taurus model 94

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm going a bit off topic but have you considered a used Hi Standard? My Dad had a 9 shot Hi Standard in .22lr for decades and I picked one up a few years ago for about $150. I've seen them at gunshows and local gun stores now and then. I probably see about 2 per year. Maybe it's just my area or something.
Anyway, the trigger is nothing to brag about. It's probably about as bad as the Taurus but the guns are cheaper and seem very reliable. I used mine as a training gun for my daughter and it was shot on a monthly basis for a couple of years without any issues.
 
Patriotme, good suggestion as an alternate to small frame 94
I own one myself, Hi-Std Double Nine, very accurate and well made, bought it used but in excellent condition many years ago, both cylinders, 22LR/WRM. Even though the DA trigger is indeed at least as bad as the Taurus 94, they are not high priced when found, and an excellent value.
It is the reason I have never felt any need to buy a Ruger Single Six; the D-9 makes a mighty nice SA shooter, 9 rounds vs 6 and easier to load/unload. People will think it is a Ruger Single Six unless they take a 2nd glance or watch you reload.
Preferable though, to get the steel frame vs. alloy frame models (they made both), and not recommended to use a WMR cylinder that did not originally come with the gun.


steven58
good deals can be had on gunbroker, yes. Bought my 6" k-48 22 magnum thataway. But even with pictures and phone calls, not held-in-hand equals hold-your-breath until you see what you really get. I got lucky on my k-48, partly because they listed it "properly", hence did not turn up in a "22 magnum" or "WRM", and partly because of the crappy looking homemade grips; good deal for me at ~$450, gun checked out essentially "like NIB unfired" upon receipt, and I have a whole duffel bag full of extra k-frame grips anyway.

What's to love about a nice k-17... EVERYTHING, of course.
On the other hand, a lot of new (and old) shooters out there looking for a decent $300 gun, and unwilling to pay ~$500 (w/ shipping & transfer) sight unseen and unheld.
Can't blame 'em for that, we all love a bargain, except when it isn't.
(I saw the Taurus 96 listing AM bought for a really good low price on GB, and would have bought it myself, before he did, if I did not already own one; it happens.)

The Taurus 94 looks, at 1st blush, like the solution to that $300 scenario, which is why the question so oft comes up on gun forums.
It's not bashing to give 'em some honest feedback, but it doesn't help 'em all that much to tell 'em to just pony up a couple hundred extra, either, even if it that is the better bet in the long run.

(but if you run across a real good deal, worth the gamble, on a nice 4" j-frame S&W 22WMR, lemme know !)
 
I read all of the internet hype, and decided to buy one anyway. I got it about a year ago, mainly for my nephews to use when I went to visit them over the summer. I didn't care for the double action trigger, but couldn't find any "Flitz" locally, so took it along on the trip pretty much as it came from the factory. The kids (probably about 10 and 12 years old, along w/ my own 12 year old son) REALLY didn't care for the double action trigger. They shot almost an entire brick single action, with no functional problems. My sister-in-law had trouble w/ the DA trigger, and shot her 9 shots SA also. I didn't think it was THAT bad, but didn't really have anything to compare it to. I was thinking that I should have brought my single-six instead, or bought a bearcat, but the swing out cylinder did aid in loading (w/ three kids waiting for the next turn) and made it easier for them to show that the gun was safe after they took their turn. I probably put another brick through it, with a couple of failures to fire (with the bulk pack ammo, that's to be expected, our Savage Mark II had about the same ratio, and when we'd put them in the revolver they'd go boom when the firing pin hit a different spot on the primer). The DA trigger doesn't seem to be getting any better, but it's hard to tell (and it's only been about 1000 rounds).

I later compared it to a "Taurus Tracker" in .22 lr (I don't recall the model number). I liked the DA trigger on the Tracker much better. The 94 is smaller, and easier to cock with the thumb of my main hand if shooting single action. Both were accurate. I realize it's not a "long term" test, but thought I'd post my experience.
 
I bought a 94 in 2008. After 1 range trip (fewer than 50 rounds fired) I took it home and cleaned it. The cylinder assembly came out. It has sat in the safe since then. Today I am trading it for a 617 (adding cash). IMNSHO the 94 simply isn't made well, and it's not up to my standards.

Obviously YMMV, but that's my extinguished opinion. A gun I don't like, that sits in the safe, isn't something I want to keep.
 
The cylinder assembly came out.
Click to expand...

What caused that? If you removed the forward side-plate screw, it's supposed to come out. That's what holds it in place.

Sometimes, one has to wonder why people do the things that they do.
 
I have owned two taurus 94s, a 3" 9 shot 22 and a 4" stainless 22mag. The 22 would spit lead like crazy because the cylinder didn't line up with the barrel and every time you fired the 22 mag you just about had to hammer the empties out. And that was even after I polished the chambers.

I found a S&W 34-1 in a pawnshop fpr $250 OTD. The taurus guns were sold. I do have one taurus model 85 that seems to be about perfect. But I will buy no more Taurus guns.
 
Good discussion. I have had various Taurus, Smith and Wesson, and Ruger .22 cal revolvers. One of my favorites is my M94 blue, 4" Taurus. Actually, all .22 cal revolvers have poor DA triggers, and stiff SA triggers due to the necessity to provide solid ignition on a rimfire cartridge. I have found that after a break-in period, my M94 is a solid functioning revolver, and affords 9 shots as other brands and models limit their .22s to 6 rounds. I get excellent accuracy with my 4" M94, virtually as good as my Ruger Single Six with a 6" barrel with comparable ammo.
I have had functional problems with a few Taurus revolvers, mostly the Tracker series shooting DA. They seem to be tuned for SA shooting and can come a little out of sync in the box. But I have had to return Smith and Wessons, and others for various reasons too. For total reliability, Ruger has given me the least problems in the revolver class of firearms. But unfortunately, they don't offer a real comparable .22 DA revolver in the same class as the Taurus M94. I recommend that when choosing a .22 cal revolver in DA, select one with a blued finish. I have had far better results with the function of blued revolvers, especially considering the stiff action of a DA rimfire. For a SA like the Ruger Single Six, stainless is wonderful. Lastly, I purchased my latest M94 as a companion to a Taurus M66 in .357 mag. Same action, finish, yet the .22 is much cheaper to shoot. Both are field guns, for small and medium game. Both are superbly accurate. What I most like about the Taurus revolvers are the sights. They are all a better grade than an other stock revolver I have owned and used regularly. These sights promote better accuracy, and have proven durable as well.
All said, I believe the M94 is a solid revolver, and it's smaller frame size lends itself well for children, women, and adult shooters. Also, when I have had functional problems, Taurus has been one of the absolute best service departments I have ever dealt with. The M94 is a fun, serviceable, and well made .22 revolver. Own one in confidence, and shoot the heck out of it. They get better with use, and so does your marksmanship! tdv
 
I bought my old stainless, 4" Taurus M94 over twenty years ago. I intended it for use as an inexpensive 'tackle box' and knockabout/utility RF revolver, in which role it has served me admirably. A large part of the decision to purchase it was the fact that it cost, at the time, approx. half the price of a comparable S&W M63.

As it came from the box, the action operated quite stiffly and the DA pull was extremely heavy. The timing and cylinder lock-up were very good and the barrel/cylinder gap quite reasonable at 0.006". Given the 'budget' price, it was pretty much as I expected.

A thorough cleaning of the lockwork and some judicious lubrication made a quite appreciable difference in how the action felt, and running a couple of thousand rds through it even more. Accuracy was perfectly acceptable for its intended purposes with nearly any brand of HS .22 LR ammo, and quite suprisingly good with a couple of flavors. Ignition reliability was as close to 100% as one can expect from a .22 RF revolver and run-of-the-mill fodder.

At about 4.5K rds., I discovered that the factory rebound/trigger return spring was actually stouter than the mainspring (a whopping 14# compared to 11#!) and decided to see if I couldn't do something to reduce the DA pull. I purchased a Wolff "Shooter's Pack" spring kit for it from Brownell's and began experimenting. It took a few tries to find the combo that gave me the most reduction in DA pull weight without sacrificing reliability of ignition or positive trigger return, but the results were very gratifying. I ground the serrations off of the trigger and recontoured it slightly for more comfortable DA shooting, and other than a set of Pachmayr Compac grips, I've pretty much left it at that.

Now somewhere well into the five figures in rd. count, it still locks-up nicely, the timing is still good and it still hits right where I point it when I do my part. Nothing has broken nor worn out and it still looks pretty decent for all the miles on it.

OMMV, but I'm happy with mine.
 
I like Oldfool's advice above.
The Taurus 94 looks, at 1st blush, like the solution to that $300 scenario, which is why the question so oft comes up on gun forums. It's not bashing to give 'em some honest feedback, but it doesn't help 'em all that much to tell 'em to just pony up a couple hundred extra, either, even if it that is the better bet in the long run.
Click to expand...

I am a very big fan of DA 22 revolvers and I have to admit that I have almost purchased a Taurus M94 more than once. They really look good and feel fine. Yeah, heavy trigger and all that stuff. The old H&R's are given rave reviews often and they all had very heavy triggers, but the reviews continue. I have owned these in the past.

If you want to purchase one, I would take snap caps with me to the store or ask permission to used fired LR cases, and put it through it's paces so at least you know it is functioning correctly. Don't assume that a new Taurus product is sound unless you check it out. It still might have problems later, but that is the way of many Taurus M94's. It is your choice as the buyer to pay the price for what appears to be a great product or anti up and spend the money for a more respected product such as a S&W M17 (or similar) or a Colt 22 revolver. To this point, I have anti'd up for the Colt or S&W product.

I went through the same kind of interest for the Ruger SP-101 in 22LR. After looking at many, I opted to not buy one and they were in the $300 area at the time. When I run onto a SP-101 in 22 caliber, I still can't help myself from really considering it. But I have absolutely no need for another DA 22 revolver, but that does not stop me from considering one when I see something that strikes my fancy.
 
Why do people compare the K-frame Model 17 to what is more a J-frame Taurus?

The J-frame S&Ws all have much heavier triggers than the Model 17. My Model 17 came with a cylinder gap of .002"!! It bound up after less than 50 rounds.

I also own an old H&R Model 650, with dual cylinders. This gun is easily as accurate as the Model 17, and has a nicer trigger.

I have, as stated, a pair of 4" Model 9i4s. They are both over 20 years old, and are still plugging along fine.

As for the "more respected" product, I haven't seen anything that fits that description new from either Colt or S&W in years. QC has certainly slipped, even as the prices rose steadily.
 
Had one, the cylinder froze, the sights fell apart. Now, I have a SS Bearcat for plinking.
 
Why do people compare the K-frame Model 17 to what is more a J-frame Taurus?
Click to expand...

Okay. I still think my new J-frame Model 63 is a safer purchase than a Taurus M94 and will have a better trigger.

Colt doesn't make any double action revolvers anymore even though there is an indication that they are looking at bringing out something in the future. I would put my D-frame Colt Diamondback 22 against a Taurus 22 any day of the week in terms of being a better product overall. I prefer it to Smiths in general. But the purpose of my last post was not to stir the waters, it was to voice my opinion based on my limited experience. JR47, you certainly have more experience with the Taurus M94 than I do or ever likely will.

But, not everyone wants to spend $500 or $600 or more on a DA 22 revolver. Taurus and Charter Arms currently fill that market gap. Both would charge more if they felt the market would support the price. My guess is that their sales would tank.
 
Last edited:
My 970 tracker has been a gem, but what happened to the newer Trackers? My 44 Tracker has tool marks and a sloppy cylinder. The finish is two tone (smooth on one side matte on the other). :confused: I'm pretty good at polishing stainless so I did a little work to it, I smoothed out the groove caused by the hammer and polished out some of the tool marks.

I went to visit another gun store this last weekend and asked to handle the new 44 tracker in the display case. I was shocked! This gun was worse than the one I purchased. The cylinder was a little tighter, but it had more tool marks and it had the same grove worn by the hammer (much deeper than mine). Normally the pin that holds the front sight is cut and smoothed off. On this gun they just bent it over and smoothed it a little. :eek:

When I set both my trackers side by side, and take a close look, it appears they came from two different planets. Maybe my new one came from their new facility on Uranus. :rolleyes:
 
JR47
"Why do people compare the K-frame... to..a J-frame"
I agree, J frame geometry rarely (if ever) yields a K-frame DA trigger

22 rimfire
"I still think my new J-frame Model 63 is a safer purchase than a Taurus M94 and will have a better trigger."
likewise, that has been own experience, shot side by side, and by more than one hand
the Taurus 94 owner was in real obvious agreement, no contest
(acknowledged it was old model 63 vs current model 94)

JR47
"I also own an old H&R Model 650, with dual cylinders. This gun is easily as accurate as the Model 17"
interesting, given different bore size of 22 WMR vs 22LR
be happy, H&R made some real nice revolvers in the way-back-when
my brother-in-law owned one back in the sixties
shame they are not in the game anymore

"a pair of 4" Model 94s. They are both over 20 years old"
I too own a pair of over 20 years old Taurus revolvers (model 96 and model 66) and rate them equal to my over 20 years old S&Ws, for accuracy and trigger

alas, yesterday is gone, caveat emptor
be it new Taurus, or the "new" S&W, or the "new" Dan Wesson, or X/Y/Z
I keep looking at the Taurus 94/941 because I keep hoping to find a good old one, not a new one... but no such luck
same reason I am real fond of older J and k frames
these days, "new" is more of a crap shoot than used to be back-when

but no matter how you slice it or dice it, telling somebody to grab up NEW model/make/caliber because your/my 20 something year old is great is unintentionally misleading

specific topic is the model 94, and way too many have lost that gamble on current production

but as long as we are sliding around and around, the small frame Taurus 85 snubbie gets an awful lot of good reviews by a lot of owners, and I was real well pleased with a couple of 'em I shot (owned by others).. if they can win good marks on a small frame snubbie centerfire, it is doubly frustrating that they cannot do better than their model 94/941 on the small frame rimfire
somebody at Taurus just doesn't care, buyer beware

I would happily roll the dice on a new model S&W 63 before I would even think about a new model Taurus 94, but you won't get that done at same price, so it's not really a great solution for anyone looking at $300
 
Last edited:
M94 Taurus

I own and get great service from the various M94s i have owned. I appreciate the K-frame Smiths I have owned also, but don't understand why they don't turn out a 9 shot varient as a standard? Seems with modern manufacturing processes, it would be a common industry standard. Same for the Ruger SP 101 .22 cal, limited to 6 round cylinder by design? i liked the H&R models due to their higher cylinder capacities, even on older models. the Taurus as a small frame revolver, with a higher capacity, seems to be the best concept available to me. It is very much a "kit gun" so to speak, easily carried and efficiently proportioned. I challenge Smith and Wesson to build a comparable to the M94 in dimension and capacity. I generally would advocate firing most DA .22 revolvers in SA mode to negate the stiff DA action. But with many rounds fired through M94, it is sweet to shoot both SA and DA. I even have found 9 shot speed loaders for my M94, and get the full training value of marksmanship and weapons handling, etc to replicate my center-fire DA revolvers. A good gunsmith can remedy the action with polishing alone. or as some have advocated, by replacing the factory springs. All considered, i marvel at the innovation that comes from the Taurus line. From the "Judge", to the "second-strike" mechanism on some of their semi-auto pistols, to the elite after market sights available on most hanguns from the factory, to the "Raging-bull" line of revolvers in many capable calibers such as the .17 HMR and .454 Casull, Taurus pushes the envelope where others rest on tradition. I agree, they can have QA problems as any brand can. But Taurus has proven to me to be a responsive and innovative brand, producing some of my most accurate handguns I have ever owned. I will keep buying and using them, and communicate any problems or concerns I have quickly to their service department and technical reps. But they routinely produce innovative and serviceable firearms that I own and trust. tdv
 
welcome to the forum 7 poster
(does the "T" in tdv stand for Taurus ??)

"don't understand why they don't turn out a 9 shot varient as a standard?"
cause they thunk 10 shots were better than nine, I guess (S&W 617)
but 9 shot 22 rimfires have never been particularly rare; actually pretty common, easy enough to find speed loaders for 'em, always was

Some rimfires are very deliberately intended to be training companions to their centerfire cousins, you know, which makes perfect sense, and is a long standing S&W tradition
(S&W k-17, k-48, k-19/66, for example, what I use anyway, all six shooters)

Which small frame 9 shot Taurus centerfire revolver are you using your small frame 94 to companion train for ???

The Taurus 94 some think is pert near perfect size and balance for a kit gun specifically because Taurus was striving to imitate the classic S&W kit guns, of course; but even Rossi did a better imitation than the Taurus 94 with their 511/515 (before Taurus/Braztech existed)

"I challenge Smith and Wesson to build a comparable to the M94 in dimension and capacity."
Even the NEW S&W evidently favors guns which go bang a lot without breaking - like the new model 63.. or 317 8 shot, or 351PD 7 shot in 22WMR
(better than two that go bang, and then leave 7 unfired in a out-of time locked up gun gun, you know)

"I generally would advocate firing most DA .22 revolvers in SA mode to negate the stiff DA action. B"
stay out of gunfights, friend, or get a k-frame or Colt
or consider abandoning that model 94 training "to get the full training value of marksmanship and weapons handling" cause a speedloader ain't going to do much for your cause in SA only mode

"A good gunsmith can remedy the action with polishing alone. or as some have advocated, by replacing the factory springs."
balderdash, that non-solution has been beaten to death many times as being specific to the notorious model 94
a good gunsmith cannot just polish parts that don't fit, and cycling a sloppy fit action does not smooth in a poorly fit action, it just wears it out faster
lighter mainsprings cause misfires in the model 94, and a lighter return spring helps very little

yo, apply for a sales position at Taurus International, I think you have a great career opportunity awaiting you.. but they will probably be a tad more impressed if you use an innovative spiel, instead of memorizing their existing "in praise of phrases"

one good woobie deserves another, you know :neener:

PS
fitness for function = quality
innovation never was a substitute for quality workmanship
not for Taurus, not for Winchester, not for S&W, not for Colt, not for anybody
 
Last edited:
You know, I really want the Taurus Model 94 to hold its own in a fair comparison to a Smith 22 revolver. I would have loved the SP-101 22 to be comparable to a Smith. Someone mentioned the Ruger LCR.... I'm hoping Ruger comes out with a 22LR version of the LCR and it is as good as the 38spl version but with a 8-shot cylinder. Me, my next likely purchase in the 22 revolver area is likely to be a 3" Smith M63. After that, more than likely it will be another collector Colt.
 
No tdv doesn't swear allegience to the Taurus brand, nor any other for that matter. Simply to a particular firearm I have grown to trust by experience. I know gunsmiths that won't work on any revolver but a Smith and Wesson, or believe anything but a series 70 Colt M1911 is not worth carrying. The M94 is a solid DA revolver and many others agree. I advocate SA use of the DA .22 only for those who find it difficult to operate one otherwise. It is in fact a dual-mode firearm, capable of being used as such. No different than manually cocking an M92F Beretta, when time and greater precision afford this. Actually, what I best like about Taurus firearms, is that they are not made in a country that we fought and defeated in WWI or WWII! Now that is merit that deserves some brand loyalty! I still hear similar distain for Savage bolt guns that is common for Taurus firearms. Yet everyone who I know who shoots them, marvel at their accuracy out of the box. Heck even gun-scribes mess up and complement Savage frequently now. Performance and affordability are hard to pass up. Superior performance from a more cost effective product, is addicting!
 
I have posted to this thread already, but after following it I have some additional thoughts.

One is in regards to the heavy DA trigger on the model 94. That seems to be one of the biggest complaints. I learned to shoot my M94's DA with patience and practice. It was not that hard. But I often wonder why all the concern about it. I never, ever considered my M94's as a SD revolver. I use them strictly for plinking and hunting. Therefore, most of time I use them SA. My snubbies are always fired DA, but not my rimfire revolvers.

I see some pretty weird stuff in any Taurus 94 thread, but one thing I rarely, if ever read about is poor accuracy. Both of my 94's are very accurate. Taurus may not fit and finish so well, but they do know how to cut a great barrel. That is probably the # 1 reason I tend to grab one when I go out in the woods. hitting what I point at is my objective when the trigger is pulled, and my 94's do that better than any of my other rimfire pistols.
 
I have a 94 s/s 4" bbl I bouight back in early '90's, fucntion is fine but trigger was stiff from the box so I took it down and slicked up the internals for a noticeable improvememnt.
accuracy is fair but I sure wish I had the knowledge to improve on it, it spits some and fouls the forceing cone and bbl really bad with Blazers and such, no so bad with copper washed slugs.
anyone got ideas on how I could improve on this?
 
accuracy is fair but I sure wish I had the knowledge to improve on it, it spits some and fouls the forceing cone and bbl really bad with Blazers and such, no so bad with copper washed slugs.
anyone got ideas on how I could improve on this?
Click to expand...

One of mine did the same thing. Spit a bit out the left side and fouled the left side and top of the forcing cone with lead. I sent it in to Taurus with a note explaining, in detail, what it was doing. It was fixed and sent back within 6 weeks. Call or write Taurus CS to get a auth.# and get it fixed.
 
Taurus M94

Oldfool...
Thanks for the welcome to THR! Yeah I am a 7 poster, just stumbled on THR by accident. Never wrote a thread in my life till now. Mostly due to being gainfully employed as a Navy SEAL for almost 27 years, much of it served at our elite unit. Now as a 100 percent, disabled combat vet, I have more time on my hands. I am just another gun loving, master class level shooter, with plenty of combat and law enforcement experience to know what I prefer and admire in a firearm. I appreciate your allegience to Smith and Wesson revolvers. I carried an issued M686 with a 6" barrel into harms way many times, as opposed to my issued SIG 226, or Beretta 92F. I could always count on it, not so for the semi-auto pistol. It was my first line, with 2 speed loaders, 6 single rounds of .357 mag for a tactical load, and 2 grenades. I never felt under-gunned, and it was my back-up to my M4 or M700 anyway. I will say, bad guys had slightly bigger eyeballs, when I covered down on them with that M686 as opposed to one of my team-mates with a SIG. The psycological factors many times are a reality. You can appreciate what a competent shooter can do with a M686 .357 mag, even at a range of 100 yards or more. So it is hard for me to break from such confidence in a good Smith myself. But I still appreciate a good value. The M94 to me is just that. I get as much joy and therapy shooting it as any other firearm I own. We both know ammo prices have really put a dent in our passion for shooting. Part of why I look for a serviceable handgun these days. I will always recommend buying a M94, and spend the saved couple of hundred dollars on ammo or a spring kit etc to get it just right. The man or woman that shoots and masters that type of gun, is generally more proficient than the shooters with a high dollar gun, he rarely shoots. No surprises there. But knowing Taurus built the M94 as a "kit gun" to emulate those made by Smith and Wesson, and to be used mostly for plinking and field carry, I commend them for doing a pretty good job at that. God bless the free-market economy. Competition results in all of us having so many options. I still understand, yet don't condone a gunsmith that refuses to work on a Taurus, Charter Arms or anything but a Smith and Wesson. If all hanguns were right or needed no improvement out of the box, we wouldn't need them and they wouldn't have a job. I admire the smithy that simply makes any firearm in front of him, serviceable or better, keeping functional firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens. Isn't that what makes America so great! Take care oldfool, I look forward to future debates, you are a righteous man! Good shooting! tdv
 
Lot's of opinions out there, in general also prejudice for certain brands. To the guy who started this discussion, or others who simply seek a cost effective .22 revolver for general use. I have this to say. Truth be told, to make any brand of firearm suitable for competitive use such as PPC, Bianchi Cup, Bullseye shooting, etc. All require extensive hand-fitting, polishing, and great attention to improve the overall tolerances and timing of the piece. Yet, it would not be prudent to rely on such a gun for combat use. Companies like Les Baer, Wilson Combat and others go to great lengths to produce a pistlo that is both very accurate and reliable for combat. We pay a heavy price for such work. I have been to the Smith an Wesson factory school years ago, and learned what it takes to get the most out of their well made revolvers. That effort is not put into a .22 revolver from their factory. No manufacturer does this kind of handi-work except if they have a custom shop varient available. Every brand of .22 revolver I ever owned will cut some lead at the forcing cone if you run cheaper Blazer lead ammo through it! But some still shoot well and put far more lead in the squirrel or tin can you are going after. Let's get real, you get a good value and decent performance in a Taurus M94. You may get better performance in a Smith and Wesson kit gun, and you pay for it. But both can be improved with care maintenance, and a good gunsmith. If you are new to spring kit use in revolvers, beware. They will induce a "light strike" if you don't have the right set and combination. I consider a "light strike" totally unacceptable! I can't live with the concern of one every time I press the trigger. You can replace the guts with such after market parts and get great reliability. It takes experience through some trial and experimentation. In a revolver, much can be improved by honing and polishing the friction areas internally. I hope you all meet an honest smithy who will share with you the crazy factory flaws he has corrected on yes a Smith and Wesson revolver.
Many will just protect the brand loyalty and refuse to work on your Taurus! So to the man who originally considered the purchase of the M94. I say buy one! Prove to yourself from that experience the merit of the revolver. Shoot the heck out of it, put some meat on your table, etc. Most of all, have fun exercising your right to bear arms! It has been said numerous times in these threads. The M94 will fire every time, and they are generally very accurate. Other factors can be improved if desired. For the money, that is a fair trade. All .22 revolvers will run smoother after thousands of rounds shot through them. I find that the funnest action job available. You do that and you will shoot well. I don't care what you have in your hand, if you can't shoot, all you have left is bragging rights over your financial buying power. I like my M94, it is every bit as good a .22 as my Ruger Single-six in all factors. I have owned dozens of both. Some came better finished out of the box. All improved after thousand of rounds shot through them. Go empty some brass!
 
"don't understand why they don't turn out a 9 shot varient as a standard?"
cause they thunk 10 shots were better than nine, I guess (S&W 617)
but 9 shot 22 rimfires have never been particularly rare; actually pretty common, easy enough to find speed loaders for 'em, always was

Haven't been particularly rare? Other than the H&R or the High Standard, what other nine-shot revolvers (the Model 94) have been brought to mass market?

Some rimfires are very deliberately intended to be training companions to their centerfire cousins, you know, which makes perfect sense, and is a long standing S&W tradition
(S&W k-17, k-48, k-19/66, for example, what I use anyway, all six shooters)

Which small frame 9 shot Taurus centerfire revolver are you using your small frame 94 to companion train for ???

Which center-fire S&W is the 317 going to companion train for?

The Taurus 94 some think is pert near perfect size and balance for a kit gun specifically because Taurus was striving to imitate the classic S&W kit guns, of course; but even Rossi did a better imitation than the Taurus 94 with their 511/515 (before Taurus/Braztech existed)

You know this how? Bring some real proof, beyond your opinion, please. Perhaps you have a release from Taurus stating that?

"I challenge Smith and Wesson to build a comparable to the M94 in dimension and capacity."
Even the NEW S&W evidently favors guns which go bang a lot without breaking - like the new model 63.. or 317 8 shot, or 351PD 7 shot in 22WMR
(better than two that go bang, and then leave 7 unfired in a out-of time locked up gun gun, you know)

Golly, and my 617 is still at S&W. It decided to lock up tight after about 75 rounds or so. Local gunsmith gave up on it, and we sent it back. This was the second S&W that I've bought that has failed inside of 100 rounds. Great legend you're spouting, just not the truth.

"I generally would advocate firing most DA .22 revolvers in SA mode to negate the stiff DA action. B"
stay out of gunfights, friend, or get a k-frame or Colt
or consider abandoning that model 94 training "to get the full training value of marksmanship and weapons handling" cause a speedloader ain't going to do much for your cause in SA only mode

Who actually goes into gun-fights with a .22 if they have a bigger caliber? As for his advocating SA for others, maybe that's not him when training? Using a speedloader is a part of training. Do you not advocate training with one?

"A good gunsmith can remedy the action with polishing alone. or as some have advocated, by replacing the factory springs."
balderdash, that non-solution has been beaten to death many times as being specific to the notorious model 94
a good gunsmith cannot just polish parts that don't fit, and cycling a sloppy fit action does not smooth in a poorly fit action, it just wears it out faster
lighter mainsprings cause misfires in the model 94, and a lighter return spring helps very little

Oddly enough, the majority of people who actually do something besides bash the little guns seem to successfully polish the guns themselves, or have a 'smith do it. There are several already in this thread, or has that been a "missed" post? Is anyone posting a certified gunsmith? If not, then let's just forget the opinions, masquerading as truth .

yo, apply for a sales position at Taurus International, I think you have a great career opportunity awaiting you.. but they will probably be a tad more impressed if you use an innovative spiel, instead of memorizing their existing "in praise of phrases"

That appears to edge very close to an ad hominum attack. I've pulled up some other threads, and you seem to always be ready to denigrate others weapons. Too bad that all that "experience" appears to be directed solely to destructive ends.

one good woobie deserves another, you know

No, I don't think he did, or deserved, one.
 
well, if nine is your magic number, and High-Standard, or H&R (or subsequently NEF), or Astra-Cadix, or JC Higgins, or Comanche, or Taurus don't ring your chimes hard enough with 22 rimfire ammo, you could always seek out a LeMat revolver
nine round revolver (in 40 caliber no less), plus a center 16 gauge barrel to boot, all-in-one... innovative if nothing else

what sort of patterns do you reckon you would get out of a 16, as opposed to say a 410 shot shell ? inquiring minds want to know

maybe we can all petition the big T to re-introduce it
(they really oughta' do something innovative and worthy of their Thunderbolt success) :D
mebbe they could call it the "Circuit Bull" or "Outrageous Judge", but what would da' Judge say ?


PS
have no fear, friends, tdv can hold his own, USN Seals ain't no wussies
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
  • Locked
Taurus model 94 SS .22 with underlug
Replies
1
Views
611
AirPower
A
W
  • Locked
Taurus 94
Replies
4
Views
614
whm1974
W
M
  • Locked
Taurus Model 94
Replies
13
Views
1K
10-Ring
1
C
  • Locked
Taurus Model 94...opinions wanted
Replies
11
Views
856
moph759fl
M
F
  • Locked
Taurus 970SS6 any good?
Replies
8
Views
946
weregunner
weregunner
Back
Top