• You are using the old Black Responsive theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Taurus vs. Smith & Wesson

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=8478.0

Own the Taurus revolvers. 3 older ones that are more than 20+ years of age.

Models 66,65,and 85CH. Dureability, reliability, and dead on accuracy have been the bywords.

Bought the Taurus 94 as an understudy gun to compliment the centerfire ones. It's cheaper to shoot .22lrf for most practice than the more expensive centerfire guns.

As a follow on I went and procured a newer 66 and an 82. All work well and hae given sterling service.

My experience has been duplicate to McCgunner's in the accuracy department with the .357 magnum/.38 Special ammo combos.
 
I support the Ruger and Smith posts...

If I were to go out and buy a new revolver, I would consider two manufacturers: Ruger and Smith and Wesson. I'd also consider Colts, but Colt doesn't offer their DA, any longer. Colt may still offer them through their custom shop, or whatever they call it, but I'm not certain of this.

I prefer the Ruger designs, but also feel that Smiths are damn good revolvers, as well.

Rugers have solid frames, modular trigger assemblies, triple locking cylinders (ejector rods don't count as a third locking point - if they do, Ruger has four), and no locks. I also love the modular grip designs on Ruger's newer DA revolvers. Ruger DA revolvers are the most modern designs in DA revolvers, today. I certainly like Smiths, but Ruger's design features make for a more durable and reliable revolver. Rugers aren't perfect, but they really excell in the areas that are important to me: durability, reliability, flexibility (with grips), accuracy, and ease of maintenance. As much as I like Smiths, I suspect that I'll continue to buy Ruger revolvers in the future. I've bought three Rugers already and see no reason not to get more.

I would not put Taurus in the same category as Rugers and Smiths. Taurus revolvers are copies of Smith and Wessons. If you prefer Smith and Wesson design features over Ruger's, why get a Taurus (a copy), when you can get a Smith? The extra money is worth it. I'm not into buying expensive guns, but you get what you pay for. If you get a bad Taurus and decide to sell it, you're going to lose a couple hundred dollars. Why not spend a little more, get something that you know will be good, and be done with it?
 
I would not put Taurus in the same category as Rugers and Smiths. Taurus revolvers are copies of Smith and Wessons. If you prefer Smith and Wesson design features over Ruger's, why get a Taurus (a copy), when you can get a Smith?
Click to expand...

Because my taurus was considerably less money and is a considerbly better gun than either my M19 or my Ruger security six were. It's just as simple as that. I was primarily looking for accuracy with magnum and .38 wadcutter in a medium frame 4" .357 and my Taurus is the only gun that can but BOTH into an inch or less at 25 yards off the bench. That matters in a field gun to me, maybe not to you. I can use the accuracy when I'm shooting at a rabbit's head at 20 yards. The gun is not just a self defense revolver for me. Don't hurt that the trigger quality is just as good as my Smith and better than my Ruger and that the design is better than a K frame in the forcing cone area of the frame and barrel, stronger, no worrys about split forcing cones.


So, IOW, my Taurus is superior to previous Smiths and Rugers I've owned for my purposes. Next question.
 
Security sixes...

Some folks like the old Ruger security sixes, but I am not one of them. Those old guns appeal to some, but Ruger's newer offerings replaced the security sixes for a reason. The newer Ruger revolvers are better than the security six line.

I'd take a GP100 or a sp101 over a security six, any day. In fact, I'd take either of those two revolvers over any other revolver that is currently on the market.

There is at least one famous revolver smiths out there that refuses to work with Taurus revolvers. Grant Cunningham refuses to work on them, because in his opinion, they are not good revovlers. Grant, even though he is a Colt man, posted an article on his blog about the GP100 and SP101s. He thinks that they are the best revolvers on the market right now.
 
The GP100 is a 40 ounce pig. I can carry my blackhawk just as easy and it's a lot stronger gun than a GP100, built to take the .44 magnum, solid, no need for lock ups on the frame or where ever. I have a 4 5/8" stainless in .45 Colt that's uber accurate and can toss a 300 grain bullet out at 1200 fps. It's a bit more gun than a .357 and weighs no more than a GP100. I tote it sometimes when I'm working around my place for a hog if I see one. I've carried it elsewhere, but when I'm hiking and just interested in some protection and, perhaps, a survival weapon, the Taurus is a lot lighter on the belt, a K frame size and weight gun.

I had an SP101, but it's no pocket gun, very heavy at 27 ounces. I'd rather carry my Taurus M85SSUL at 17 ounces in .38 special. It's got 7K or so round count and still tight and accurate and you forget you have it in your pocket. I bought it new 12 years ago, actually traded a Ruger P95 for it. My 14 ounce Kel Tec P11 is an alternative. I sold the SP101 back to my son-in-law. If I get another one, it'll have a 3" barrel, no harder to carry IWB and gives you a better sight radius. Excellent little .357, much better than my six was, and I liked it a lot, but rarely carried it. Ruger doesn't make much for practical carry other than the LCP .380. If you want a practical pocket carry revolver, you're lookin at J frames or the Taurus equivalents. For outdoor carry, the SP101 would be fine if you could adjust the sight for elevation with .38 loads.

There is at least one famous revolver smiths out there that refuses to work with Taurus revolvers. Grant Cunningham refuses to work on them, because in his opinion, they are not good revovlers.
Click to expand...

Everyone, even a gunsmith, is entitled to an opinion. My Tauri have never needed a gunsmith and if they ever do, I'll find someone that WILL fix 'em. There are smiths that won't touch a Ruger, either, but then there's Gemini and Bowen and others.

Shoot what you want, but you won't push your Taurus bash off on me because I actually own and fire 'em and know better.
 
Taurus bashing??

I'm sorry, how exactly did I bash Taurus revolvers?

I told you that I did not put Taurus revolvers in the same quality category as Smiths and Rugers. I'm sorry, but I happen to believe that. That is a belief shared by many people that frequent this site. In life, you generally get what you pay for. There are only so many corners that can be cut to reduce manufacturing costs before the quality of any product suffers. Rugers are cheaper than Smiths, but they are cheaper because they've developed manufacturing casting processes that they are famous for.

I also happen to believe that Taurus copied other revolvers (Smith and Wesson *and* Colts). This is common in the firearms industry, but Taurus is pretty well known for copying other manufacturers. Heck, they bought a Beretta factory and license the Beretta 92 build. How original. If you call that bashing, then fine. I guess that makes me a Taurus basher. I guess by your reasoning, I can safely call you a GP100 basher. Your review of the GP100 was a lot more negative than anything that I said.

I'm sorry, but many shooters would agree with my opinions. If you've had good experiences with your Taurus revolvers, then great. I'm glad that your experiences have been good. I personally have no interest in buying any Taurus firearm.
 
they bought a Beretta factory and license the Beretta 92 build.
Click to expand...

Beretta offered the factory for sale, as they had filled the contract with the Brazilian government. So, Taurus hasn't copied anything with the T92. The PT92 WAS a Beretta. Sort of like the Cougar, made in Turkey, and sold by Stoeger.

The existing PT92 has diverged from the Beretta over the years, a majority of the parts aren't interchangeable today.

Actually, as far as revolvers goes, all American made revolvers are clones of each other. There are only so many ways to make an appealing revolver. To sell in the American market, you have to look American. The internals of the Taurus are different than that of Colt or S&W. Tautus also has a better lock than S&W, as it lacks the automatic locking feature upon firing.

We own a pair of Security-Six revolvers, and find them to be fine guns. They are easier to conceal than similar GP-100 revolvers. However, the GP-100s that we own have also been flawless, and have marginally better triggers. Both designs seem to hold up better than K-frames with a steady diet of full-power loads.

You generally do get what you pay for in guns. However, that's an apples vs. oranges statement unless you add in the various differences that occur. Wages, EPA regulations, costs of materials and transport, taxes, licensing fees, unemployment paid, costs of litigation insurance, power costs, and the myriad of fees manufacturers pay to the governments that surround it. America is expensive to manufacture in, compared to many other places in the world. Add in the "necessary" profit margin, and a freaking spoon manufactured in America will cost five times what it costs when manufactured South America.
 
Fishman777, opinions are like, well, at least one fellow disagrees with you.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/smith-wesson_dark.htm

As to cloning guns, interesting last paragraph.

As I write these words, S&W is busy producing their knock-offs of Glock, High Standard, and Colt/Browning designs, and Walther pistols by agreement with the German parent company. Enough is enough; Smith & Wesson's history of quality control problems and as a corporate copycat is too long, and too nauseating, to delve into farther. Anyway, you've got the picture.
Click to expand...

I'm only posting this to show you that you're not the only one with an opinion. I won't buy Smiths with locks, but beyond that, I don't share Hawes' hatred. But, that's his opinion. I do think Smith and Wesson is just as big a crap shoot as any other including Taurus when you buy one, so I check any gun I'm going to purchase out thoroughly before I put down my hard earned cash. I'll give about any brand a chance, good thing, or I wouldn't have found that Taurus 66, best medium frame .357 revolver I've ever owned or fired, at least for the purposes for which I wanted the gun. And, fact is, at 197 bucks, it was the best deal on a revolver I think that I've ever made! One helluva deal. I do appreciate people who think Taurus is junk, drives the used priced down in my area. Lots of Smith and Wesson koolaid drinkers around here. An equivalent K frame would be over twice that price and likely in lesser condition. Oh, but that Smith and Wesson Marcas Registradas stamp on the side is worth it, right? :rolleyes:
 
I like the Smith's better. I have a S&W 629 4" that I love to shoot, and a 649 j-frame in .357. I've shot a few Taurus revolvers at the range, and dry fired a few at the gun store, and there triggers feel sort of gross, like they are full of sand. If I had to do it over again, I might have bought Ruger revolvers instead, they are durable guns as well. So, yeah, go with a S&W or Ruger before a Taurus.
 
Often, for some reason, Taurus ships revolvers packed full of grease that must be cleaned out. My M85 has a better trigger than any Smith I've ever pulled and my 66 is the equal of my M10 Smith and my M19 Smith and a heckuva lot better than any out of the box Ruger. Trigger quality is fine enough on the Rugers, though. So long as the trigger is smooth, might not be as light and smooth as my M85, but I can shoot it fine. I liked my SP101 a lot. I'll buy what I wish without much thought of brand. I pick it up, look it over, make my decision. I've never been a "buy American" guy, either. I'll buy American, but it'd better be what I want and meet my standards. For instance, I've never owned a Harley Davidson motorcycle in my 40+ years of riding and racing motorcycles. Over half of a Harley is made outside the country, anyway, DID rims, Showa suspension, yadda, yadda. I own 7 Rugers, one Smith, and one Kel Tec. Those are all American.
 
Often, for some reason, Taurus ships revolvers packed full of grease that must be cleaned out.
Click to expand...

That grease reminds me of cosmoline as it is the same color and nearly the same consistency. My SOP is to remove grips, hose down liberally with carb cleaner, blow out with compressed air, lightly lube with Hoppes Elite or RemOil, replace cheap rubber grips with wood grips, take to range, shoot.
 
Suggesting a Korth to a guy debating between a S&W and Taurus is the same as telling a guy to buy an Aston Martin when he's currently choosing between Ford and Volkswagen...
 
There are those that suggest "you get what you pay for" and follow that by "it's your life, you wanna bet it on a cheap gun?" or some such BS. Me, I've carried Taurus, Rossi, Kel Tec, etc. LOL Hey, I do shoot my guns. If they work, they work, don't matter what price is on it. A Chevy Chevette got me where I wanted to go back in the 80s just as sure as would have a Corvette. :D The Korth comment was tongue in cheek for the "get what you pay for" crowd. I mean, if you're going on that with Smith and Wesson, there are more expensive guns than Smith and Wesson. Why trust a cheap gun, right?

Hey, DMZ, for lube, I've been using this stuff lately called Corrosion X for firearms. Clings really well; I like the stuff. I'm hoping it'll help protect my waxed shotguns in the salt marsh since it seems to cling and not evaporate or wash off easily, but a drop under the side place works great. :D
 
And with a lifetime warranty no matter who owns it, that sweetens the deal.
Click to expand...


There is nothing sweet about a warranty. I'd rather have a quality gun that works well than a piece of crap with a warranty.
 
Hey, DMZ, for lube, I've been using this stuff lately called Corrosion X for firearms. Clings really well; I like the stuff. I'm hoping it'll help protect my waxed shotguns in the salt marsh since it seems to cling and not evaporate or wash off easily, but a drop under the side place works great.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip MC'. I will look into it, even though I don't live anywhere close to a salt marsh :eek:, out here, they all turned to alkali flats last time the climate warmed up.
 
If there is a less objective subject on the face of the earth, that gets treated less objectively, than any X versus Y gun topic I don't know what it could be. I don't know why people love to bother with these. Everyone's mind is completely made up at the outset. Everyone has a horror story about "the Other" brand. Everyone is a quality expert.
 
smith taurus

Buna Punta owned both Smith and Taurus.they used smiths old machinery and added coil springs.they sold smith to Thomson inds.thompson ran smith into ground and bugged out.
thr taurus is imported by the florida group who do not own taurus. and does not warrent any taurus they do not import.
I have a model 10 I will put up against any.I have a Rossi in 22 it works good.
I have a Ruger blackhawk in 45 colt the chambers are excellent,it was bought new.I would not buy a Colt unless it was used and old.pre 60s.BUT I am a target shooter not a machine gun.I want the best accuracy the gun will give not the most shots.I will never wear my guns out.and they all work.:uhoh::rolleyes::D
 
Suggesting a Korth to a guy debating between a S&W and Taurus is the same as telling a guy to buy an Aston Martin when he's currently choosing between Ford and Volkswagen...
Click to expand...

Thinking about a 44 Mag. What is your opinion of either the S&W 629 or the Taurus Raging Bull in 44 Mag?
Click to expand...

No worse than the "my model 10" comments.

Buna Punta owned both Smith and Taurus.they used smiths old machinery and added coil springs.they sold smith to Thomson inds.thompson ran smith into ground and bugged out.
Click to expand...

Bangor Punta is the holding company. They did NOT sell Taurus to Thompson, as Taurus was bought by a Brazilian national. I'd also like to see something that backs up the "used Smith's old machinery, and added coil springs" comments. It flies in the face of anything that I can find on-line, or in a library.

Questionable facts like these seem to surface regularly. It's amazing how nobody can ever seem to link to a source that isn't yet anopther old wive's tale.
 
Re-mortgage the house and buy a Korth.

Then, when you can't make payments on the house, at least you will have a nice gun that you can trade in on a used tent so you can move onto the corner of Dad's property.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
on caliber and gun selection
Replies
14
Views
494
FullEffect1911
F
greyling22
  • Locked
44 mag taurus
Replies
9
Views
755
Guillermo
G
M
  • Locked
New Revolver Recommendations???
Replies
19
Views
839
kludge
K
D
  • Locked
Taurus Raging Bull: Several questions
Replies
4
Views
608
azredhawk44
A
S
  • Locked
Taurus 445 snubby 44 special...
Replies
17
Views
2K
Taroman
Taroman
Back
Top