Whats the deal with Taurus

[3pairs12]

I have ony 1 Tuarus but it functions great. Never a problem would buy another with out hesitation.

 

[Glockman17366]

Looks like the consensus is that Taurus revolvers aren't as good as Smiths, yet they cost nearly as much. Note the resale values of Taurus guns vs. Smiths. The cycle I see over and over is some cheap guy buys Taurus, shoots it a while and figures out why it was cheap

The consensus is that Taurus makes a pretty good gun which is what the OP asked.
As good as S&W or Ruger...yep, but still more of a tool then a collectable. I reckon jester_s1 hasn't owned or shot a Taurus extensively.

BTW, the OP was asking about a 4" barrelled .357. That's what my Tracker is. The Tracker is a really nice .357 medium framed gun. If any Taurus revolvers qualify as collectables, the Trackers (and Raging Bulls) are probably the ones.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

But if "quality" means on par with Smith & Wesson or (with autos) Glock or Springfield, then no. They aren't even in the same league as the mainstream brands.

Now that's funny right there. Glock is sure enough not in the same league with Taurus; they are a few leagues back in quality. Hilarious what craziness is spewed in these forums. Springfield and S&W are in the same league, however. Roughly equal. Tauri are very high quality revolvers, and high quality pistols. Glock is veritable junk compared to a Taurus. I've handled hundreds of revolvers of all brands, and I've never felt anything lock up as tight as my Taurus RB, save a Freedom Arms, nor had any handgun shoot as accurately, save my Dan Wesson, or an XP/Striker. Taurus revolvers are every bit as good as Smith & Wessons of *modern* vintage.

Now evidently their service under their lifetime warranty sucks nards, so gawd help you if you get a lemon, and that right there is potentially reason enough not to get one, but your chance of getting a lemon is no greater than any other maker.

I guess other people's experience may be different, but I've owned 2 Taurus auto pistols and 4 revolvers, and they've all be top notch quality (accuracy, reliability, features, fit & finish, etc.).

 

[FreuderLocks]

Ive never fired a Taurus Wheel gun that I could say i really liked, stick with Taurus Semi Autos, just my opinion though. My pt917cs is bullet proof.
-FL

 

[Texian]

My Taurus has worked for me just fine...

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Glockman: "If any Taurus revolvers qualify as collectables ..."

Now that's just funny, I don't care who you are.

 

[Guillermo]

Glock is veritable junk compared to a Taurus.

It is nice to see that the art of sarcasm is alive and well.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

As I pointed out further above, I haven't answered the poll, as the two choices are way too far apart, and neither is true. A Taurus is not a "quality reliable weapon," neither is it "nothing but a paperweight". It is a functional firearm, but as another poster pointed out rather well, it is a cheap man's gun. I was a cheap man when I was younger. I didn't even have to be. But I didn't understand, then, that even though it looked like, handled like, and operated like a Smith, it wasn't a Smith. I wasn't "getting a good deal", and it took years to understand this and to restrict my revolver stable to Colts and Smiths. It's a wonder any of the quality makers manage to stay in business when most folks don't understnad the difference between a quality item and a cheap but attractive and functional imitation. I'm not just talking about guns.

Tauri have their uses, and I have owned two, one of them for fifteen years, sometimes as a primary defensive gun. They work. But they are not in the same league as a Colt or Smith.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Glock is junk (relatively speaking). Does Taurus use cheap and cheesy plastic sights? No, they are steel. Does Taurus use cheap & cheesy plastic guide rods that break & crack? No, they are metal. Does taurus use cheap and cheesy plastic magazines with more play than a grade school recess? No, dontthinkso. Glock = junk (relatively speaking). Relatively speaking, meaning, compared to a Taurus. Compared to a HiPoint, it is NOT junk. It's all relative, boys and girls, as Einstein might say.

A Taurus is not a "quality reliable weapon,"

You are incorrect; that is exactly what a Taurus is. Smith did indeed once have greater quality. Not the case any more. No more P&R. Now we have barrel shrouds on SWs to make the barrel fit, and ILs that lock themselves while firing. A modern SW is still a pretty good gun, but its days of beating Taurus in quality went the way of the dodo in the 1990s. Now they are on a par, with Taurus edging them out slightly, if anything.

when most folks don't understnad the difference between a quaity item and a cheap but attractive and functional imitation.

I understand *precisely* that difference. And that's not at all the case here, in the case of Taurus.

"If any Taurus revolvers qualify as collectables ..."

And some do qualify, so not sure why that's funny to some. A non-ported .45 Colt Tracker is highly sought after.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

I agree, Dr. Tad, but I have stopped trying to convince those who think they've somehow bought a precision autoloader for a third the price. I'll NEVER own a Glock, and if someone gave me one I'd sell it immediately.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Dr. Tad: "You are wrong. That is precisely what a Taurus is."

How can you see through the cheap Glock and not see the difference between a Taurus and a Colt or Smith? It's not a marginal difference. It's HUGE.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Dr Tad (added later): "Smith did indeed once have greater quality. Not the case any more."

I'll agree quality has declined a little at Smith. The NEWEST Smith I own is a 29-3. The NEWEST Colt I own is an Army Special.

 

[HoosierQ]

I will speak as an "interested" 3rd party. I have never owned a Taurus. I friend had one that was their version of the Beretta 92...that was a really nice gun. I enjoyed shooting it and actually went shopping for one and couldn't find it...found a Glock...that was that.

If you look in the issue of American Rifleman where they are showing the Judge...a big close-up of the cylinder open, looking down the chambers...the metal work looked like it was done by slave labor with dull files.

That 24/7 OSS .45 with the 5.25" barrel is, in my opinion, one of the most intriguing semi-autos on the market today...in terms of features, price, capacity, decocker/safety, and just plain cool factor with that dark earth color.

I met a guy that was absolutely the world's biggest fan of Taurus. I know a guy that would sooner carry a milsurp Nagant revolver than any Taurus. Both seemingly rational men...can they both be right?

I know people who say "only their revolvers". A post above says "only their semis". A guy posted here about shooting his Judge and the barrel flew off.

To sum up, there is absolutely no concensus on Taurus in the shooting community whatsoever. In fact the devision between execellent and bad seems to be pretty close to 50/50. You'd have to be a statistician to figure it all out. So, I have steared clear of Taurus so far. If I ever actually see on of those 24/7 OSS models in that desert tan...that might change.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree, I guess. I can only tell you MY experiences, which are uniformly good. Granted, they are not the universe of experience. But the METHOD by which I judge quality is performance. Do they work every time? Yes. Are they accurate? Yes? Do they look good? Yes. Do they have quality materials? Yes. Do they have great & innovative features? Yes. Do they last? Well, we'll see, but so far, yes. Has anything broken? No. Do the revolvers lock up tightly and stay in time? Yes, as much as any other brand. So, my experiences.

 

[PT1911]

it is unfortunate that many people judge a brand by one gun that they handled in passing. choose any brand of gun that people drool over, and at some point they have produced less than quality work. this is true of EVERY GUN MAKER. however, in my experience, I have seen more glocks sent back than taurus guns. where so many other manufacturers have fallen into there little niche and are afraid to make anything new and innovative, taurus is producing their ,often better, versions of classic designs as well as developing new and innovative designs for the future. when they do have a problem, they stand behind it. the whole reason guns exist is that someone a long time ago decided to blow something up behind a projectile... the rest has been an evolution of events that produced the variety that we now see today. I own taurus guns. smiths, springfields, and other brands as well... I would have no hesitaion carrying any of them and using them in a life saving situation for myself or loved ones. I suggest if anyone is curious about a taurus, they purchase it, try it out, if they are not satisfied, it is likely they can get their money back out of it...and just to add.. if you sell a taurus for half what you paid in the last 10 years, you were seriously ripped. speaking toward their customer services, I know a man who DROPPED a taurus revolver from 5 feet onto a concrete floor directly onto the rear site. He then called taurus to order the part only to find they would not let him order and pay for the part (he explained the situation and took fault)... instead... taurus insisted that he send them the gun to be fixed, which they paid for, even shipping BOTH WAYS... I dont know what your definition of customer service is, but I will take that type of service any day.

 

[ugaarguy]

Now that's funny right there. Glock is sure enough not in the same league with Taurus; they are a few leagues back in quality. Hilarious what craziness is spewed in these forums.

I'm the IT manager for a large local gun shop, and my office is off the back of our service department. I interact with the gunsmith and armorers more than the sales staff. If we're really busy they'll get me do scope mounts and some night sight installs. Based on our experience, I can assure you that Taurus is not in the same league as S&W or Glock in semi-autos. The primary problem guns are the polymer frame Tauri. Their PT92/99/100/etc metal frame autos rarely have problems. Their early PT1911s had serious issues with thumb safety fitment and installation, but we've seen no problems recently.

Springfield and S&W are in the same league, however. Roughly equal. Tauri are very high quality revolvers, and high quality pistols. Glock is veritable junk compared to a Taurus. I've handled hundreds of revolvers of all brands, and I've never felt anything lock up as tight as my Taurus RB, save a Freedom Arms, nor had any handgun shoot as accurately, save my Dan Wesson, or an XP/Striker.

When your sample size changes to several hundred firearms per maker per year, plus a service department your perspective changes.

Taurus revolvers are every bit as good as Smith & Wessons of *modern* vintage.

Grant Cunningham disagrees, http://grantcunningham.com/blog_files/no_taurus_work.html, and our gunsmith has a very similar opinion to Mr. Cunningham's.

Now evidently their service under their lifetime warranty sucks nards, so gawd help you if you get a lemon, and that right there is potentially reason enough not to get one, but your chance of getting a lemon is no greater than any other maker.

Front sights occasionally come off of guns that are used hard and shot often. It's not a frequent occurrence, but it's not uncommon either. With S&W or Glock we usually have the sight in spare parts, and if not the company will send it to us in the mail. In contrast, Taurus requires that the gun be sent back to them in Miami so they can install the part. It's not just that their service is horrible; it's that you can't even get parts so your gunsmith or armorer can work on them.

I guess other people's experience may be different, but I've owned 2 Taurus auto pistols and 4 revolvers, and they've all be top notch quality (accuracy, reliability, features, fit & finish, etc.).

Taurus is certainly innovative with their products, and they deserve praise for trying things other makers wont.

 

[Fat Boy]

Taurus offers a wide range of products, which is appealing to me. However, the reputation from which they suffer causes me to hesitate when considering a purchase, and eventually to waive off of the deal. I am just not willing to plunk down my hard earned cash for something that has such a varied reputation. That in itself is sad, because I think there likely are good quality Taurus products out there. How far does the reputation go? I saw a guy at a recent gun sale try to sell a Taurus 9mm copy of the Beretta gun; he didn't even get the time of day from several folks behind the tables...they took a quick look at the gun in his hand and said "no thanks" No discussion of price, possible trades, nothing; just "no thanks" and "not interested". I know that is microcosmic at best, but still, it is concerning to see a gun that continually no-sells, especially a copy of something generally (in my understanding) considered to be reliable, like the Beretta.

 

[captainamerica]

We have 2 .357 snub Taurus revolvers and they are fine. But workmanship, fit, and sharp edges are a step down from Smith. And nobody has a mack truck design like Ruger. But we have no desire to sell or trade just for those reasons. If it was going to be a hot load shooting .357 or .44 I might go with a Smith and more likely a Ruger; but for CCW there is no worry.

 

[420Stainless]

I like Taurus just fine. The one I own has been wonderful. However, I seldom trust someone who has a vested interest in selling me something to tell me of its shortfalls. Some folks will, but I wouldn't count on it .

 

[charleym3]

You might want to offer a middle ground. I have several taurus wheel guns that function fine. Won't win target matches, but are absolutely reliable.

 

[Guillermo]

Glock is junk

That is almost too funny to bother to respond to.

The first thing that a tool has to do is operate reliably and efficiently.

It is hard to imagine a side arm that does so better than a Glock.

I have never seen a Taurus in the holster of a police officer . Hundreds of thousands of LEOs, soldiers and private citizens trust their life to Glocks. But, hey, maybe "Dr" Tad is the smart one and all of those people are stupid.

 

[jester_s1]

I have spoken to guys who say their Hi-Point automatics are good guns, because they always work. There is a very broad definition of "good" in the gun community.

Bottom line: Good guns win matches, law enforecement contracts, military contracts, and have a good reputation. No Taurus product can claim any of those distinctions. Good guns compare favorably to their competition. Taurus products are inferior to other guns (revolver and auto) costing within $100 of them when you shoot them side by side.

To the OP: If there is a range that rents near you, go and shoot Taurus products, then check out the competition. You'll see the same thing that I and others have already seen: They are cheap guns for cheap people and they do work. But you don't get a Cadillac for the price of a Kia.

 

[marsche]

I have three Colts and twelve Smiths. They are all great revolvers. I bought one Taurus - 41 Mag TI and it had problems with the cylinder rubbing significantly against the forcing cone. I sent it back three different times. Each time they kept it for 4 months and returned it in the same condition. I sold it and never want to own another.

There is no comparison between the quality of a Taurus and a Smith. The only thing they have in common is they both go bang when you pull the trigger.

I guess a Taurus would make a good paper weight as long as you never had to send it back for repair.

 

[CajunBass]

I've had three Taurus revolvers over the years. They were all good, solid, functional revolvers. As good as (Insert other brand here)? I don't know, probably not. Good enough? They were for me.

I do remember the first one, a model 10, more or less copy, shot great, but had the ugliest grips ever made. They looked like they'd been carved from a 2x4, and checkered with a pocket knife. But they did work. That gun shot great with my reloaded wadcutters, "back in the day."

 

[jester_s1]

cajun bass got it right. They function, and you can trust them generally. They aren't as good as brands that cost more, and it would be silly to expect them to be. But if you just really need to own a gun and don't have the fundage for something better, they do work.