I wish S&W were more like Taurus

[Maxinquaye]

Seriously. Taurus seems to really LISTEN to what consumers want, and consistantly brings new and innovative products to market. S&W seems to be more arrogant about it and assumes people will buy whatever they make. Someone over there needs a swift kick in the pants, IMHO.

 

[pezo]

yeah, and if smith and wesson kept their prices closer to taurus but still maintaned their better quality that would be great to.

 

[GlenJ]

I like Taurus for the same reasons Max. They really cater to CCW and there quality is IMHO every bit as good as S&W.

 

[Black Snowman]

I've seen inside a Taurus a Smith and a Ruger. Fit and finish the S&W wins hands down. Design Ruger wins hands down. The Taurus is an excellent balance simplifying design and manufacture to make a good and resaonably priced product.

However, my latest Taurus came with a good amount of silica sand in the action that required cleaning before it functioned properly.

My S&W 646 was perfect out of the box but just about completely locked up because of some unburnt flakes of powder.

My very used Super Redhawk .454 is a trooper. No issues yet.

All that said, I agree that S&W could stand to pay more attention to their clients.

Pointless revover group photo here.

 

[surfinUSA]

Why would you like S&W to be more like taurus? The last thing we need is an American gun manufacturer to make is relatively cheap handguns of mediocre quality.

It will be a cold day in hell when the quality of taurus equals S&W. I hear alot of nonsense on these boards from people that have never owned a S&W parroting things they hear about S&W quality. But the new ones I've purchased have been perfect. Easily equal to the quality of the older production guns.

I have no desire to see S&W lower their quality to that of Taurus.

 

[Ala Dan]

Greeting's All-

Folk's I'm here to tell you that Taurus has come a long way since my
very fist encounter with a model 82. I'm sure Tamara (among others)
will recall me denouncing the Taurus as being of inferior quality. Well
folks, believe it or not that theory has changed as the Taurus semi-
autos are out selling their revolvers! The only ones I've seen come
back in for warranty repair are the PT-22's.

And I don't recall any of their revolver's ever coming back in! Yes,
the old model 82 sucked, and the trigger was really bad; but since
the acquiston of Rossi, I believe they have started taking more pride
in their workmanship.

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

 

[BluesBear]

I find it funny that everyone I have every talked to in person who disliked Taurus Firearms had either never owned one or hadn't owned one in over 10 years.

Most had never even HELD one much less shot one enough to form a valid opinion.

Yeah, yeah, yeah I know all about the early Taurus problems. My fist experience with a Taurus revolver was in 1976 and even back then the factory fixed it to 100% working order totally free.


I also find it amusing that everyone who ever fired my non-ported Taurus 445 said they'd like to have it.

 

[c_yeager]

I have owned and fired several Taurus revolvers (no semis though) and havent had any problems with them. I don't particularly like them per se but, I havent any real complaints.

I do find it amusing that a lot of people who hate S&W for doing such things as adopting internal locks seem to forget that Taurus led the way with the locks (had them as long as I can remember) as well as a lot of the push towards 'smart guns'. They make decent (and innovative) guns but, politically they are no more on our side than S&W. They do seem to have a better PR department though (the NRA membership with purchase thing they had was brilliant).

 

[SnWnMe]

My 669 CP didn't make it through the first range trip.

Good guns though... As long as they're not mine.

 

[BigG]

Taurus as good as Smith & Wesson?

I believe you are telling the truth as you see it, but sorry, I just ain't buying. Life is too short.

 

[cxm]

Taurii

Ya gets what ya pays for.

I have never bought a Taurus but have had some appear as part of trades.

The quality was so much below that of S&W or Colt's they promptly were sold off.

This isn't a scientific study to be sure, but none I encountered were much good for one reason or another...some spit lead, another had timing problems, one seemed to be getting a crack in the forcing cone.

S&W or Colt's for me....

FWIW

Chuck

 

[SapperLeader]

I currently have one Taurus gun in the safe, my brothers .22 pump. Its a great firearm, that looks nice and works every time. My first taurus purchase will be this I frame 9mm if it ever comes out. I have two friends that only buy taurus products and ahve never had any issues with them.

They may not look as nice, but the guns (both revolver and semi) do seem to go bang every time.
That said, I still like smith and Wesson better

 

[eagle45]

I thought we finished this 'discussion' last time!

I like S&W.
I like Taurus too, probably a little more. I own more of them and carry them.

Harley/Honda. Chevy/Ford. Scrambled/sunny side up.

If you don't like them, don't buy them.

No business succeeded by selling millions of defective products.

 

[SnWnMe]

No business succeeded by selling millions of defective products.

Milli Vanilli had a good run.

 

[Maxinquaye]

"Milli Vanilli had a good run."

OK, that cracked me up.

Guys, I'm not arguing quality here. S&W makes higher quality items. I'm not arguing value even, although I think Taurus is a good value for the $.

What I'm saying is that Taurus is more responsive to the overall market and continues to innovate, whereas S&W's product line, .500 aside, is relatively stale compared to Taurus when it comes to caliber availability in different packages. I just wish S&W would LISTEN. How many people have been screaming for different calibers and barrel lengths on th X platform? Does Smith chamber for the .17 HMR? How about the 9mm? Why doesn't S&W take advantage of these segments?

 

[PaleRyder]

SurfinUSA already summed up my reply. I've had a couple of Taurus revolvers. One was ok, one was garbage. I've never had any issues with Smiths. Smiths and Rugers are the only revolvers I'll own.

 

[MarineTech]

I wish S&W were more like Taurus

I don't.

I have owned 2 Taurus revolvers. Both developed problems within 4 months of purchase requiring me to contact Taurus warranty services. I will never own another Taurus thanks to my expiences with their warranty department.

I have dealt with S&W customer service once. While not what I would consider "excellent", they were definately above average.

If S&W ever drops their customer service to the level of Taurus, I will never own another S&W product either.

I will concede that I would like to see S&W prices a bit closer to that of Taurus, but certainly not at the expense of quality or service.

 

[whm1974]

Quote:
No business succeeded by selling millions of defective products.


Milli Vanilli had a good run.

Don't forget Microsoft. They make millions selling defective software. And most costumers can't switch...

-Bill

 

[mtnbkr]

I have experience with only 2 Taurus revolvers. One, a Model 94 22lr was a piece of junk. Even after a trip to the factory, it wouldn't work right. I sold it. The other, a Raging Bull in 45Colt (my dad's) is a great gun. It is accurate, reliable, and has a decent trigger (DA's a tad heavy, but very smooth). My dad has fired hundreds of warm, but not Ruger level, 45Colt rounds through it without a hint of trouble.

Chris

 

[1911user]

I went to a local, small gunshop today for some small items. I overhead the owner of the shop saying he would never order another new Taurus and would not take one in trade. It isn't what I'd call a high volume store. He had recently sold a 22 revolver and the customer brought it back because the cylinder would not close with ammo in the chamber. I don't know if it was repaired or not. Another taurus semi-auto pistol was returned where the magazines were very difficult to insert or remove. He shipped it back to Taurus for repair. They found the problem was "warped grips" AND then said grips weren't covered under warranty. I don't know any more about the 2 pistols, but Taurus isn't welcome in that store anymore.

 

[Hhrshooter]

People, People,
I always geta kick out've these threads. There is not one gun company out there that doesn't have issues with their products. You can praise your your favorite company, firearm to high heaven! Reality of it being...they all have issues with quality control in oneway or another. I personally only bet on mine i know work!!! I personally favor my sigs, but i have a favorite revolver that is very dear to my heart. It has never let me down! It works 100% everytime i ask it too. I have heard it called garbage, junk,,etc! It out performs my s&w's, and my ruger's. So it is what it is...a rossi mdl 720. I have found that people defend their choices in firearms and tout the hype. Every firearm that works when asked too is a good firearm! It is your personal choice or preference that you state. I don't put much trust in any one company myself as i have had problems with all of them.

Now, I agree that some of our purported top line companies should put more of our intrests into their products. Big business is what it is though.....

 

[Magnum88C]

I owned a Taurus once. It was their 7-shot .357, don't remember the model number. it was probably the most average gun I ever owned. It wasn't real accurate, it wasn't real innaccurate. I have to say it's exactly what I expected for the price. I can't argue with that.

I also can't argue that Taurus has some great ideas. Their Trapper guns are a great idea. Now if they would just proof them for loads that are 30% above SAAMI-spec, like Ruger, they'd really storm the market even more than they have. I don't really like their Semis, but their aren't many autoloaders that I do like.

However, for my druthers, I'd rather have a Ruger. About the same price, and I love the "built like a brick outhouse" philosophy. Ruger should be a bit more responsive, but really, they put a lot of thought and engineering into a product before they release it.

Heck, for years, people wanted a powerful DA wheelgun from Ruger that was "packable". The shortest barrel you could get for a long time was the 5.5" Redhawk. Now you've got the Alaskan. I wish it came in .44 Magnum, but you can load some real stout .45 Colts in the .454 version. For years people wanted a more compact .45 autoloader. Finally the 345 came along. Side-by-side shotgun? Finally here too. Seems Ruger is taking a more Taurus-like listen to what the customers want. For the price, you're not going to get a slick-as-glass action with a Ruger, but then you don't get that from S&W anymore either.

Where am I going with this? Buy what you like, and don't apologise to anyone for it.

 

[Kamicosmos]

I have a 669 that I bought off Black Snowman. I refused to let him trade it off or sell it to some stranger, it's that nice of a gun! Single action trigger is very sweet, and the double isn't bad. Extremely accurate gun too. It also doesn't have any locks on it. It's about ten years old or so.

I also have a friend that has a PT99 that we compared side by side with my Beretta. He's never had any problems with it, and it's probably about 15 years old.

Also, for what it's worth: I'm a Ruger man when it comes to revolvers. The Taurus is the only non-Ruger revolver in my collection.

 

[Highland Ranger]

Taurus seems to really LISTEN to what consumers want, and consistantly brings new and innovative products to market.

Yeah like the SMARTGUN . . . . . and everyone makes a big deal about a lock you don't have to use while Taurus was urinating on the 2nd amendment.

Politics aside, the quality is just not there and I am funny about my guns . . . . I like them to work.

 

[Tacoma]

To give credit where due, Taurus is VG at offering a wide variaty of variations and calibers. I particularly liek some of their offerings in snubbies. Consistancy in quality is still much better at S&W IMHO though. I'm "testing" Taurus customer service right now with a blown up mod 85. Jury is still out but I will post teh end results.