (due mainly to its reputation) over Taurus although Taurus has been putting out some good stuff over the past few years.

No, my experience thus far is that Glocks are high quality regardless of price. Taurus was on my sh... list for many years. But they have upped thier game in recent years and I'll give credit where its due. I gave them a second chance with the G3c and the Spectrum as well as a couple revolvers and so far I have not regretted it. However, I stand by my statement: I don't expect them to equal a Glock in rd ct without problems.

 

[Terry G]

Two all metal Taurus guns, the PT92 and the PT99 have gone through thousand of rounds without an issue, but these gun were made on the 80's when Taurus was using Beretta machinery. The recent Taurus G2C, the G3, and the TX22's are very good guns. Longevity I can't speak to, but my first TX22 is in the three thousand mark with no signs of undue wear. Over all I think this polymer .22 is way ahead of the Glock 44. The G3 I bought is certainly accurate and reliable enough for SD carry and I won't be putting thousands of rounds through.it, so I would give a thumbs up to it a carry gun, no t a range toy.

 

[GBExpat]

I have purchased, lessee, (mentally counting) 6 Glocks (I blame Blue Label pricing ). I have probably carried the 43 more than any of the others (although I really like the larger/heavier 30S and shoot it very well).

A couple of years ago I started accumulating a small collection of the new Taurus offerings (until recently, 605, 856, G3C[x2]) and have found them to be better engineered & crafted than their pricing (and dated anti-Taurus scuttlebutt) would seem to suggest.

Last week I picked up a Taurus GX4. I have not shot-it-in yet, but I won't be surprised if it becomes my primary outside* carry very soon afterwards.

If you haven't yet and get a chance do yourself a favor and, at least, handle one.

===

* I prefer to carry lower-pressure/velocity rounds (,32wcf, .380, .45acp) inside my house for HD.