Smith or Taurus?

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rec999allis

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2005
Messages
57
Location
South Milwaukee, Wisconsin
I am looking to get a new .357 revolver in the next few months but I can't decide between a S&W 620 or a Taurus 608 with a four inch barrel. To be honest I really don't know to much about Taurus firearms. The reason I am looking into Taurus is because it's like the S&W 620 only you get an extra round. They both carry lifetime warranties and I know Taurus and Smith were both owned by the same company at one time. But thats about it. Dose Taurus compare to S&W in quality or should I just stick with S&W?:confused:
 
Smith & Wesson hands down! Some will say that the Taurus is just as good and that there quality problems have passed but between the two I would pick S&W. Hold onto your money and find your a good police trade in or an oldler Smith prior to MIM or the internal lock if those are of concern to you. There are several models that I'm sure will fill the bill for a fraction of the cost of a new gun. Have you considered a Ruger? They make the SP101 in a 2 1/4" and a 3 1/16 both are five shot and the "GP" series are six shooters and come in a varity of barrel lengths, sight options and finishes. I would choose a Ruger over the Taurus. The Ruger are slightly more affordable than the Smiths. Generally the Smith will have a bit more refined fit and finish and the trigger action is smoother. The Rugers are built like bank vaults. Hope this helps, Pistol Toter..............
 
MIM = Metal Injection Molding

We used to call MIM pot metal but these days everything has to be a freakin' acronym :rolleyes:

basically its the stuff hotwheels cars are made of.
 
I fired a Taurus tracker 357 at the pistol range the other day, and I shot a 2 and a half inch group the first time out. Pretty good for a stock revolver.
That being said, I would buy an older Smith and Wesson. I have owned many of the older Smiths (19, 66,29, 686) and they all shot very well right out of the box. The trigger pull is usually really good.
I am not knocking Taurus, but I really like the older Smiths.
 
I have never handled a Taurus but I heard the current production has good quailty for the money. I would still prefer a S&W but that is my own bias.
 
Some will say that the Taurus is just as good and that there quality problems have passed but between the two
Click to expand...

Well I won't say Taurus is just as good. I'll say that Taurus is actually BETTER than the current Smiths. Several reasons.

1.) Taurus quality is better than Smith in the recent "J" frames I have handled. The Taurus seems a bit more robust.

2.) Taurus is still under the same ownership that they were 15 years ago and still honoring those warranties. Smith?

3.) Taurus costs less, a lot less. Leaves plenty of room for ammo, beer, women, etc. (Disclaimer: Ammo, beer and women do not mix at the same time, the ingredients may become hazardous).
 
If depreciation/resale mean anything to you, get the genuine article-Smith & Wesson. Also, it's been my experience that S & W offers the very best in customer service. By the way, I have nothing against Taurus- I have one and like it a lot.
 
"Taurus Is Better Than Smith" -Uum

I certainly won't be caught saying that, that is for sure~!:cool:

I see NO WAY that Taurus firearms are better than even current
production Smith's. Its true, everybody makes a mistake sometime
and releases a lemon too the consumer; but the fine folk's at Tauri
International have a bad habit of not wanting to correct their own
mistakes~!:eek: OTOH, Smith & Wessons customer sevice has thus
far, proven to be out standing~!:D
 
rec999allis:

Please allow me to chime in with my old farts opinion on the Smith VS Taurus question.

First, I'm apparently so slow I didn't know Smith and Taurus were owned by the same company.... I'm not saying it's not true, I just hadn't heard it.

I've owned firearms for over 50 years (I'm 63) including two Taurus's.. (PT22, PT92). The PT22 was a first series model and frankly, a piece of crap. I hear the later series PT22's were vastly improved. The PT92 I bought used, and had problems that in my infinite wisdom I attributed to the pistol when in hindsight I now realize was probably magazine related. I sold it because I thought it was having a problem, now I'm not so sure it was the pistol at all.

All to say my personal experiences with Taurus has been less than overwhelming, and I don't need another one. I HEAR (but have no personal experience with) Taurus Customer Service is not so good.. OK, I hear it's pure merde. But all of my information is derived from reading the various firearm forums, so take that info. with a grain of salt. I do see on a regular basis complaints about Taurus Customer Service. To my mind a lifetime warranty isn't much unless it's backed by a good Customer Service Department.

In the past few years after I got all of the "wondernines" and "flavor of the month" firearms out of my system I find that I'm full circle from my youth and again appreciate the snubby's of S&W & Colt. I have several J-frame Smith's and they are excellent firearms in all respects. I haven't had to send any back to S&W for service, but I read where S&W has an excellent reputation for Customer Service. That's a real plus for me should I ever need their help.

I know for a fact that should I ever need to sell one of my J-frames, or Colt's I will be able to do so without difficulty and won't lose much, if any, money on the deal. In fact I think I will make a profit on several of them. Middle American gun buyers will jump at a good Smith or Colt when they simply won't give a used Taurus a second look. Maybe it's "name brand snobbery" or something, but in the real world Taurus is simply not considered in the same league as the Smiths & Colts.. Especially I think this is true for a used firearm.

All to say if I were (and I know I will) buying another firearm and I had a choice between a Smith and a Taurus I would buy the Smith in a heartbeat.

I'm not saying Taurus makes a bad firearm, they just aren't considered the same "quality" as Smiths. Of course if you monitor the www.Taurus.com website you will probably find a group of happy camper Taurus owners..

I do read and post on the www.Smith&Wesson.com website quite often and I know they have a huge fan following, of which I am included.

All of this of course is simply a semi-senile senior citizens take on the question you posed, and remember I didn't even know the deal about mutual ownership, so what do I know?

You sure about that ?

Best Wishes,

J. Pomeroy

:D 100_4597.jpg
 
rec999allis:

I don't doubt you are correct..

It's just I've never heard the connection before, and it surprises me. Of course FORD owns Jaguar, Volvo, etc...

The family connection has certainly been underplayed all of the years I've been a gun nut.

I know years ago several folks in W.Germany and (I think) South America made S&W knockoffs, and some of them were excellent revolvers.

I'm so far behind the times I still drive an El Camino*, so perhaps the knowledge parade has passed me by.. If not, I'm close and those blinking headlights in my lifes "rear view mirror" are probably telling me to move over and let 'em pass.

Taurus people love Taurus firearms...etc..

My honest opinion is that a Smith will simply be the better value in the long run. You will always get more for it should you decide to sell, and in the meantime you have a Smith & Wesson.. I also really think S&W Customer Service will prove better than that of Taurus, even considering the lifetime warranty..

Best Wishes,

JP :D

*And of course the El Camino is representative of the "Smith & Wesson" in this thread, whereas for example, "Ford Ranchero" would be the lesser, or Taurus representative..**

** Just yanking SwampWolf's chain..
 
Last edited:
Years ago Smith and Taurus were both owned by the same multinational conglomerate for a time but the two never mixed or collaborated on anything. I personally think Ruger beats the heck out of either one but it's simply a personal opinion and everyone knows what opinions are like. For the record PX15, I would dearly love to have an El Camino. :)
 
MIM = Metal Injection Molding

We used to call MIM pot metal but these days everything has to be a freakin' acronym

basically its the stuff hotwheels cars are made of.
Click to expand...

Wow, the misinformation stated as fact can sometimes be astounding. MIM (short for Metal Injection Molding) is a process; pot metal is a substance - usually a cheap, easily die-cast alloy with a lot of zinc in it.

Saying that MIM is pot metal is like saying that forging is steel.

MIM parts on firearms are made out of steel and produced by injecting feedstock (20-micron powdered steel with a binder) into a mold under high pressure. The resulting part is then debound and sintered (cooked) in a furnace. When done right, the finished part has >95% of the density of a forged/machined part.
 
I looked into Ruger's GP-100 and I really like them, but I was told S&W is built alot stronger then the GP-100s. I am not sure if this is true. Dose anyone know if this is a fact? And if this is ture how are the Smiths stronger? I wanted to go with S&W because of the extra round but if Ruger is just as good when it comes to quality I might go with the Ruger do to the price.
 
Is Ruger stronger than S&W / is S&W stronger than Ruger?? IMHO, if you fire standard factory loaded ammunition, by that I mean not firing hand loads that exceed recommended / reasonable pressures; you won't wear out either gun. Now if you want to blast away with loads that would launch 16" naval rounds, just to say I got a b-gillion fps with a giga grain bullet, you would be better off with a Ruger. I carry a Ruger SP101 and /or a GLOCK 21 depending on where I'm going and the time of day and collect S&W's. To each his own, chocolate vs vanilla. P.T.
 
I think very few people would argue that a Ruger is less strong than a Smith, and many who would say it's stronger (though I'm not sure this bit of popular wisdom is true). The L-frame S&W you're looking at is certainly strong enough for any use you might have for a .357, unless you plan to regularly handload ammunition well above commercial standards. Anyway, a new S&W would be backed by their very reliable lifetime warranty, if anything were to happen.

Either of these is a better bet than a Taurus, based on numerous examples I've handled and shot. I've heard a lot of people tout Taurus revolvers, but none of them were people that I knew personally to be competitive double action revolver shooters (this doesn't apply to their small/pocket revolvers, which appears to be a competent specialization of theirs).

If you want to learn to shoot a revolver in double action, the DA trigger on the S&W is what you pay extra for, and it's worth it. This is why virtually ALL competitive revolver shooters in games like IDPA and USPSA shoot S&W's. If you don't care about becoming a competitive double-action revolver shooter, and you certainly don't have to care about this to enjoy a .357 revolver, then either the GP100 or the 620 would be a great gun. Try to put your hands on one of each and see what feels good to you.
 
PX15: Just to keep the record straight and everything above board, it is Ford who "owns" Jaguar and Volvo, not GM. We have a few things in common (we're both firearm aficianados and 63 years old:) ) but my Ranchero eats El Caminos for lunch! Seriously though, it seems like brand loyalty was much more intense when I was growing up than what it is now.

Generations of families became wedded to one brand or another and "them thar" was fighting words when somebody expressed an opposing opinion. Car dealers would never dream of sharing the showroom with competing makes like they do now; Johnson and Evirude competed for the outboard motor business (and our fathers argued endlessly over the merits of each) but now, of course, they are partners and our elders debated the worth of a Winchester vs. a Marlin when it came to picking the best deer rifle.

The internet seems to have revived these brand loyalty squabbles and, within reason, I think that's a good thing. It's ok to be passionate about your brand of choice, so long as emotions are kept in check and prejudices don't cause the discussion to degenerate into an orgy of brand-bashing.Which is why when you advocate taking internet info with "a grain of salt", I say keep the whole shaker handy.

El Caminos vs Rancheros? Smith & Wesson vs Taurus? I'll take Fords and Smiths any day of the year!
 
I guess I'll chime in here:

I've owned 2 S&W revolvers & 1 of their semi auto pistols.

Additionally, I recently bought both my wife & daughter S&W revolvers.

I've owned 3 Ruger revolvers, & 1 of their semi auto pistols.

I've owned 1 Taurus revolver, & 1 of their semi auto pistols.

REPAIRS
  • S&W 6" 686 Had to return because end shake was so loose the cylinder would bind up on the forcing cone after a few cylinder loads. Also, at the same time, I asked them to replace the red front sight insert as I had damaged it while cleaning. They fixed the end shake under warranty & I've had no further problems. Also installed a new sight insert but charged me $25. They didn't owe me a free fix on that, but I still think they could have done so. A little cheap on their part, I think.
  • RUGER 22 AUTO PISTOL Had to return because trigger locked up. Fixed free by Ruger, never had another problem.
  • TAURUS M85 2" BLUE Had to return it because the barrel was machined in such a way that it was turned in too far & front sight was waaaaay off, and light primer strikes when in DA mode. Fixed by Taurus under warranty but I seem to remember it taking a while. Had no issues after that, sold it to a good friend to fund a Colt .380 Mustang purchase.

All of the above occurred in the early-to-mid 90s.

I haven't had any problems with:
  • S&W M57 41MAG Bought this one used a short time ago - great revolver.
  • S&W M4516-1 45ACP Ate anything I fed it. Sold it to fund a 1911 purchase.
  • RUGER SBH 44MAG
  • RUGER SP101 Good gun, terrible trigger.
  • RUGER SINGLE SIX 22LR
  • TAURUS PT940 40S&W No problems at all, & one of the most accurate semi-autos I have - including my Kimber 1911s.

I could keep going with guns I've never had problems with. The issue is I've had to send back guns from S&W, Ruger & Taurus for warranty work, & all were fixed to my satisfaction without problems surfacing again.

I will admit to this: when shopping to buy revolvers for both my wife & daughter, I decided on S&W. Ruger didn't really offer what I was looking for. Taurus did & was less expensive than the S&W offerings, but when I considered these were gifts the reputation of Taurus' customer service did come into play. If ever a problem, whether I'm around or not, I don't want either of them to have any issues. Things could change in the future but for now, I went with S&W's better customer service reputation.

I'll add this though: I'm seriously thinking about a pocket snub for myself, & I'll definetly give Taurus consideration. Anything mechanical might need adjustment & if it can be dealt with quickly, professionally, & completely I have no issue with that. I'd be willing to buy a Taurus & give them a shot, as my experiance with them is on par with that of S&W & Ruger.
 
Taurus Ownership

From Taurus' website:
"In the meantime, Smith & Wesson had been purchased by a conglomerate named Bangor Punta. In 1970, Bangor Punta also purchased 54% of Taurus. Thus, the two companies became "sisters". Smith & Wesson never owned Taurus. They were both independent companies. However, during the next seven years, a great deal of technology and methodology was passed between the two. What may come as a surprise to some is that more of what was "right" in Porto Alegre was sent to Springfield than was sent from Springfield to south of the equator.

1977 saw our present ownership buy 54% of Taurus outright from Bangor Punta. At once a quest to improve overall quality of Taurus product was initiated. Also, the company now began a dynamic expansion program.

Beretta had won a huge contract in 1974 to produce small arms for the army of Brazil. Part of the deal was that Beretta construct a Brazilian factory and use Brazilian labor. This they did, in the southwestern coastal city of Sao Paulo. When the contract ran out in 1980, Beretta sold the plant, literally "lock, stock and barrel," to Taurus. Taurus now owned everything that once belonged to Beretta, including drawings, tooling, machinery, and a very experienced work force. Taurus was in the pistol business, and immediately sought to improve on the Beretta design, resulting in the popular and acclaimed Taurus PT-92 and PT-99 9mm pistols.

The next milestone for Taurus came in 1982. This is when the Brazil management decided to "take the bull by the horns" by opening an affiliated company, Taurus, in Miami, Florida. Sales that first year in America were limited as a solid distribution system had to be established. Taurus guns had not been advertised or written up in the shooting press. Taurus was truly an unknown commodity in the United States. This situation was to change dramatically in the next few years."

Put me down for the older S&W vote. As for new revolvers - pick up a new S&W and a new Taurus side by side. I think you will be pleased with the Taurus.
 
SwampWolf:

Ok, maybe a minor brain "burp" (fart would be too strong) on the GM/Jag/Volvo.. connection.

You are also correct in that "our" generation were more brand orientated and loyal than found in todays society. For example my first new car was a GM ('67 Firebird) and today my 25 year old Son drives a Pontiac. ('02 GP). Over the years we just naturally bought GM.

I remember too the Johnson/Evinrude/Mercury wars too. I don't know where you live, but I remember in S. Ga. the Johnson/Evinrudes had a great reputation, would idle slowly well, and got great gas mileage. The Mercury was the "hot rod"... Or at least that's the way I remember it. I know my family were always "Mercury" folks.

I've always loved the El Camino's from the first series thur the last in '87. (Mine is an '86). But I never got too excited about the Rancheros, probably because it was a Ford.

As for your Ranchero eating my El Camino for lunch.. Without a doubt, as mine is a 4.3 fuel injected V6. Fast it is NOT. But the fuel injection makes for easy starting and such, and I get in the low 20's in gas mileage. My friend behind me is an old hot rodder and he keeps telling me we can "drop in" a crate 454 GM engine with a new overdrive transmission and have something that will stroll, but I think my "strolling" days are history. When I feel sentimental I pull out pictures of my old 1967 400HO Firebird and the memories flood back, but that was then, now is now.

Hey, nice to see at least two of us made it to 63 without giving in to total senility..

Best Wishes,

J. Pomeroy:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
  • Locked
Cutting down revolver barrel
Replies
20
Views
10K
Pyro
Pyro
J
  • Locked
Taurus 65 & 66 Dimensions
Replies
7
Views
5K
Jackal1
J
S
  • Locked
Taurus
Replies
9
Views
618
MCgunner
M
C
  • Locked
.32 H&R magnums: Taurus vs. S&W
Replies
2
Views
510
cookekdjr
C
T
  • Locked
Taurus snubby grip options
Replies
8
Views
551
kle
K
Back
Top