I can only tell you the experience I've had with these two pistols. End result is you get a limited perspective. Everyone likes to be able to justify the money they have spent. I own two Kimbers and one Taurus as well as a few other .45's. I was able to justify buying the Taurus because it was going to be a "starter" gun for my son. It isn't a bad gun. That said, it feels down right sloppy when compared to my Kimbers. As far as reliability goes my Taurus has been just fine. Then again, I've had zero problems with either of my Kimbers (neither of my Kimbers are the trouble prone models with extractor problems) and a Springfield Armory. I have had problems with a Wilson Combat and surprisingly it's the highest dollar gun of the bunch. Wilson fixed it and that's just what you would expect. That just confirms my suspicion that you can get a good or bad gun from any manufacturer. The Taurus I own won't shoot (group) with my Kimbers or any of the other brands I own for that matter. From a Ransom Rest both Kimbers totally blow away the Taurus with all ammo's I've used for a comparison. A better shooter than myself may not have similar results. It is what it is and that's a starter gun for my son and I would rate it no higher than that. It goes bang every time I pull the trigger. Did it cost less? You bet, but my Kimbers weren't twice the price either. If you are going to buy one of these two brands and hold on to it or have any intention of shooting competitively, I would tell you to hold out for a Kimber. I could give you my opinion and a little more information on other manufacturers but that's not what this thread is about.