Used Smith vs New Taurus

[Dot_mdb]

Assuming equally good buys, which would you choose a USED Smith or a NEW Taurus?

I would choose the used Smith based on factory support. I look at the Taurus lineup but I know I would only purchase a Taurus if they had something that wasn't available in a Smith & Wesson.

Bill

 

[M2 Carbine]

S&W revolver

 

[P95Carry]

I have a Taurus M66 which I like but ..... I am a ''Smithophile'' .... and would pay more for a used Smith if I could afford it, then a new Taurus.

That is not per se an anti Taurus deal .... more a ''preference'' thing. Mind you I would qualify it. My choice for Smith would be for something quite old (in years) .. probably from choice, back in the P&R category. For instance, per my M28-2 and M27-2.

 

[SteelyDan]

Just one man's opinion, but I'd choose the Smith in a heartbeat (assuming good condition). In fairness, I've never shot a Taurus, but I've handled four of them and have not been impressed (one was fine, two were rough with poor fit and poor triggers, and one was so tight you couldn't pop the cylinder out without bursting an artery). I've handled and shot lots of Smiths, and liked them all (assuming we're talking revolvers here). Others have obviously had different experiences, but I put the most weight on what I've seen for myself.

 

[sm]

Older Smith

 

[4v50 Gary]

Older Smith. Why? Superior engineering. Look inside the gun and you'll see what I'm talking about.

 

[Josey]

A used S&W. A 1899 or even a 1902 hand ejector comes to mind. I have owned and liked Taurus revolvers. I bet my life in a firefight a few years ago on a Taurus 357 Magnum.

 

[Dr.Who]

Smith

 

[Dienekes]

Not even close. Smith.

 

[Black Majik]

Old smith, and I mean OLD smith...


One with the deep blue finis that I can look into for hours and seem to get lost in.

 

[OH25shooter]

If one was blindfolded you could tell the difference. I'd pick the used S&W!

 

[Tamara]

I'd pick the Smith over any Brand X revolver, be it Taurus, Rossi, Colt, Ruger... But then again, I collect Smiths. Ask someone who collects Tauri, and you'll probably get a different answer.

(From a purely mechanical and utilitarian standpoint, I'd just as soon have a small-frame Taurus as a J-frame Smith; they tend to have better triggers out of the box. In larger frame sizes, I'll take the Smittie.)

 

[lee n. field]

I own both. My first handgun was a Taurus model 66 bought new in 1989 or so, and I bought a S&W model 19 used last year.

Bettween the two I have, which are very comparable (both being medium frame 6 shot .357s, both with 4" barrels and adjustable sights, etc.), the Smith is quite a bit nicer.

No comparison. Get the Smith.

 

[Nathanael_Greene]

I've got both, and the one I'd trust my life to would be the Smith. Taurus handguns are fine, and great bargains, but an older, well-kept S&W is a better weapon, in my opinion.

 

[Brian Williams]

I had 2 Taurus Trackers....... Guess What I have now????


The Trackers were great guns, I would still have the 45 colt but I did not shoot it much, ended up with a S&W 27-2 instead. I had a 7 shot 357 with a 6.5 barrel and traded it on a Marlin 1894C. One of the reasons is I do not care to have a Stainless revolver. I also did not like the coilspring mainspring over the flat spring of a S&W.

I still have 2 Stainless S&W J frames but I will not get rid of either cause S&W never made a 940 in Blue steel and the 60-4 is my Canoe gun and SS is better in a river than blue.

 

[JoeHatley]

I would choose a used S&W over a new Taurus, irregardless of price, and have done just that many, many times....

Joe

 

[Quantrill]

The Smith - hands down!!!! Quantrill

 

[cratz2]

I like both... I'm someone that will look over three or four examples of a given gun before I select the best one. I'm sure that there are plenty of very nice Smiths out there, and I'm sure there are plenty of people with Tauri revolvers that swear that they're junk and can't get through a cylinder without a failure of some sort... I haven't seen that.

If I wanted a 5 shot full-weight revolver, I'd lean towards the Smith. If I wanted a lightweight DAO revolver, I'd look at Taurus. They are both good enough for me to carry and it would come down to who made what I was looking for at a price I was comfortable with... pretty much like everything else.

 

[Ala Dan]

Hey, Tamara nailed it!

"I'd pick the Smith over any brand X revolver"

What more needs to be said?

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

 

[gvass]

"I'd pick the Smith over any brand X revolver"

If the Brand X is Korth or Manurhin MR73, or an oldie Python I don't think so...

But against a Taurus, no debate here.

 

[oldfella]

This Oldfella would pick a Smith, of course.

 

[Maddock]

Older Smith

 

[flip180]

I say go for the smith

I was tossing aroung the same idea a couple of months ago. I got lucky and found this 642 for 300.00 on gunbroker.com and ended up paying 345.00 total to bring it home. You can find good deals if you look around. B.T.W. the range the target was shot at was actually 7 yards. I was looking for a pocket pistol and didn't care for Taurus's design philosophy. All of there hammerless pistols were on a full weight steel frames with all of their light weight revolvers that would function best as a pocket carry gun had hammers.

Robert.

 

[Neal Bloom]

Without hesitation I would go for an older Smith than a Taurus. Would also pick most other Brand X than a Taurus.

 

[Stainz]

1st - S&W - and recent ones are fine!
2nd - Ruger
3rd - Save my money until I could afford a S&W or Ruger...
4th - Sling shot and pebbles
5th - Taurus (I'd make sure I could throw it!).

A highly opinionated Stainz.

Note: If my range-mates Tauri had had better repair/operational history, I might not be so staunchly anti-Taurus... they do have some nice looking revolvers, albeit all seem to leak propellant gasesfrom some small holes near the muzzle...

Again, I highly opinionated Stainz...