I can't care less about what a "reputable" trainer has in his holster. Probably he is the same kind of person that continues to pull the trigger on an empty Glock before re-holstering, without any reputable reason.If the gun is intended for social work, Taurus is completely off the table and Ruger is marginal at best. There's a reason you won't find either gun in the holster of a reputable trainer.
I can't care less about what a "reputable" trainer has in his holster.
Probably he is the same kind of person that continues to pull the trigger on an empty Glock before re-holstering, without any reputable reason.
I have the Taurus G3 as well as some top notch pistols and I don't see the Taurus going to fail on what it is designed to do. Nor the Ruger.
Budget Reliability? I'm thinking you mean as far as running it through a torture test. Something like MAC does to certain semi's? That I have not seen done by any of the Youtube gun testing gurus (MAC, TFBTV, Sootch00, etc). It would make for an interesting video that I would definitely watch.As is your wont. And I don't care that you don't care, for whatever that's worth.
That's random behavior indeed, and not what most reasonable shooters would expect from someone worthwhile. Who did you see teaching that way?
Indeed. I don't think anyone here is saying that the companies are incapable of making some guns that function. But they are budget guns for budget prices, with budget reliability. One way around that though is to not train (with anyone reputable or otherwise). Keep the round count low and the chance of failure follows. But that's hardly worth the while IMO. If yours varies that's all good.
As is your wont. And I don't care that you don't care, for whatever that's worth.
That's random behavior indeed, and not what most reasonable shooters would expect from someone worthwhile. Who did you see teaching that way?
Indeed. I don't think anyone here is saying that the companies are incapable of making some guns that function. But they are budget guns for budget prices, with budget reliability. One way around that though is to not train (with anyone reputable or otherwise). Keep the round count low and the chance of failure follows. But that's hardly worth the while IMO. If yours varies that's all good.
Budget Reliability? I'm thinking you mean as far as running it through a torture test. Something like MAC does to certain semi's? That I have not seen done by any of the Youtube gun testing gurus (MAC, TFBTV, Sootch00, etc). It would make for an interesting video that I would definitely watch.
Apart from that, both have them have fired every time I've pulled the trigger. I would say that I am at around 500 bullets through both of them with not issues.
Now, when it comes to reloading, I will say that the Taurus G3 has a shorter COAL than the Ruger. The Ruger will accept bullets with larger OGIVE's and the Taurus will not. But I've only come across one particular bullet where this was an issue. In Taurus' defense, that same bullet would not function in an M&P. Comparing it to other bullets from different makers, The bullet was a little fat.
I shot 200 NATO spec rounds in my Taurus G3 on its first range trip. No failures of any kind and good accuracy for the price. I can agree it is probably not made to shoot tens thousands rounds without some failures but I can say it is a pretty good designed pistol and for the price it is well built.
As I said I already have what are supposed to be 9mm top tier pistols to put thousands rounds on them and I felt no guilty to add a Taurus in my little collection because I'm not a snob when talking about firearms as I respect and fear them all for what they are capable to do.