I started buying Taurus back before the internet, so the only reputable source of information I had was what I read in the gun rags--and the gun rags raved on them. So I bought a Taurus Model 85 in '92. Barrel was canted, so the windage was way off. "Everyone makes the occasional lemon" I thought. In the interim, I stuck to mostly auto-loaders, but I came accross a S&W M65-3 that appealed to me. Flawless!
When the desire for a bigger bore revolver hit me, I bought a S&W Mountain Gun in .45 Colt. Great revolver, but I was looking for something lighter weight. Then I saw a Taurus "Total Titanium" snubbie revolver in .45 Colt. I never had a chance to give that one much of a workout, because it was just downright painful to shoot, and the bullets were unseating. Okay, I didn't detect any quality issues, but it was a bad experience just the same. Probably a stupid idea to make a titanium snubbie in .45 Colt anyway (although S&W is making a lot of lightweight snubbies in major calibers now, too).
Since the Total Titanium seemed okay in quality, I took a chance on one of their 9mm snubbie revolvers (don't remember the model number). That one suffered from light hammer strikes 50% of the time, and I got rid of it quickly. The final straw was when my buddy was shooting his new Taurus .44 magnum next to me, and I started getting pelted in the leg with his bullet jackets that were spitting out of the cylinder gap.
Everyone turns out a lemon occasionally, but I'm either incredibly unlucky or Taurus' quality is just a hit or miss. Either way, I won't chance good money on a new Taurus anymore, and I don't recommend their revolvers to anyone. I have never had a bad Smith and Wesson. I know others have, but it is considered an anomaly when it does. The frequency with which I've encountered Taurus problems suggests that they are, on average, a lower quality revolver than Smith and Wesson.
