Taurus M85 BUL
I hate shills, but I am going to sound like one. I am personally amazed how good a little revolver I purchased in Dec 2004 at a local Gun and Pawn Shop. I have a small collection of 38 Snubbies, mostly Detective Specials, but every so often this shop has these sales that are so good that I have been unable to resist and end up purchasing contemporary revolvers. Two being a Rossi snubbie and a Smith M642 Hammerless airweight. That Dec, the shop had a Taurus M85 aluminum framed snubbie for $188.95. Out the door price was $204.00. This price was so good that I purchased one. I have attached a URL that should take you to a picture of it.
http://www.taurususa.com/products/product-details.cfm?model=85BUL&category=Revolver.
For me, I was amazed on the fantastic machining and fit built into this little pistol , and how the Brazilians are getting the details right. As a comparison, I purchased a Brazilian Rossi snubbie in 1997. When I disassembled it to see what makes it tick, the internal parts showed a fair amount of hand fitting. That is there are a lot of file marks on the sear and cylinder hand. I really don’t like a lot of file marks as it tells me that manufacturing processes are sloppy (in my opinion). At the end of the line a fitter mates oversized internal parts by filing, pounding, and bending, as he assembles a pistol. Like sausage, you don’t want to how these pistols are made, the pounding, filing, bending, would just destroy your concept of precision. However my Rossi works fine, shoots to point of aim.
I only have one pre war (1937 era M1917) Smith, but it shows the same high quality fitting as any Smith Revolver I have ever owned. While I do believe the later the Smith the better the machining, I have never seen a sloppy Smith. The M642 aluminum framed airweight I purchased is precisely made. Smith cleanly scalloped the hammer to reduce weight, the hammer and trigger have pleasing (and unnecessary with today’s metallurgy) case hardened colors, and of course the pistol is tight. Altogether a Smith is a well built pistol.
To my surprise the Taurus shows all the precision machining of parts that I encountered in the Smith. The hammer and trigger also have the same pleasing case hardening colors and I cannot see any file marks. The lockworks are similar to a Smith but the trigger rebound arrangement is different. As I found out by busting the one in my pistol. For those who take stuff apart to see how it ticks, I recommend on this revolver to use a fine clothing pin in the hole in the hammer strut, and a fine pin in the end of the trigger spring “center pin”. Unlike a Smith which has a fixed stud at this location, the Taurus has a rotating and removable “Trigger Spring Swivel” as a stud. The center pin, spring, and swivel must be taken out as a unit. Or you will bust the pin, as I did.
Unlike earlier Brazilian pistols the grips are comfortable, the sights wide (wider than the Smith) and they copied the Smith slope on the cylinder release. Overall this pistol has the little things right. It weights 15 ounces empty, the Smith Airweight is 14 ounces. Both of these pistols are aluminum framed so they really are carry guns more than shooting guns. But I am pleased to find that both are +P rated. The Smith is targeted to shoot to point of aim with 125 grain bullets, the Taurus 158 grain bullets. And both are accurate, not of course target accuracy as these pistols have short sight radius and short grips, but more than accurate enough for a short range pistol.
For the money, the Taurus is a good buy. I like the fact that it is +P rated, but I really do not like shooting +P loads in these lightweight pistols. Uncomfortable.
Please do not think that I dislike Smith and Wesson Airweights, I like them too. I think everyone needs at least three.
