S&W vs Ruger Vs Taurus

[Jim Watson]

Yes, Jack Weigand. I never saw a Weigand Taurus or a company custom shop gun, either.
And Charlie Cutshaw has been gone 14 years.

 

[Grunt]

Well, I hope I didn’t just step in it. After my experience with my old 85CH lead spitter, I was pretty much done with Taurus. Now I have always been an auto shooter although I could still get by with a revolver, however, the DA trigger is something I have to keep working on. The price of .357 Magnum and even .38 Special makes spending a large amount of time working with my revolvers an expensive affair so today, I ordered a .22LR Taurus 942 with a 3” barrel as a low-cost trainer. I looked at the Smiths, the Rugers and even some older Colts but the prices are just a bit steep for my needs so I broke down and went with a $372 option. I’m hoping that maybe they got their poop together these days and I get one that is better than my last Taurus experience but I’ll have to wait and see if this too was another mistake. At least it’s not an expensive one if it is.

 

[TTv2]

Well, I hope I didn’t just step in it. After my experience with my old 85CH lead spitter, I was pretty much done with Taurus. Now I have always been an auto shooter although I could still get by with a revolver, however, the DA trigger is something I have to keep working on. The price of .357 Magnum and even .38 Special makes spending a large amount of time working with my revolvers an expensive affair so today, I ordered a .22LR Taurus 942 with a 3” barrel as a low-cost trainer. I looked at the Smiths, the Rugers and even some older Colts but the prices are just a bit steep for my needs so I broke down and went with a $372 option. I’m hoping that maybe they got their poop together these days and I get one that is better than my last Taurus experience but I’ll have to wait and see if this too was another mistake. At least it’s not an expensive one if it is.

The .22 is the one instance I will say the Ruger is the better buy even for $150 more in the LCRx. The trigger is heavy, but it's not the nightmare trigger snobs on here make it out to be. The LCR is light as a feather and the 3 inch models have fully adjustable sights that are easy to see.

The Taurus is probably the best .22 revolver under $400, but I've been so well served by the LCRx that I don't think I'll be buying another small frame .22 DA again. If I'm gonna carry a 2 inch snub, it's going to be a .32. For a .22 revolver, it's mainly going to be a plinker, maybe a hiking gun and ultimate concealment isn't necessary so the longer barrel is sufficient.

 

[Mosin Bubba]

The cliche is that Smiths are smooth, Rugers are rougher but cheap, and Tauruses are junk.

From what I've seen, new Smiths aren't smooth, new Rugers aren't cheap, and new Tauruses are very good about half the time.

I'm not looking to buy a revolver these days, I'm at the point where I'd prefer to buy ammo for the ones I have. But if I was looking to buy one more, my first move would be to shop for a Smith or Ruger from 20+ years ago. If that didn't work out, my second move would be to take the gamble on a new Taurus.

 

[balin]

I have multiple revolvers in 44 caliber froproblem. Multiple Rugers and Taurus as well in 44. All have funcioned as they should for years. I think the Smiths look nicer, Rugers feel tougher. Even the 2 older Bulldogs I have have been no proplem.

 

[PavelSJ]

Never seen or heard about dept issued Taurus revolvers back when revolvers ruled.

I will give Taurus credit for innovation, choices, and pricing.

Several years ago there were South American .38 Taurus revolvers sold as surplus in the US for about $150 (basically Taurus versions of Model 10). I agree with credit given. If I shot gun sporadically like few hundred rounds per year and kept revolver for defense Taurus should do just fine especially if chambered in lower pressure cartridges like: .38 Special, .32 H&R, .44 Special, .45 ACP, .45 Colt.

 

[Mr. Mosin]

Good one! Although the equally ridiculous Taurus View might be more appropriate since we're in the revolver forum.View attachment 1256434
Hard to believe this isn't AI generated. That's actually what they looked like.

If the View had been well executed (ie NOT TAURUS) it may have actually been a good idea

 

[unclenunzie]

If the View had been well executed (ie NOT TAURUS) it may have actually been a good idea

They did make a "non-view" version as I recall, which moves it from novelty to practical, or nearly so. I see recently Taurus reintroduced the 650 and 850 models. I love the idea and think I want the 850, but then I look at my 1991 640 38 special, and my stable of S&W j frames and Ruger LCRs, and I think probably a good revolver these days but I'm covered there.

 

[Walkalong]

I'll play.

 

[Styx]

Well, I hope I didn’t just step in it. After my experience with my old 85CH lead spitter, I was pretty much done with Taurus. Now I have always been an auto shooter although I could still get by with a revolver, however, the DA trigger is something I have to keep working on. The price of .357 Magnum and even .38 Special makes spending a large amount of time working with my revolvers an expensive affair so today, I ordered a .22LR Taurus 942 with a 3” barrel as a low-cost trainer. I looked at the Smiths, the Rugers and even some older Colts but the prices are just a bit steep for my needs so I broke down and went with a $372 option. I’m hoping that maybe they got their poop together these days and I get one that is better than my last Taurus experience but I’ll have to wait and see if this too was another mistake. At least it’s not an expensive one if it is.

I own one. I paid $350 for mine in 2020 during the COVID panic. It's been 100%. A forged stainless steel S&W 22lr revolver would cost ~$900. A Colt would cost even more.

Funny you should mention that about your 85CH. I see people who have had issues with their Colts, S&Ws, and Rugers, yet those issues never caused them to be "done" or hold a lifelong grudge. It's only like that with Taurus! People seem to be more accepting of having problems and getting lemons when they spent more money on the item than when they spent less. Seems like they have higher standards for the less expensive manufacturer and lower standards for the so-called higher tier more expensive manufacturer. That never made any sense to me.

 

[Buzznrose]

i’ve owned three Taurus revolvers. Two were built in the 80s, a 44 mag and a 357. I sold the 44 when I left Alaska. It was a good gun, but I didn’t put a lot of rounds through it and it wasn’t as nice as my Redhawk. But it worked. It was ported and had a rib barrel. I still own a 4 inch 357 that shoots fine. Nothing fancy but it’ll do the work. It’s not as nice as my GP 100. I wouldn’t trust it with real hot loads, like I would the GP 100. The other is a pocket 38 that I bought recently. I bought it new and it is fine. I like it cause it carries six rounds instead of five. I don’t like the hammer as it’s not fully enclosed, it’s spurless, but it could still get caught on clothing in a pocket. But for when I paid, it shoots OK and I don’t expect to win any shooting contest with it.

To say a Taurus is the equal of a Smith or a colt or a Ruger is really not correct. But they’re not junk, at least not the majority of them. They have issues, but if a person wants a revolver and don’t plan to shoot, hot loads, I think they’ll work fine. That’s been my experience. But don’t expect to hold the value of a Ruger Smith, or a colt, it just won’t happen.

On a sidenote, and if this was a different forum, I would tell you that the TX 22 semi automatic pistol is probably one of Taurus ‘s best offerings today. I regret buying my SigP322. I would rather had the TX 22.

 

[Styx]

To say a Taurus is the equal of a Smith or a colt or a Ruger is really not correct. But they’re not junk, at least not the majority of them. They have issues, but if a person wants a revolver and don’t plan to shoot, hot loads, I think they’ll work fine. That’s been my experience. But don’t expect to hold the value of a Ruger Smith, or a colt, it just won’t happen.

I know you, like most others, are basing your opinion and experiences off of revolvers Taurus manufactured ~5 decades ago. I'd like to add that the workers, management, equipment, and processes that existed then are different than what exists now. They are the same company by name, logo, and old reputation only.

Other than fit and finish, I think modern day Taurus revolvers are equal to Smith and Ruger with regards to utilitarian usage. There's no reason why a 38 special or 357 mag Taurus couldn't handle hotter loads, and I haven't seen any evidence that they aren't durable. Buffalo Bore (BB) list Taurus right next to Ruger, Colt's Anaconda, and and Dan Wesson (no S&W revolvers) for their hot 44 MAG +p+ loads. Taurus can handle the so-called "Ruger only" loads and S&W can't. BB list revolvers that can't handle their offerings, and only their old lightweight titanium frame and the Taurus Judge (and S&W Governor) with 45 Colt +p are mentioned as not being able to handle hotter loads.

 

[br549arkie]

I've always had good luck with Ruger and S&W revolvers. I have several Taurus model 85's that have been fine. I got a new Taurus 856 online with cylinder timing issues. No more Taurus for me unless I can do a hands on inspection before I lay my money down.

 

[Zendude]

I like the leaf spring designs of Colts and S&Ws over coil springs. It makes a difference in trigger feel to me. So, because of that I consider the Colt and S&W models with leaf springs “better” than a competitor with a coil hammer spring. But as far as basic reliability, I haven’t had problems with any but I never had a Ruger revolver.

 

[TTv2]

To say a Taurus is the equal of a Smith or a colt or a Ruger is really not correct. But they’re not junk, at least not the majority of them. They have issues, but if a person wants a revolver and don’t plan to shoot, hot loads, I think they’ll work fine. That’s been my experience. But don’t expect to hold the value of a Ruger Smith, or a colt, it just won’t happen.

It depends on when all of them were made. A Taurus of 20 years ago was inferior to any Smith or Ruger from any time because they were just bad, but a Taurus made a year ago, based on my experiences with them, is going to be equal to Ruger and Smith today with the advantage of costing half as much, so in terms of value and bang for the buck, Taurus is making the best revolvers for the money today.

Customer service? All repairs are taking 2 months to get turned around, doesn't matter the company.

Value retention, when the cost of the Smith and Ruger are as high as they are, I don't see people willing to part with money as easily as they would with a Taurus that you've vouched for and have knocked $50 off what you paid. If anything, as more people get learned that current Taurus revolvers are good to go they may be willing to pay more to get one. With recession likely this year, IDK if the high prices Ruger and Smith's are going for will hold. Very possible if people buy one today they could lose hundreds. With Taurus, you don't lose much if anything at all when you sell. The only one I ever sold, an older PT22, I get back what I paid for it, which was not much.

 

[PavelSJ]

Unfired 3" K-frame .357 from early to mid eighties with box and papers for $650 was a good buy. The profit and value is bestowed at the time of purchase not the time of sale.