Old S&W vs New Taurus / Rossi

[18DAI]

To the OP's original question, I would always take a model 19 over anything else.

For the thread drift questions, yes, the older S&W's.....say anything 1999 and prior, are the gold standard.

Yes (hypothetically forced to choose), I would take a "new" Taurus revolver over a current production S&W revolver. The Taurus does not have a firing pin that is too short, has an IL that is NOT tied into the lock work, and is priced reasonably for what it is.

The only current production revolvers I would opt to spend my cash on are Rugers.

I will always choose a nice pre lock S&W over any other revolver.

Oh, and YES, the model 19 is an elegant design. TJ

 

[joed]

I always thought Taurus revolvers were junk. Many that I handled had a terrible action, probably the worst I'd ever seen.

Four years ago I bought a used Taurus 445 in .44 Spl. I admit I like the gun a lot. It is about the size of a Charter Arms Bulldog and makes a great carry gun. Should something happen and I lose it I won't cry.

That said, I've owned about 40 S&W revolvers. They put any Taurus to shame. It depends on what you want and plan to use the gun for.

I've heard horror stories about Taurus customer service. I have no experience with them so can't comment.

 

[Guillermo]

Thaddeus pretty much summed it up (I agree wholeheartedly except for the Ruger thing)

 

[Davandron]

OP Here
Wow, sincerely thank you to everyone for your input, I made a point to read every post. I did not realize how highly charged this topic would be, but in hindsight I can understand it a little bit.

A bit of a story with why I asked. As life flows onward, I've been unfortunate to inherit both my father's and grandfather's firearms. Both were avid hunters, but my grandfather had more disposable income and purchased higher quality items. Today, on the resale market, his purchases are still have much of their original value and are valued, where-as my father's have almost no resale value. That said, my father's are perfectly functional and filled every one of his needs (which were greater than mine). It has taught me that, when I can afford it, purchase quality, but that the measure of a tool is how well it does the job not its price tag.

Where I'm at now, I'm looking for a S&W, but I don't think I'll pass up a deal on a Taurus if I find one.

BTW, to those asking where I'm finding things; you've got me spooked that I'm sitting on honey pots so I'm hesitant to publish a map :^) That said, I'm just looking in the usual places and will openly talk about them to people who are willing to share their honeypots with me. ;^) Just send me a PM

 

[Confederate]

I've found that while the Taurus revolvers are beautiful in finish, it's best to spec them out before purchase. Take six virgin .357 JHP bullets and drop each into a chamber. If three or more catch, you can be reasonably assured that the throat size is being watched. If they all catch, buy the gun if everything else checks out. If they all fall through, try six .358 lead bullets. All of those should catch. If any of those fall through, I wouldn't buy it.

My advice is that you probably can't do better than a S&W 686 4-inch. After that, a Ruger GP-100 4-inch is the ticket.

 

[MCgunner]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that hand-fitting makes a gun stronger, or better. I just said it adds to the elegance of the gun.
And if you look on the first page, I was the first one to mention Ruger as an alternative here. I'm a Ruger man at heart, and believe in the strength of their products above those of Taurus and S&W. So you're preaching to the choir. Stop fighting with a guy who agrees with you.

Sorry. I guess, when it comes to tools, I think more about performance and practicality than "elegance". I ain't gonna impressed the bad guy with the elegant hand fitting. He's going to be more impressed by a round center mass. And in my search for medium frame .357s, the Tauri have been the most accurate of the guns that have passed through my possession. .

 

[Guillermo]

the Tauri have been the most accurate of the guns that have passed through my possession

that is not a sentiment that I have ever heard expressed before

 

[fireside44]

I've found that while the Taurus revolvers are beautiful in finish, it's best to spec them out before purchase.

I think this is an appropriate line of action to take whenever possible when considering ANY gun purchase because we are basically resorting to buying guns that are mass produced using cost cutting measures.

 

[Glock Holiday]

Buy the S&W gun.You will like it better,the resale is much better and the over all fit and finish will be better.
I had a Taurus M85 and it was a good serviceable little gun.
It never gave me any problems but my advice to you is get the Smith and Wesson revolver.

 

[w_houle]

I would say to take the old S&W over a new S&W
Glad to see the taurusarmed threadsh*tters in full force on this one
Comparing New S&W to Taurus/ Rossi is one thing but this?

 

[1911Tuner]

Speaking strictly from a mechanical standpoint/gunsmith's view...

Although the lockwork of the Smith & Wesson and Taurus revolvers are very similar, after having been into a few Taurii...just recently up to my neck in a badly abused 3-inch .357/Model 65...I have to say that I'm not at all impressed with the overall quality. I especially don't care for the hammer block design, which is a weird rack and pinion arrangement that...if not positioned correctly...will lock the gun up solidly. The hand spring is also a little strange, though workable.

I was able to return the gun to working condition...barely...and only took it in on request from my cop nephew in-law for his cop bud. Otherwise, I wouldn't have touched it.

The Taurus isn't a bad revolver if all you want is a relatively inexpensive piece to keep around the house or in a tackle box for emergencies and such...but if you plan to shoot it a bit and want to experience the gun getting smoother with use...the Smith & Wesson has it beat, hands down.

Note that I'm not very much impressed with the new generation Smiths, either. The MIM lockwork doesn't seem to lend itself to the same slickerin' techniques that work magic on the older revolvers. Plus, it just plain looks funky.

 

[wlewisiii]

i didn't have any trouble with my Taurus 650. Nice revolver that did what it was supposed to do, every time. If I came on a good deal for another current model Taurus, I'd grab it.

That said, I decided I needed a 4" barrel and when I found an older Model 64 at my FLGS, I traded in the Taurus for the Smith & Wesson. I expect the S&W to be a good shooter & the Taurus was a good shooter. The S&W just meets my current needs better than any .357 magnum snub nose would - I'd have traded any snub nose just as fast.

William

 

[Glock Holiday]

My "old" 4" S&W .357 wheelgun.
I think they are just classy.

 

[jad0110]

Thing is, there are so many Smith koolaid drinkers out there that the price has skyrocketed around here. I went to the gun shows for a while looking for a 2.5 or 3" 13, 19, 65, or 66. Hell, I coulda bought a new Smith. I never found a 3". God knows I could never have afforded it, anyway, even if it was clapped out. I found a 3" 66 Taurus for 180 bucks!

Strangely, in my neck of the woods, used Taurus Model 66s sell for as much or nearly as much as S&W Model 66s. Maybe it is because they look similar and have the same Model number, I dunno. But I know I wouldn't buy a used Taurus M66 4" for $499 (yes, actually saw one priced that high recently), especially when you can buy a new one for less.

The one anti-taurus argument I can understand and agree with is that the customer service sux and that has been a valid argument, though from all reports they're doing something about that recently.

I guess I can't speak for their CS as this moment in time, but 3 years ago I experienced their crappy CS first hand. They actually managed to return my gun in worse condition than when I shipped it to them. And they seemed rather annoyed that a customer actually had a problem with one of their products.

I decided at that point that although I might by a used Taurus in the future, I won't be giving them any of my money on a new one, what with a lousy attitude like I saw first hand.

If I could get my hands on, say, a 2.5" M65 round butt (did they make one?) for 250, I'd jump on it.

I'm 99% certain S&W didn't make the 13 and 65 in 2.5" barrels (only 3" and 4"). But like anything else, a few oddball configurations may have left the factory.

 

[MCgunner]

I'm 99% certain S&W didn't make the 13 and 65 in 2.5" barrels (only 3" and 4"). But like anything else, a few oddball configurations may have left the factory.

Heck, I prefer the 3" tube. Rather rare in K frames and certainly not for the $180 I gave for my Taurus 3" 66. That, and my 4" nickel 66 at 197 dollars, both at small gun shows in Victoria, Texas, are a couple of the best deals I've ever pulled off, at least in that I love the guns and they were both such bargains. Both guns are square butts. I'd really prefer a round butt on the 3", a minor detail I guess.

.I have to say that I'm not at all impressed with the overall quality. I especially don't care for the hammer block design, which is a weird rack and pinion arrangement that...if not positioned correctly...will lock the gun up solidly. The hand spring is also a little strange, though workable.

My older gun is the 3" 66. It has the hammer block. But, my newer 4" gun has a slicker trigger and it has a transfer bar, is NOT the hammer block of the older models. All newer Tauri, far as I know, from the early 90s are transfer bar systems, totally different from the old ones and it is an improvement. My 4" is as slick as my M10 from the early 60s. One place the 3" differs, even though it has the hammer block of the older design, is that it uses a coil spring, not the Smith's leaf. I think that's an improvement, myself.

 

[shockwave]

The Rossi .357 with 4" barrel has outperformed my S&W 686 in competition. They are both excellent weapons and I can vouch for the Rossi. Neither gun has ever FTF.

 

[Jonah71]

I still have a Taurus revolver and a 9mm24/7 (2000 rnds without a FTF), a S&W, H&R, Kimber, Bersa, and an old Merwin Hubert (retired that one), and will soon have a CZ. And I may even buy a Charter Arms .357 after that. All of these function according to my needs or even just my mood at the time. The ONLY gun I ever had that was imo totally useless was a Jennings I bought in the 80's. But again that's just my opinion. If I had to pick a favorite? Right now it would be the 1958 S&W .38 spec. But that's what I'm carrying today. The point is, they all work, and they all serve a purpose. I don't have opinions about guns I've never fired. Except for knowing when I can't afford one....but that's on me. Not the gun. lol

 

[StormCloud601]

I own a Taurus J frame .38Spl and I'm VERY fond of it. Only reason I own it is I didn't have the money for S&W. Will I ever trade it in for a S&W? In a heartbeat if the opportunity ever presents it's self. Happy Trails, God Bless. John

 

[WVMountainBoy]

I just bought a 66-2 for a hair under $600 that was till in its original box with all its original documentation. I own several .38/.357's and while this one hasn't had work outs to move it ahead of my Ruger Security Six, it is easily the prettiest revolver I own.