Smith and Wesson has long and rightfully been regarded among revolver afficianados as the absolute best evolution of the American revolver. Sometimes, American technology achieves a best of, and the evolution simply doesnt' evolve far past that example. Consider John Deere tractors (I'm a life-long Nebraskan), consider Harley Davidson V-Twin motorcycles, and include Smith and Wesson revolvers in that elite mix.
I'm 52, I've owned revolvers since 1977. I've managed three gun stores full time the past fifteen years. I own a Rossi .38snubbie (I sold 15 Rossi Revolvers in 1995, and won one from Interarms, the now defunct importer), and while I appreciate it, have long relegated it to an also-ran amongst my stable of handguns. While the quality is fair, it's certainly nowhere near the quality of a S&W, or a Ruger, or a Colt revolver.
While I'm pissing off THR posters, Taurus is in the same category as Rossi. Yes, 10 years ago Taurus purchased Rossi, but the two are remarkably similar in quality. Perhaps one can purchase a decent quality Taurus as a consumer. As a gun retailer, I sent far too many Taurus firearms back to the factory because they were unsellable as new in box firearms from the factory. As a retailer, I was essentially the final inspector for Taurus, and I'm highly offended by their cavalier attitude toward quality inspection.
I suppose that the Taurus/Rossi firearms I offered in the shops I managed, if they made the sales floor and past our professional inspection, were sufficiently high enough quality firearms to be sold, yet personally, I'd never trust my life, nor those of my loved ones, to a lesser firearm. If you want a quality revolver, no question you must first consider a S&W. Ruger, and to a lesser degree these days, Colt, are worthy of consideration. But unless money considerations override all other concerns, only then consider the South American manufactured handguns. Smith & Wesson revolvers are the industry standard, and will always be more than worth the money spent on them.
