Taurus G3c

[Trey Veston]

Do you have any evidence to support that statement? I am not being argumentative or trying to defend Taurus. Instead, I am curious if you have a source with metrics such as number of guns manufactured, number of guns returned for issues, percent of new guns with defects requiring returns, etc. If so, I think it would be interesting to view and compare manufacturers.

No. No he doesn't. Because those facts don't exist. All we can do is go off of wild conjecture and endless stories of how some people have had 28 Taurus handguns over 30 years and only 2 have been bad, vs. the guy who bought one Taurus in 1985 and it was awful.

Nearly useless data, if one was gong to be honest.

The ONLY legislation I would support against gun manufacturers, is for them to be required to release their rate of return numbers. I would be all for S&W, and Ruger, and Taurus, and Sig, etc, being forced to disclose to consumers just how many of their guns came back for legitimate repairs, and not stupid stuff due to owner error. It seems absolutely ridiculous to me that we know the defect rate on a dang washer or dryer, but no idea how many Ruger SR9s failed to fire. Why is the defect rate for an appliance available, but not the defect rate for a tool that is commonly relied upon to save lives?? Absolutely insane.

I did, in fact, see a post on another gun forum in which someone was buddy/buddy with a Ruger exec who disclosed the actual defect rate. He said it varied from model to model, with their worst being .5% and the best being .04%.

Ruger produces around 2 million firearms per year, so if you split the difference and figure .2% of those firearms are defective, then that's about 4000 defective firearms going into consumer's hands every year from just Ruger.

I know that every thread about Ruger's awesome customer service, you will get a bunch of folks chiming in with their own horror stories of Ruger failures and how great they were in fixing them.

Taurus seems to be the same. They're just not as good as Ruger as fixing them, apparently.

I have bought exactly one Taurus firearm. I bought a G2c a couple of years ago for $189. I was amazed at it's performance and ergonomics at that price point. I was impressed enough to offer it to my son, and then my son-in-law, as a loaner for protection. It's a good pistol. But there are better ones out there. Just not for $200 or less.

If a G3c was all I could afford (and I've been there; bought a Sigma in the 90's), then I would have no problem buying one and trusting it after a couple of boxes of ammo.

 

[Wildbillz]

I am looking for one of the new G3 Toro when they come out. Optic ready with a MSRP of $408. If the street price comes in a bit less even better.

WB

 

[Timeless]

Do you have any evidence to support that statement? I am not being argumentative or trying to defend Taurus. Instead, I am curious if you have a source with metrics such as number of guns manufactured, number of guns returned for issues, percent of new guns with defects requiring returns, etc. If so, I think it would be interesting to view and compare manufacturers.

I know Taurus gets a bad reputation by folks online. I’m confident that most claims are warranted and not people simply bad-mouthing without cause, but I also wonder if so many people buy Taurus guns that while the number of alleged defective guns is high, perhaps the percentage in terms of total guns manufactured is on par with other manufacturers?

I agree that things of a higher quality generally cost more, but it also makes me wonder if gun prices induce a psychological aspect on firearms enthusiasts. For instance, if Taurus was to make guns which were branded for some other manufacturer who sold them for 2-3x the price of Taurus how many people would automatically assume that the guns are excellent simply because they command a higher premium.

No. No he doesn't. Because those facts don't exist. All we can do is go off of wild conjecture and endless stories of how some people have had 28 Taurus handguns over 30 years and only 2 have been bad, vs. the guy who bought one Taurus in 1985 and it was awful.

Nearly useless data, if one was gong to be honest.

The ONLY legislation I would support against gun manufacturers, is for them to be required to release their rate of return numbers. I would be all for S&W, and Ruger, and Taurus, and Sig, etc, being forced to disclose to consumers just how many of their guns came back for legitimate repairs, and not stupid stuff due to owner error. It seems absolutely ridiculous to me that we know the defect rate on a dang washer or dryer, but no idea how many Ruger SR9s failed to fire. Why is the defect rate for an appliance available, but not the defect rate for a tool that is commonly relied upon to save lives?? Absolutely insane.

I did, in fact, see a post on another gun forum in which someone was buddy/buddy with a Ruger exec who disclosed the actual defect rate. He said it varied from model to model, with their worst being .5% and the best being .04%.

Ruger produces around 2 million firearms per year, so if you split the difference and figure .2% of those firearms are defective, then that's about 4000 defective firearms going into consumer's hands every year from just Ruger.

I know that every thread about Ruger's awesome customer service, you will get a bunch of folks chiming in with their own horror stories of Ruger failures and how great they were in fixing them.

Taurus seems to be the same. They're just not as good as Ruger as fixing them, apparently.

I have bought exactly one Taurus firearm. I bought a G2c a couple of years ago for $189. I was amazed at it's performance and ergonomics at that price point. I was impressed enough to offer it to my son, and then my son-in-law, as a loaner for protection. It's a good pistol. But there are better ones out there. Just not for $200 or less.

If a G3c was all I could afford (and I've been there; bought a Sigma in the 90's), then I would have no problem buying one and trusting it after a couple of boxes of ammo.

I do not have any proof for sure as I do not believe any gun manufacturer makes those stats public knowledge.

You can only go with what you read of forums.

I've had no issues but only own one Taurus weapon and have maybe put 200 rounds through it so far.