Yes, owning both the revolver, and the semi-auto, I can honestly say that they are so much superior to S&W's offerings as to make it no contest.
That's an extreme example of what we see here. Do any of us buy a Prius expecting it's performance to be the equal of a BMW? No, we don't. At the various price breaks, standard features, and fit and finish, vary. Guns are the same.
S&W is, on average, at least 25-30% more expensive than Taurus. Both shoot bullets with the same relative accuracy. My experiences with 12 (now) of them has been that they are quite durable. I have several pistols and revolvers that have passed the 15K mark, without any repair or replacement except my own regimen of recoil springs in semi-autos at 5000 rounds.
I own more S&W revolvers. These are all pre-lock guns, many from the pre-War era. I've had a brand new Model 625-3 fail on the first shot, when the hand broke. Took S&W six weeks to get it back to me. I have had a Model 29-4 shoot loose with 500 rounds of factory .44 magnum ammo. I have a Model 19-6 that showed cracks in the forcing cone after fewer than 2000 rounds, about three-quarters of them .357 Magnum factory loads.
The K frame S&W, when used with Magnum loads, will self-destruct in as few as 2000 rounds. The "L" frame was designed because of this.
S&W had to beef up the Model 29, but only after decades of production, because it became known that the revolvers would shoot-loose in an amazingly short period of time.
It's all a matter of opinion. I, for the one, have owned, and do own, many of the pistols made by both manufacturers. The Taurus guns get used, while the S&Ws tend to sit, and look pretty, which they are very good at.
As for buying six S&W pistols for my Korth, why? I wanted a gun that was the epitome of the art. Just like people who buy Pythons, or Performance Shop guns (pale imitations, to be sure). If we all were worried about prices, we'd be shooting .22s.
