Taurus, Ruger, or S&W?

[jeepnik]

Hmm, I want a gun to bet my life on, but I dont' want to spend much on it. Here's a little secret, in this life, you get what you pay for.

Buy the darned Smith and forget about it. Should you or your decendents ever sell it, you'll get the money back. Heck, I consider myself just the temporary custodian of my Smiths, even though a fair number that are older than I am, they will outlast my grandkids with ease.

Will the others work, sure, but will you have the same affinity for them as a nicely turned out Smith?

 

[d-dogg]

Now I have read on a couple of sites, something to the effect of "the model 19 does not like a steady diet of .357".

Can someone please expound on this if they have heard or experienced similar? Seemed to be related to lighter hollow point bullets.

 

[Jaymo]

I've owned Taurus revolvers and semis since 1991, and have never had a single issue/problem with any of them.
I wish I'd never sold two of the three that I actually sold.
One was a 3" 65-.357, the other was a 3" 431-.44 Special.
I miss those greatly.
I don't really miss the blued 85CH that I sold, because I sold it to help pay for a stainless steel 86CH when they came out.
I did miss the wood banana gri[p it had, and was looking for one to put on mine to replace the Uncle Mike's rubber grip. Same length as the banana grip, finger grooved. Good, comfortable grip. Nothing wrong with it. I just missed the banana.
Then, I found an 85CH with the banana grip, that was made a year or two before my other one.
For $175, I couldn't go wrong.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

S&W, then the Ruger. Taurus wouldn't even be in the running with me. Out of 4 revolvers from them that I've seen, 4 of them have had major problems. That's 100% for me. Crap.

Others have had the exact opposite experience. For my money, I will never buy a Taurus, Rossi, or any other gun made by a company associated with Taurus. JMO

Good Luck

Personally, if it were me, I'd save a bit longer and spring for a brand new GP100 or 686+. Again, JMO.

 

[d-dogg]

S&W 65-3??????

Opinions, Problems? Strengths, Weaknesses?

In the next 15 minutes please.

 

[Jaymo]

The 65s were good guns. I wouldn't walk away from one that was priced right.
The K frames didn't like a steady diet of full power .357 mag ammo, but then again, neither will your wrists/elbows, or wallet.
Odds are, you'll never put enough full house mag loads through it to hurt it.
Plus, you'll have to reload or buy Buffalo Bore to get full power mag ammo. Current production .357 ammo looks to be a good bit milder than it used to be.

 

[CajunBass]

S&W 65-3??????

Opinions, Problems? Strengths, Weaknesses?

In the next 15 minutes please.

Don't know about a -3, but my wife has a 65-5 "Ladysmith" that is a great shooter. I suppose in theory, it has all the same "weaknesses" that any "K" frame Smith & Wesson has with the forcing cone, but you couldn't prove it by me. Aftermarket grips, or a Tylers T-grip help a lot.



I think the -5 has a shrouded ejector rod, where the -3 has an exposed one, but that's the only difference I can think of.

 

[Snake Plisskin]

Go with the 19-3 best choice, IMO

 

[d-dogg]

Well, his reserve was obviously higher than I would go.

19-3 coming up in a while.

 

[GWARGHOUL]

Taurus carries an outstanding warranty,you might check with the manufacturer but I believe it stays with the firearm regardless of transfer.

It is the lifetime of the gun, regardless of ownership.

I would go for the Taurus, personally. I have a Taurus 608 in my list. I own a 85 stainless. Great gun.