Stop being a S&W snob?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I once owned a 4" Taurus 357 back in the 90's that consistently shot smaller groups than my bro. in law's Ruger gp100, which was a fine gun in its own right. I would say the Taurus was as good a shooter as my S&W 686, but the trigger wasn't quite as smooth and the fit and finish (back then) was not nearly as nice as the S&W. Taurus has really improved their fit and finish since then, but I hear their service dept. really stinks if you have to return a gun under their "lifetime" warranty.

Roll Tide
 
Guys, some of you must have missed when the thread originator said:

I'm totally not caring about the lock.

Could we please, pretty pretty please, for the love of John Moses Browning and all that is holy and good in the universe, please, not bring up the stupid lock in every single thread in the revolver forum?
 
Could we please, pretty pretty please, for the love of John Moses Browning and all that is holy and good in the universe, please, not bring up the stupid lock in every single thread in the revolver forum?

What lock?
 
The Mod is right. Can't go on a wheel gun thread anywhere in the freaking universe and someone is whining about the lock,,"dis-abling device" etc. Give it up for crying out loud or get a job on the S&W marketing team and change the world. :neener:

Talk about beating_2Da_2Ddead_2Dhorse.jpg
 
To my mind the only thing a current manufactured S&W J frame has over a Taurus is a better resale value and good old-fashioned American customer service. Comparing a new small frame S&W to a new small frame Taurus......the S&W's just aren't any better built today.

American made, better resale, and great customer service are what you get for $100-200 more when you buy a currently made S&W, IMHO. Otherwise, functionally, they are identical. Just my 2 cents.

- Regards
 
Really? As I understand it...Taurus looks good exterior wise, however, once you look into the internals one finds that S&W is more polished and refined. I am not bashing Taurus though...cuz the best pistol I own is a Taurus Millennium PT145. I was just a bit suspect on the revolvers though...
 
I was really surprised to learn that the current crop of J-Frame Smiths have coil mainsprings. All Taurus guns have coil mainsprings, as do Rugers. But most S&W guns have leaf mainsprings. Have the J-Frames always had coils, or is this a recent change? If it's a recent change, why did they make it?
 
If saving $100 is the central issue then go with the Taurus. Either way you won't be disappointed. I agree that the Taurus revolvers have nicer out of the box triggers but you can easily get the S&W's to be just as nice. Both can be made to be really nice.

Maybe grip choice is the only practical reason for going with the Smith.....
 
J frames have always had coil springs.

Taurus quality control has often been a gamble. If it doesn't work after a few hundred rounds, you haven't saved any money.
 
Nightcrawler:

Recoil sensitive? Why the dislike of .357s, or even +P .38s?

I don’t “dislike” either the .38 Special Plus-P or .357 Magnum cartridges. I admit that I suffer from a combination of old age and a medical disability that has crippled my hands, but I never take this into consideration when offering advice to others unless they are in the same boat. Happy to say, you aren’t. :)

The current thinking on this forum seems to often be that one should have the most powerful cartridge possible in even the smallest and lightest guns. I disagree. :scrutiny:

Let me digress for a moment to make my point: Recently a deranged teen shot his ex-girlfriend at point-blank range 4 times with a .44 Magnum. Then he turned the gun on himself. From all perspectives this was a terrible tragedy, but even so we can learn from it. The victim was taken to a hospital, and although grievously wounded she survived, and even went home after a few days. I am delighted with this outcome, but it points out that big bullets in Magnum cartridges are no guarantee that a hit, or several hits, will stop a shooting. Under the rules of engagement, dictated by law in most states, a person cannot respond with deadly force unless they are under some kind of lethal attack. That means that the aggressor(s) usually get to start, and under the best of circumstances means that they’re victim is at a disadvantage. To survive they must (1) quickly respond and hit the attacker, (2) hit them precisely in a vital place so that they will be instantly disabled and cannot continue the assault, and (3) be able to do this repeatedly and quickly.

It is not necessarily a Magnum cartridge or high-performance (hollow point) bullet that will get the job done, but rather the exact place that bullet hits. As I illustrated above, simply making holes in someone doesn’t necessarily work, and while it isn’t working you may still be under fire. The FBI learned that the hard way, in a Miami, Florida shoot-out some years ago. :what:

Just to humor a demented old man, take a .38 pocket revolver (such as a J-frame Smith & Wesson or ’85 series Taurus, and fill the chambers with either 148 grain mid-range target loads (somewhat hard to find these days) or some 158 grain “cowboy loads,” made for cowboy action shooting. Mount a piece of regular 8 ½” x 11” printer paper about 5 ½ to 6 feet off of the ground. This represents an assailant’s head. Stand back about 12 feet, draw the revolver as quickly as you can, and empty the cylinder as fast as you can and still keep the shots in the center of the paper. (Shots on the edge, “near hits”, and misses don’t count). Don’t make the mistake of accepting poor marksmanship in exchange for faster speed.

See if you don’t find that the greater accuracy and speed isn’t worth giving up some raw power that you can’t control as well.

Oh, and I think Plus-P .38’s and .357 Magnums are fine in an appropriately sized and heavier revolver. There I can take advantage of the greater power without sacrificing those other important considerations – accuracy and speed. ;)
 
I think it is a complete toss up. Try them both side to side and see which one you like best. Quality is about equal these days. BTW, I am not a fan of the .357 J frames because of the size increase. I have a 640 No Dash .38 +P, Great Gun but it is a smaller package same as your 642. Bill
 
I'm not hardcore on the getting the lightest gun and putting the hottest loads through it craze. I didn't even buy a 4" .44, I got the heavier 5" Classic becuase I don't like it when guns beat me up too much. (And most of my loads are sub-1200 fps in velocity.)

You won't see me shooting a scandium .357. Ouch. Which is why in a .357 I want to go to an all-steel gun. It might well be too heavy for daily pocket carry, but it'll at least be an option for days when I don't or can't wear a cover garment. On the upshot, I've lost weight, which means I have several pairs of pants that are now too big. Perfect IWB pants now! :cool:

I am of the belief that if you've only got five or six shots, you should get the most out of them. Most powerful load that you can control. I think it's more important in a sub-2" .38 snub, though, where penetration (remember, ballistic gel doesn't have bones) might be a concern. Fortunately, modern bullet technology lets one finesse performance without using so much raw power. The Speer "short barrel loads" are a prime example of this. I had trouble with +P .38s in the snub at first, so I practiced more. No problem now.

(As an aside, the worst mistake you can make with a snub is not practicing with it. As I've said before, they're uniquely challenging weapons to master, and they require effort on your part. If your load recoils too much for your comfort, take Old Fuff's advice and go to something lighter until you're comfortable with your capabilities.)

Normally though? For defensive ammo, I just grab whatever's there. My .45 mags currently have a mix-and-match of 230 grain +P Cor-Bon and Golden Saber JHPs. Both feed reliably in my Colt (as does everything else I've tried), so I just bought what the gun store had.

For all of our debating about what load is best, hey? LOL :D
 
Are there documented cases of a Smith & Wesson weapon failing to function due to "the lock"? How about MIM parts?

I own revolvers produced by Colt, Charter, Dan Wesson, High Standard, Ruger, Smith & Wesson, and Taurus. It is sort of ironic that the only revolver that I own that ever had a mechanical failure that rendered it inoperable is a Smith & Wesson Model-10 that has a pinned barrel, hammer mounted firing pin, and was produced long before MIM parts and internal locks were ever though of.

It's sort of like our fond memories of those safe, reliable, and efficient fine automobiles of the 1950's, 1960's, and even earlier. Why certainly they were much better than the clunkers that roll off the lines today.

Maybe it's those damned CNC machines that have ruined everything!

Larry
 
Last edited:
I had a Taurus revolver I didn't like and people in the places I go to find that it is kind of hit or miss.

That said, it comes down to the individual gun. If you think that this one has a better trigger and it checks out in all the other ways, go for the Taurus.
As for the quality of the insides, as long as the parts are strong, durable, and functional I don't care if all the little non-contact areas are polished with a J-frame type. With a Python, yes.
 
Are there documented cases of a Smith & Wesson weapon failing to function due to "the lock"? How about MIM parts?

To answer the question: yes, I think there is a thread over on the S&W forum where folks post about incidents where the lock as caused issues (I wish I had a link, but I don't - sorry). IIRC, under the stiff recoil of full power .357 loads in the scandium framed guns, the lock will "partially" engage. Usually, fully engaging the lock, then disengaing, is the only way to clear it.

I don't think it's been an issue in the aluminum framed .38 guns (like the 642).

FWIW, when purchasing revolvers for both my wife & daughter last year I went back & forth between Taurus & S&W. I'm not trying to start or perpetuate an argument here - just stating what my decision process was like. I have owned, & currently own, guns from both Taurus & S&W. I've had to send guns from each back for warranty work. When the guns were finally returned, they worked well.

So - my personal experience is that S&W & Taurus have about an equal footing as far as quality goes. So which to buy? What I don't like about S&W is the the way the lock is executed, & I haven't forgotten about the HUD Agreement. However, when I returned my M85 for warranty work, the experience was not as smooth as when S&W worked on my 686-2.

In the end, I bought my daughter a M637 & my wife a 3" M60, deciding that the Customer Service & Support of S&W was more important for them. If buying for myself, I might just go the other way & choose Taurus, taking advantage of the lower cost & the better executed lock. (Another option is a pre-lock, pre-Agreement S&W.) As I'm more of an enthuiast, I have other options available if a particular firearm needs to leave my possession for repair and am probably more comfortable dealing with the manufacturer. As more guns come & go, I might change my opinion but for now I see no reason not to go with Taurus.
 
why the fuss?

I have four Rugers, two Smith & Wessons and one Taurus. They all work fine and are all fun to shoot. Why the big fuss over brand names?
 
jflovelady:

Hard to be a snob when you've got two of these suckers laying around... ;)

100_4832.jpg



Best Wishes,

J. Pomeroy
 
Anyway, is there any reason I shouldn't buy the Taurus equivalent and save a hundred bucks?

Perhaps not a good reason, but I like living and working in the U.S. and don't mind spending more for an equivalent product produced here. Having said that, I own a Model 85 (purchased when my LGS was boycotting S&W) and do believe it is equivalent to my S&W's. If you do not share my bias, then there is not a good reason to spend more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top