S&W vs Ruger Vs Taurus

[CraigC]

Sorry but you're not paying for a name. You're paying for a better gun. I don't care how internet complainers paint the picture. The internet is the world's complaint department and people are FAR more likely to get online to bitch about a problem than to praise something that delivered as expected. Taurus didn't get its reputation by accident.

That said, S&W has cheapened the manufacturing of their revolvers to the point that the distinction that used to exist between them and Ruger no longer does. Ruger is currently having QC issues with their revolvers because it's hard to find decent employees. I've bought a TON of their guns and only ever sent one back, which was nearly 20yrs ago.

Except for the Colt SAA, you're definitely paying for that name. I do not believe this applies to the new Colt DA's.

 

[JERRY]

All three make good revolvers, but Taurus lacks the after sales customer support of the other two.

 

[unclenunzie]

And there’s nothing wrong with that.

I had an economics professor state that wanting a car with a three-pointed star on the hood was a perfectly legitimate criterion for making a buying decision – and he’s right.

There’s also nothing wrong with wanting a ‘name brand’ revolver, a reflection of your tastes and appreciation of a revolver’s history and pedigree – Colt and Smith revolvers in particular.

Last, it’s been my experience that Smith and Ruger revolvers are objectively superior to Taurus revolvers – it’s not really a matter of Taurus revolvers being bad but being not as good; there’s no good reason to not come up with the extra $300 or $400 to buy the Smith or Ruger.

Your last statement hit the nail on the head, but kinda disagree with the last part only. Not everyone can come up with an extra 3-4 hundred.

 

[Dave DeLaurant]

There are a number of things that go into a desirable revolver IMO. Good design, material quality and appropriateness.
High quality manufacturing, including finish. Quality control of the completed arm with regard to dimensional tolerances and material treatments. Customer support. And for collectors, historical associations.

You can inspect a gun and determine things like fit and finish quality, and whether the ergonomics are suited to task.

What a brand is supposed to do is assure the buyer that those things he cannot verify at time of purchase, such a proper steels and heat treatment, have been properly addressed during manufacture, and that the occasional flaw that slips past QC is rare and quickly and fairly remedied. Brand reputation can vary with time, assuming the company is more than a fly-by-night outfit.

S&W has had its bad QC years, as has Colt.

My experience with Taurus was limited to one revolver that soured me on the brand for life, thanks to their customer service response. YMMV

IDK whether Ruger has had bad periods, but I've encountered guns with QC issues from them. If I find something from them that I want, I'll look it over carefully before buying.

A brand name alone isn't necessarily a guarantee, but it can and does signify something if you do your research. For example, a Colt or Smith revolver from the first half of the 20th century in good condition represents a good value. From then onward, you may need to do some research.

 

[silicosys4]

When a person can find a used S&W for roughly the same price as a new Taurus, I have pretty low incentives to buy a new Taurus. Same with Ruger, although there are some Rugers I'd pursue because they have no S&W counterpart

 

[Grunt]

I used to own a Taurus 85CH that would occasionally fail to fire if you pulled the trigger slowly as the cylinder wouldn’t time correctly. Then when it would fire, it would occasionally shave off lead and spit it back at my face. Yeah, that one went down the road as trading fodder for a S&W 642 Airweight. I am occasionally tempted by a 3” Taurus 605 in .357 Magnum but after my 85CH experience, I just can’t bring myself to taking the plunge. Other than my old 6” Ruger Security Six, the rest of my DA revolver collection is all S&W guns.

 

[unspellable]

For out of the box defects I have found Colt to be the worst. Charter arms runs to canted barrels. Misaligned chambers in Torus (3) and Ruger (2). One Ruger 22 has difficult to load magazines, that's a design issue. One Smith & Wesson out of the box with end shake.
Part of the Colt issue of late has been overly hard SA revolver trigger pulls and a creepy gritty trigger in a supposed competition grade 1911. Maybe they are running to lawyer triggers?

 

[Styx]

Had this discussion today with a co worker and imo you’re paying for a name. What makes a S&W or Ruger better than a Taurus? I know a few guys who have Taurus hunting revolvers and they seem accurate and decently built. This was brought up because a LGS has several 4” and 6” 357 Taurus on sale this month for half of the cost of the other big names and i was considering one. Another guy chimed in and said buy a Taurus if you want it to blow up. Are they really that bad?

Resting on their laurels: The difference is that both S&W, Ruger, and Colt are judged by their pass quality, and Taurus is being judged by the lack of quality in the past. Most, not all, people who think modern S&W, Ruger, and Colt are so much better than modern Tauruses are typically stuck in the passed and/or are biased gun snobs.

Taurus revolvers are just as good as S&W and Ruger's offerings. Taurus revolvers aren't going to "blow up," and if they do, it's because of bad reloaded ammo or squib loads. S&W, Ruger, etc. are putting out just many if not more revolvers with QC problems as Taurus. Matter of fact, I'd say you'd have a better chance of getting a good new Taurus revolver than a S&W revolver hands down. The fact is, no matter what some claim, S&W, Ruger, Colt, Taurus, Kimber, and all mass production modern revolvers require a detailed evaluation before purchasing. It's the luck of the draw with every last one of them. No, your chances aren't better just because you paid more for a so-called higher tier brand.

S&W and Ruger just have the better aftermarket, resale value, looks, and customer service. That's why they might be worth the extra $$$. It's NOT being they're that much better at utilitarian task vs Taurus.

 

[dartor]

Had this discussion today with a co worker and imo you’re paying for a name. What makes a S&W or Ruger better than a Taurus? I know a few guys who have Taurus hunting revolvers and they seem accurate and decently built. This was brought up because a LGS has several 4” and 6” 357 Taurus on sale this month for half of the cost of the other big names and i was considering one. Another guy chimed in and said buy a Taurus if you want it to blow up. Are they really that bad?

I've only read the first post so far. This should be quite the can of worms.......

 

[lee n. field]

Had this discussion today with a co worker and imo you’re paying for a name. What makes a S&W or Ruger better than a Taurus? I know a few guys who have Taurus hunting revolvers and they seem accurate and decently built. This was brought up because a LGS has several 4” and 6” 357 Taurus on sale this month for half of the cost of the other big names and i was considering one. Another guy chimed in and said buy a Taurus if you want it to blow up. Are they really that bad?

Anything that will "blow up" a Taurus will also damage a S&W or Ruger.

 

[Axis II]

Anything that will "blow up" a Taurus will also damage a S&W or Ruger.

I meant like timing and stuff off, bad barrels, etc.

 

[Styx]

I meant like timing and stuff off, bad barrels, etc.

I objective and I own them all (Taurus, S&W, Ruger, Colt, and Kimber) except for Charter Arms. On rare occasions, I've seen people post pictures with all of the above having chatter marks, damaged crowns, or misaligned barrels. S&W is most notorious for their barrels being canted more so than any other manufacturer, but it's still not that common overall. I've seen people complain about the cylinder gap being off on all of the above, with S&W be most prominent again. When it comes to Taurus, I've only heard about multiple people complaining about timing issues wity their 6 shot 856 series, but not really with any of their other modern revolvers. I've heard of the S&W lock engaging itself under heavy recoil, but the Taurus revolvers that still have the lock (most don't) never seemed to have had that problem.

Like I said, it's hit or miss regardless of what manufacturer you go with. I don't think one is necessarily better than the other when it comes to quality control and reliability. S&W customers seem to have report the most issues, but that's probably because more people own S&W revolvers compared to other manufacturers. The only hit and negative to buying a Taurus revolver is their custom service suchs. There's pros and cons, give and take to everything. Yes, you get a decent utilitarian revolver for half the price of a comparable S&W, Ruger, or Colt, but the main downside is Taurus customer service is one of the worst in the business.

 

[sparkyv]

I've personally heard of two customer service nightmares with Taurus. One can read about many more.

This:

Better support with Ruger and S&W and way better parts availability for S&W.

 

[Steve51]

I am basically a revolver guy. Only own 2 semi-auto pistols.
I own several revolvers:
1 Smith & Wesson
1 Colt
3 Taurus (all Stainless)
7 Rugers
Over the years I have only used Ruger customer service 1 time. My fault - dropped a single six while cleaning and broke the loading gate. Ruger service was superb and quick.
So far, all of my revolvers have been very reliable and trouble free.
Like many others, I have heard bad reports of Taurus customer service - some from shooters that have never owned a Taurus.

 

[dartor]

I have two Taurus revolvers (one current one older), one Ruger (older) revolver and three S&W revolvers, (over 20 years old). All the revolvers are double action. There is no comparison to how smooth the triggers are on the Smiths. Don't get me wrong, I have a place for the Taurus's and the Ruger, but the Smiths are smoother.

 

[Outpost75]

I don't know of a single police department which permits its officers to carry a Taurus either on duty or off duty.

I don't know of any working professional gunsmith who will work on one.

In LE both of those facts would be called "clues."

 

[TTv2]

I objective and I own them all (Taurus, S&W, Ruger, Colt, and Kimber) except for Charter Arms. On rare occasions, I've seen people post pictures with all of the above having chatter marks, damaged crowns, or misaligned barrels. S&W is most notorious for their barrels being canted more so than any other manufacturer, but it's still not that common overall. I've seen people complain about the cylinder gap being off on all of the above, with S&W be most prominent again. When it comes to Taurus, I've only heard about multiple people complaining about timing issues wity their 6 shot 856 series, but not really with any of their other modern revolvers. I've heard of the S&W lock engaging itself under heavy recoil, but the Taurus revolvers that still have the lock (most don't) never seemed to have had that problem.

Like I said, it's hit or miss regardless of what manufacturer you go with. I don't think one is necessarily better than the other when it comes to quality control and reliability. S&W customers seem to have report the most issues, but that's probably because more people own S&W revolvers compared to other manufacturers. The only hit and negative to buying a Taurus revolver is their custom service suchs. There's pros and cons, give and take to everything. Yes, you get a decent utilitarian revolver for half the price of a comparable S&W, Ruger, or Colt, but the main downside is Taurus customer service is one of the worst in the business.

I can't speak to current customer service between any of the brands and the most recent times I've needed service was Charter about 6 years ago and NAA last year. I assume things have changed since I had to deal with Charter, so IDK how applicable my experience then compares today, but the transfer bar that broke in two pieces got fixed and I can't remember how long it took, I think less than a month. NAA last year, again it got fixed (light strikes), but it was a 2 month process and from what I'm reading with all companies 2 months seems to be the going rate for turnarounds.

IDK what the current or future situation is with S&W, Ruger, or Taurus, but from what I've read the past couple of years is S&W is bad, takes forever and when its sent back to the customer it's not done right and requires a second or third trip and again many weeks of waiting. Ruger, it seems to take time now, but it's fixed right the first time. Taurus, from what I read the past few years is they have improved, occasionally there are issues with their service department not getting shipping labels sent out to people, but things are being fixed. Going by what is posted on forums like this, I'm not seeing complaints of current Taruus service, all the complaints are based on experiences of 10 to 20 years ago.

 

[Styx]

IDK what the current or future situation is with S&W, Ruger, or Taurus, but from what I've read the past couple of years is S&W is bad, takes forever and when its sent back to the customer it's not done right and requires a second or third trip and again many weeks of waiting. Ruger, it seems to take time now, but it's fixed right the first time. Taurus, from what I read the past few years is they have improved, occasionally there are issues with their service department not getting shipping labels sent out to people, but things are being fixed. Going by what is posted on forums like this, I'm not seeing complaints of current Taruus service, all the complaints are based on experiences of 10 to 20 years ago.

I read that Taurus CS has improved but still sucks. The biggest complaint I still currently see with Taurus is their turnaround times for repairs and parts. I still see the occasional complaint about them still holding on to guns for several months on end with poor communication about when the firearm will be returned. This is because Taurus USA is almost always waiting for spare components from Brazil to come in. Then when the parts finally come in, it's on a first-come, first-served basis. That is, if Taurus needs 100 of a specific part for repairs and Brazil only ships 70, the other 30 customers will have to wait months until the next shipment comes in, but they'll be at the top of the queue.

Outside of that, Taurus seems to be on the same level as everyone else. I often hear them even giving dissatisfied customers the option to trade in their decades-old discontinued guns or their problematic modern copies for any other gun in their catalog. The latter isn't something I've heard of S&W or Ruger doing. That said, it's usually a several-month wait for the new replacement gun to ship in from Brazil.

If they happen to have the parts or replacement gun in stock, then turnaround is usually within a month or so....

 

[TTv2]

I read that Taurus CS has improved but still sucks. The biggest complaint I still currently see with Taurus is their turnaround times for repairs and parts. I still see the occasional complaint about them still holding on to guns for several months on end with poor communication about when the firearm will be returned. This is because Taurus USA is almost always waiting for spare components from Brazil to come in. Then when the parts finally come in, it's on a first-come, first-served basis. That is, if Taurus needs 100 of a specific part for repairs and Brazil only ships 70, the other 30 customers will have to wait months until the next shipment comes in, but they'll be at the top of the queue.

Outside of that, Taurus seems to be on the same level as everyone else. I often hear them even giving dissatisfied customers the option to trade in their decades-old discontinued guns or their problematic modern copies for any other gun in their catalog. The latter isn't something I've heard of S&W or Ruger doing. That said, it's usually a several-month wait for the new replacement gun to ship in from Brazil.

If they happen to have the parts or replacement gun in stock, then turnaround is usually within a month or so....

That sounds like a problem easily fixed by having a large inventory of parts available or having an in house production for said parts, but it's frustrating nonetheless. In that instance, Ruger CS would be more reliable, but comes at the cost of the revolver being a lot more.

I'm not in a position where if something has to go back for work and takes a few months that it leaves me defenseless, but for people who are buying their first few guns, I can see opting for brands that aren't a gamble of taking a few weeks to get back vs several months.

For me, customer service and warranties are not top of mind, what is is initial out of box quality, price, and features. Taurus wins on the first two for me every time.

 

[Slamfire]

Purchased a six shot Ultra Light a couple of years ago, it functioned perfectly, but the recoil was snappy.

this year, same gunstore had a sale on the stainless version, and the price was less than Bud's Gunshop, so had to buy it.

I checked the timing and the trigger pull at the gunstore, all was perfect. Only shot maybe 100 to 150 rounds, but everything went bang and where I was aiming/flinching.

Every Taurus snubbie I own has worked perfectly, I am not a high volume shooter of the things, I did blast a lot of rounds downrange in Detective Specials, but snubbies are not the best pistols for 25 yard and 50 yard target practice. Hitting the 50 yard target is more chance than anything else with a snubbie.

This is a mid 1990's Taurus. When I removed the side plate, the lockworks showed a lot of filing, which indicates a lot of hand fitting. Looked as rough as a 1970's Colt revolver.

Somewhere later, Taurus revolvers internal parts starting looking as nice and precise a S&W's. Taurus had purchased modern factory equipment and was producing better pistols. I have had good luck with Taurus.

The only recent Ruger is a MKIV. I hate the heavy trigger and the magazine safety, but the pistol is well made and is very accurate. Always preferred the triggers on S&W's over Rugers. If I can find an older S&W with the firing pin on the hammer, at a good price, I will get it. Guess I am a fossil as 1989 does not seem that long ago.

The only "recent" S&W's I have are Airweights, and they are fine revolvers.

Will say, Ruger Customer service is great, used them a couple of times and they fixed things, and were fast.

 

[Styx]

Will say, Ruger Customer service is great, used them a couple of times and they fixed things, and were fast.

Haha, it seems that everyone in the firearm community including myself has had to use Ruger's customer service at one time or another. It's often stated in a positive light, but I'm not sure it's all that good of a thing when you really think about it. I'm not sure that Taurus would get the same pass even if they took had excellent customer service.

I've never had to send a Taurus or any of the dozens of budget or expensive firearms back to the manufacturer with the exception of Ruger. Yes, the turnaround time was fast, but I still should not have had to send an out the box gun back to them for multiple failures. The funny part is it was a gift for a friend who wanted a Taurus, but I talked them out of it. Needless to say, I still have the gift, and they decided to purchase something else. I'm not even sure if Ruger really fixed the issue or not because the has been sitting in the box it was shipped back in for the last 7 or so years.

 

[br549arkie]

All of them can make good guns but it's best to do a hands on inspection of any of them and know what to look for and that goes double for Taurus.

 

[d2wing]

I aways liked Rugers as a working man's gun. Smiths are very nice. I did like the Raging Bull better than the SBH in 44 Mag because the Raging Bull was ported. They all functioned well for me. I don't recall ever owning a Colt.

 

[Slamfire]

Haha, it seems that everyone in the firearm community including myself has had to use Ruger's customer service at one time or another. It's often stated in a positive light, but I'm not sure it's all that good of a thing when you really think about it. I'm not sure that Taurus would get the same pass even if they took had excellent customer service.

Not every firearm sent to Ruger Customer service was due to factory defects. Mine was my Ruger MKII, decades after owning, and after shooting the thing in 2700 Bullseye, the firing pin retainer fell out when I was assembling the thing. The pin fell on carpet and I did not notice it soon enough to make a connection between the pin on the floor, and the Ruger.

Without a firing pin retention pin, when I dry fired the MKII, the firing pin gouged a deep channel at 12 OC at the chamber. It was unusable. Called Ruger, they said they no longer had MKII barrels but could make it go. I sent them the upper, they did something that made it functional, installed a new stainless bolt, there was still a deep gouge, but the thing would go bang. All it cost me was shipping, and I thought they were just great for helping.

Extracted rounds did show swelling at the case head, and I blamed every malfunction on the gouge. I did not need the distraction or worry. So I sent it off to Clark for one of their MKII barrels, it cost about as much as a used MKII, but I got a new barrel and kept the previous work (a trigger job to kill for!) on the existing pistol.

 

[lee n. field]

I have two Taurus revolvers (one current one older), one Ruger (older) revolver and three S&W revolvers, (over 20 years old). All the revolvers are double action. There is no comparison to how smooth the triggers are on the Smiths. Don't get me wrong, I have a place for the Taurus's and the Ruger, but the Smiths are smoother.

The trigger on my 19-4 is a thing to be marveled at.

The trigger on my Taurus 605 smoothed up until it's quite nice. Heavier, of course, than the Model 19's.