Taurus vs. S&W and Ruger

[NWAttorney]

Gentlepeople,

I'm looking to pick up a .357 J or K-frame revolver, and see that Taurus has much better prices that S&W and Ruger. Any short notes on quality? It won't be going through thousands of rounds, but I do want it to be reliable.

Any coments would be welcome (I own a SIG and a Walther for my semi's--I just don't know that much about revolver quality, or if they are all similar and it is just a matter of preference).

Thanks in advance,

NWAttorney

 

[ugaarguy]

I'm looking to pick up a .357 J or K-frame revolver, and see that Taurus has much better prices that S&W and Ruger. Any short notes on quality? It won't be going through thousands of rounds, but I do want it to be reliable.

Well S&W has discontinued the K Magnums, so you'd have to step up to an L frame if you want a new gun, or, preferrably, find a good used K frame. Ruger offers the L frame sized GP100, and the SP101 which is halfway between the J and K frame in size.

On to Taurus. I think they make pretty good guns, that are edging closer in quality to current S&Ws - only the old Colts are comparable to the older pinned bbl S&Ws which are the pinnacle of production revolver quality. There have however been several threads here of late in regards to Taurus' customer service, or rather large lack thereof. With S&W you get customer service that's pretty consistently praised here and on other forums, should you need it. Ruger is also known for good customer service.

In conclusion I'd look for a good used pinned bbl K Frame, or a new or used SP101 if you want a mid sized gun. If you want a truly J frame sized gun then a new or used S&W is the way to go.

 

[Majic]

The older Ruger Six series (Security, Speed, Police) revolvers were very good guns.

 

[jad0110]

Just curious, what will be your primary use for this gun? Home Defense, concealed carry, range fun?

All three make fine guns, and all three make there lemons too. I own 4 Smiths (see sig line), I've never owned a Ruger (but would like to), and I have owned two Tauri. One was a Taurus Model 66 357 Magnum, and it was one fine gun with an excellent DA Trigger. Finishing equalled many S&Ws I've seen, except for some pretty obvious tool marks around the front sight post. I only sold it because I decided I didn't like the way the 6" full lug barrel balanced in my hands. Had it been a 4", I may have kept it. I ended up with a S&W 686 instead and love it (I do love all of my Smithies).

New and used, Taurus is the most affordable. Used Tauri can be an excellent choice, as they can be had for very low prices. Then again, used S&Ws generally cost a bit more (regional prices vary a LOT), but they will usually only increase in value. To a slightly lesser degree, the same can be said of Rugers.

On the customer service issue, I have no personal experience with S&W or Ruger, but I usually here good things about them. I cannot say the same for Taurus. My Model 66 Taurus was a sweet gun, but my 22LR Model 94 was one of those lead spitting lemons. Basically, the 94's cylinder would bind every 50 to 100 rounds (despite ejecting the empty cases straight down and cleaning the gun every few cylinders full) and the DA trigger pull had a huge bur about 1/2 through the pull. I sent it back to Taurus and 6 weeks later I got back the gun in the same condition. All I got was a note telling me to clean it more often (what, you mine like, every two rounds?)

Try some out and see what fits your hands best, and use the Revolver Checkout Sticky at the top of the forum, regardless of whether you buy new or used.

 

[DWARREN123]

I realy like my SP-101, stainless with 3" barrel. Usually, not always, you can tell quality by price.
Have owned a S&W model 60, now have a Ruger SP-101, never owned a Taurus but have looked at them, not impressed but that is me.

 

[bakert]

I have an older model 66 that while not the quality of a S&W has served me pretty well but Taurus has had some quality control problems in the past. My son has a Taurus Tracker, a 7 shot .357 that's a darn nice gun.

 

[Charshooter]

I used to carry the model 27 N frame 357 and the model 29 44 magnum as they fit my hand well. I find the L frame a good compromise is size and it seems to be standard, but I think the small concealed carry 38 specials are in the J frame, anyway, they are sure small and hard for me to handle.

The Ruger GP 100 is a great revolver and as the man said, it is about an L frame size.

As to Taurus, I have it owned one, but those that I know who do seem to like them. I just have never owned that many handguns where I would have had use for one.

 

[SAWBONES]

I have or have had examples of all three makers' revolvers.

The old Taurus steel models were an excellent value, every bit as good as the Smiths or even better, and less expensive. If you can find a nice stainless Model 85 from the mid-'80s, for instance, grab it.
Unfortunately, Taurus' current production is more "spotty" in QC, regardless that they've come out with dozens of new model variations. Their customer service (repair-replacement) is abysmally slow and unreliable, IME. (A "lifetime guarantee" sounds good, but it means little if you get the runaround for 6 months when you try to get a defective gun made right.)
I won't buy another one. You may feel differently.

If you can find an older non-lock Smith in .357 in J, K or L-frame, and if lockup and action are good, they're good guns. Which frame size you want is important as regards concealability and ease of carry vs. ease of shooting, especially if you intend to load and shoot full power .357 Magnum rounds. Even the short barrel L-frames like the 686 with a 2.5" barrel are readily concealable with the right carry setup. The J-frames .357s like the Model 60 are somewhat uncomfortable to shoot with full power loads, the lightweight alloy frame versions even moreso, though of course they're eminently concealable.
I won't buy a current S&W revolver with the obligatory lock. You may feel differently.

The Rugers are strong as can be. The small frame SP101 is easily concealable, and is light enough at 25 oz. that carrying concealed is not cumbersome, yet that same weight makes it easier to shoot with full power loads than any of the J-frame Smiths, irrespective of which stocks are on the gun. (I like the standard SP101 stocks, and find them well-shaped and adequately cushioned.) There's no damnable lock, the Rugers have modular unitary construction of several simple subassemblies, and are very easy to work on.
I have two SP101s, one of which I carry all day, every day. They shoot easily (I've had both triggers slicked up) and are spot-on accurate and precise with Buffalo Bore .357 Magnum 158gr JHP loads.
I also have the GP100, which is another excellent (large frame) revolver.

I'll buy more Rugers.
I won't buy any new Smiths unless they start to make non-lock versions again, though I'll snap up a nice older Smith from time to time when I find 'em.
I won't buy any current Taurus revolvers.

 

[John]

I have owned a Taurus Tracker, a Ruger SP101, a Ruger GP100, and an S&W 342PD.

The Taurus was OK and the Rugers were great(!); however, I sold all three: because the Tracker was ugly and boring, and the Rugers were too heavy for a frail old man to carry.

I am now trading the 342PD in on a Performance Center 327 2", because I need a bit more weight to minimize recoil, need an exposed hammer for single-action option when my 73 year-old trigger finger gets too weak for double-action, and because the 327 is advertised as having a smooth trigger.

 

[MCgunner]

I was wanting a 3" SP101 real bad, but at about 5 ounces heavier and with an extra shot, I found a K frame sized Taurus M66 3" and I'm very happy with it. It's an older gun. I have a 4" I like even better, newer lockwork. I wanted the 3" for carry. My newer gun is every bit the quality of the pinned M19 I owned once. Actually, it's got a few things I like better, like no flat spot on the bottom of the forcing cone and transfer bar lockwork with a floating firing pin as with Ruger. It seems to be a little stronger gun than the K frames. The newer L frames and the Ruger are stronger, but they're also way heavy. There are some lighter L frames available now days, though.

I don't think you can beat Taurus for the money, though, excellent quality guns for a lot less money. The only thing Ruger currently builds I'd want is the SP101 and it's sorta porky for a 5 shooter. The Security Six hasn't been built in 20 years and I had one, anyway, and there were things I didn't like about it, things I did like about it. It was a decent gun, but I don't get all teary eyed about trading it off. I'm quite content with my Taurus. The Blackhawk I traded that Security Six for is an excellent outdoor gun and I've carried it a lot hunting and killed two deer with it. I'd make the trade again in a heartbeat. People that thing the Security Six is strong never picked up a Blackhawk. LOL

Go here to discuss:

http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php

 

[ronto]

You Can't Go Wrong With a Ruger Revolver

Ruger SP101 for carry...4" Ruger GP100 for a house gun or a good used Ruger Six-Series for a house gun...None of the above have an internal trigger lock or any other sort of internal lock which is one less useless gizmo to malfunction.

 

[gandog56]

I have a Taurus 66 in .357 mag and a Ruger Superblackhawk in .44 mag that are both over twenty years old. Both of them still shoot as well as the year I bought them. Never had a S&W so can't help you there. I like the accuracy of my Taurus as it is the gun I most depend on for one ragged hole targets. I like the Ruger as I am not afraid to put some wrist breaking loads in it. The Taurus is DA, the Ruger is SA. So take your pick which would be more important to you.

 

[glockman19]

I have S&W's a 686+ 4" and a 642. I paid a little more because of the great reputation, warranty and customer service. I've shot the Ruger SP 101 & GP 100 they are nice guns but I prefer the trigger on the S&W's. I have no interest in taurus. I personally don't like them. Not to take away from anyone who does I'm just not a fan of the firearms.

Best advise is always to shoot the ones you're interested in and buy the one that shoots and feels the best in your hand.

 

[10-Ring]

I'm not a Taurus fan. The 2 I've owned have left alot to be desired. I do have friends that own Tauri that are very nice tho...perhaps if you can fondle the exact model you are interested in, that should limit the issues you might potentially face.
My first choice now would be the Ruger (because they don't come w/ internal locks), vintage S&W's and then maybe a new production Smith.

 

[rem1187a]

Yugo vs Ford and Chevy

A lesson learned long ago....Spend the extra few dollars on the better product. Not a smith fan but besides the new locks I can't talk bad about them either. Ruger would be my suggestion. Currently have 3. SP101, GP100 and a Redhawk. No complaints. Above comments on customer service for all 3 companies is accurate. Have heard excellent things about ruger service, good about smith and we are still searching for anyone at taurus that knows anything.

 

[Stainz]

I was actually impressed with a friends new Taurus blued 66 after he dry-fired and shot it a bit. I also changed to lighter springs for him - a real improvement. I have to admit, it actually was a bargain - that works well - and I am regarded by him as a real S&W-nut/snob. His previous Taurus revolvers, a .22 and a .45ACP Tracker, were not quite as nice - and he sold them quickly.

My experience with Ruger revolvers has left me with the acceptance that future purchases will also be delivered as 'works in progress'. In all honesty, I have sold or traded many of my Rugers, especially the DA's, having found that S&W's fit my needs better. Still, my latest acquisition, a LNIB .32M 4" SP101, was functional... but I hated the horrid trigger. Within a few days, I had a better grip and reduced power springs. After a few hours deburring, easing the rough frame innards, dry-firing the stew out of it, and replacing those OEM springs with lighter Wolff's springs, I had a keeper. Believe me, Rugers will clean up to be nice pieces - but as delivered, some of mine were dysfunctional - one, a Redhawk, even had to go back - and they paid for it's trip!

I made a decision some time back - after my first S&W. I may not own as many revolvers as I would like to have - but they will be good examples - that means S&W. I also buy new ones, as you never know how someone has mistreated a used revolver. Then, of course, there is that lifetime warranty - and they'll send you a pickup label from an 800# call. My one experience - after 8k+ rounds in competetion with a .45ACP 625 - was unreal - back in ten days - like new - no charge - and I had caused the damage! As to 'The Lock', most of my revolvers have it. Most of the rounds I have sent downrange were from revolvers so-equipped. The metal injection molded parts are a manufacturing simplification, as they are so uniform, hand fitting isn't required - and as strong or more so than the forged parts. Both 'detract' from a new S&W's looks - but, I am a realist - they don't bother me. I'd rather buy new, as I said, than acquire someone else's troubles. Also, to say 'no' to new S&W's, is to say no to some very interesting new offerings - and that is totally unacceptable to me.

Temper my remarks with this... I have a couple of Russian 1895 Nagants I enjoy shooting, too!

Stainz

 

[gggman]

I had a Taurus mod. 85, which is similar to the j frame Smiths. I bought it new, and it did not hold up well to shooting. I now have a Ruger SP101, and comparing the two is like comparing a piggy bank to a bank vault. I can't imagine ever wearing out the SP101, but the Taurus was showing signs of wear after just a few trips to the range. I know lots of folks on here say good things about Taurus, but I will probably never buy another one.