What's wrong with a Taurus

[Stophel]

Well, I just took dad's Taurus .22 that I got for him probably over fifteen years ago. Cleaned up and smoothed and polished everything up. The center pins/struts for the mainspring and trigger rebound spring were pretty rough and every time you pulled the trigger you could feel every turn ring on them! I found all the parts surprisingly hard (which is good) so I used diamond files, stones, and sandpaper rather than files, which would just barely cut (and dull my files). Deburred here and there and got everything smooth. By golly, it's not that bad of a gun, just needed TLC. The DA pull is now tolerably good, the SA hammer pull is ok. Not great, but better than it was before.

Now again, this one is fifteen-twenty years old (and it needed work...) and apparently quality control has only gone down since then.

 

[LawScholar]

No because the Taurus will do cocked'n'locked, the Beretta won't. You also have the decocker with the Taurus should you prefer DA/SA operation. Beretta took this idea to the 9000S, but didn't really execute well with the rest of the design -- very fat in the slide for a compact and a spongy trigger.

Yeah, but the Beretta won't have pieces fall off of it, or have the frame start to disintegrate (both issues I've seen on PT-92s)

 

[NOLAEMT]

While I don't own a taurus, I will say this.

I work part time for a large gunshop, and at least 50% of all the guns we get back for repair are taurus. I've seen several models that were returned for repair after firing as little as 1 round, the cylinder bound up tight on the first round, for example. In addition it takes at least 8-10 weeks minimum for Taurus to return them, often no better than when they left.

So I guess I'm dumb, but I'll continue to "overspend" on other manufacturers.

 

[420Stainless]

I only have one, an all steel Model 85 that's more than a dozen years old. No problems with it yet.

 

[Firemedic56]

Whats wrong with Taurus? Quality Control...

I have two friends who currently own a Taurus.
Friend #1 Loves his, has never had an issue to my knowledge. Raves about it.
Friend #2 Hates his, traded a 9mm 92 for it because he favored the .40 over the 9mm. Regrets it to this day, is waiting for his wife to OK him getting a Glock. Has had repeated feed and reliability issues.

Why is it such a polar difference, the only thing I can think of is QA. Most complaints from people who have owned them are verifiable issues rather than personal preference complaints. Most people who love them have verifiable personal experiences of a reliable firearm.

Are one group totally wrong? or does Taurus have some issues that wont manifest themselves in every weapon because the design isn't the problem but ensuring every weapon that leaves the factory is exceptional is the problem?

 

[MMCSRET]

I'm becoming suspicious that this thread is an "instant" replay of about 30 other thread seen over the years here at THR, or maybe it is simply a compilation of threads. IE., don't have to have any new thoughts or "valid" experiences; just cut and paste. Ha! just makes me tired all over.

 

[jfrey]

I have several Taurus pistols and revolvers and had less problems with them than my Glocks. In fact I've never had a problem with any Taurus guns I've owned.

 

[v8stang289]

Taurus has earned part of their reputation with quality control issues and lacking customer service, the rest of it comes from the horror stories that keep being rehashed. If every now and then someone had a problem gun and Taurus fixed it fast and right, then we probably wouldnt hear much about them. But when people have an issue and then the customer service is slow or doesn't fix the problem, then their story is going to be told over and over. People as a whole tend to talk more about bad experiences or services than good, and Taurus lack of good timely customer service when compared with other companies only exacerbates the problem.

That being said, I do own a Taurus 1911. I purchased it shortly after they came out and have not had a single issue with it. The finish is fairly thin and has worn through in places, but the function is flawless. However, when I recently decided to purchase a .38 revolver for my wife, I chose the S&W for around $100 more. I decided not to take the chance based on what I've heard about gritty triggers and locking up cylinders with current taurus revolvers.

 

[Ky Larry]

I haven't owned enough Tauri (only 1) to have an informed opinion. The PT-92 I owned couldn't even make it thru one mag before the slide locked up and the rear sights fell off. Traded it the same day I bought it and haven't bought another. If they work for you I'm happy for you. If I have gun money, I buy mostly S&W, Colt, Ruger and CZ. YMMV.

 

[Sam1911]

I'm becoming suspicious that this thread is an "instant" replay of about 30 other thread seen over the years here at THR, or maybe it is simply a compilation of threads. IE., don't have to have any new thoughts or "valid" experiences; just cut and paste. Ha! just makes me tired all over.

Ask a question that's been asked a million times before, get the same answer every time. Coming up with a set of "new thoughts" to answer the same question every time would be absurd.

Nothing about that makes the experiences related not "valid," rather, it validates the consensus through consistency.

Always remember that every bad report will get retold 100 times. And only 1 in 10 good experience gets reported. Understand that everything you read (here or elsewhere) filters through that 'lens.'

If you get 50 responses saying that they wouldn't buy a Taurus again, and 10 saying that they would, it doesn't really mean your chances are 5:1 in favor of getting a lemon. Based on the rough approximation of good to bad reports, your odds are actually probably as high as 50/50 of getting a good gun, and maybe even better.

Now, consider that manufacturers and the items they produce generally earn the reputation they wear, and that some manufacturers have fewer negative reports than others. That's probably true for a number of reasons, but it is true, regardless.

 

[orionengnr]

What gives is this site is alive and well with gun snobs who think their thousand dollar S&W's and out of production Colt's are god's gift to the handgun world and somehow "more reliable" and accurate than Brazilian made weapons when they have no real world testing to back up their claims....

When the facts are on your side, pound on the facts.
When the law is on your side, pound on the law.
When neither the facts or the law are on your side, pound on the table.

 

[LawScholar]

When the facts are on your side, pound on the facts.
When the law is on your side, pound on the law.
When neither the facts or the law are on your side, pound on the table.

+1!

Also, talk about a straw-man argument. I don't think you need a $1,000 Colt to beat a Taurus. A $400 Stoeger Cougar or a $300 Ruger P95 are guns I'd prefer over even the most expensive Taurus.

And negative Taurus reports keep coming out in these threads because Taurus spends a ton on advertising and people keep buying the cursed things.

 

[Russ Jackson]

The only people who hate newer Taurus guns are the ones who own something else and feel bad about paying hundreds more for less gun. Example would be Raging Bull vs Redhawk. If you start comparing the two. The Ruger owners who have never even fired one go nuts. Then when Taurus owners start defending a great gun the Mods will shut the thread down. Watch...Russ

 

[coolluke01]

That's not always the case. Making statements like that is just as wrong as saying all Taurus guns are crap.
My experience with my Tracker in 357 that was slinging lead in my face was just this last year. I sent it back 3 times!!! They never fixed it!!!
Blanket defense statements can be just as bad if not worse than blanket attack statements.

 

[Russ Jackson]

That's not always the case. Making statements like that is just as wrong as saying all Taurus guns are crap.
My experience with my Tracker in 357 that was slinging lead in my face was just this last year. I sent it back 3 times!!! They never fixed it!!!
Blanket defense statements can be just as bad if not worse than blanket attack statements.

What did you finally do with the gun? Did you then take it to a gunsmith? What were his findings? Any pictures of the problem? ...Russ

 

[mljdeckard]

I'll spell out precisely how I feel,

I had a T-92 almost 20 years ago. It had a problem, the double-action was slipping, the hammer would fall before the hammer was all the way back. I was getting light firing pin strikes. I got rid of it.

In retrospect, I would have tried harder to get it fixed, (I took it to one part-time smith, he said it was dirty and gave it back to me,) And I did like the frame-mounted safety better than the Beretta setup, but it was really that I fell out of love with the Beretta design in general. The M-9 was the first service pistol I had a lot of experience with, and when I tried other things, I never looked back.

 

[coolluke01]

Taurus Tracker .357

I traded it to my local gun dealer who said he would send it back and give them the business. I was buying a AR15 at the time. I did not have another revolver who's koolaid I was drinking either.
I'm not sure if this pic will work or not.
It's a poor pic but you can see the damage to the hinge from the lead that it was shaving. This is a pic that was taken after the 3rd trip back.

/Users/user/Pictures/iPhoto Library/Modified/2011/Feb 18, 2011/IMG_1348.jpg

 

[coolluke01]

sorry guess the pic didn't work. i'll work on getting it on here.

 

[coolluke01]

There we go. I'll look more and see if I can find any more that are better.

 

[k4swb]

I've owned numerous Taurus revolvers in the past but never a semi-auto.
Last year I bought an OSS in .45 ACP because a friend had one and I loved the way it felt and shot.

Mine was excellent in every way for about 10 months and 4000 t0 5000 rounds of all types of ammo. Then it broke. It started not staying cocked when shooting or manually cycling the slide and occasionally just barely touching the trigger in DA mode would cause the gun to fire.

Took about 2 weeks for Taurus to turn the gun around and I took it to the range today after getting it back yesterday. Taurus said they adjusted the slide but it looks to me as if the replaced the whole slide assembly less the bbl and recoil spring assembly.

Kind of cool today so the wife and I didn't stay long but I put about 100 rounds through it while she played with my Glock G30. It was always very accurate and still is. !00 rounds went downrange flawless but although that is a good start, it will take many hundreds more for me to get comfortable with it again.

The wife carries a PT145 MilPro and we've shot it a lot and it seems to be just a fine little gun.

I've had Rugers, Llamas, and Dan Wessons in .44 magnum that all broke within the first 25 rounds.
Ruger never did repair the Redhawk satisfactorily. I still have the DW and wish I had never sold the Super Comanche.
The only thing that bothers me now about getting handguns back to be repaired is the fricking costs involved due to stupid rules, laws and regulations.

I will probably look at Taurus firearms again when I decide to add to the collection but they will not be my first choice in semi-autos.

Almost forgot, I have a Taurus 990 Tracker w/6 1/2" bbl and It shoots well and accurately. Just needs some trigger work as most all guns do nowadays.

 

[NMGonzo]

I miss my model .44 pre-tracker .

 

[Sam1911]

The only people who hate newer Taurus guns are the ones who own something else and feel bad about paying hundreds more for less gun. Example would be Raging Bull vs Redhawk. If you start comparing the two. The Ruger owners who have never even fired one go nuts. Then when Taurus owners start defending a great gun the Mods will shut the thread down. Watch...Russ

Russ, that's a plainly false statement on several levels. Here's the thread you're misremembering: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=628664

Notes: 1) there are lots of folks responding who have (and do) own both guns, and still make a nearly unanimous choice (but I'm not going to tell you which gun they chose -- you'll have to read the thread again to find out ) and, 2) the thread is still open, even though a very vocal Taurus owner posted heavily in defense of the brand.

I thought we had a productive conversation there that ended fairly amicably, yet you seem to be unhappy about it. Why?

 

[wrs840]

The only people who hate newer Taurus guns are the ones who own something else and feel bad about paying hundreds more for less gun...

This is unfounded, even in this thread. Have you read it? I see very few posts that support your contention, but many posts from experience that report both the good and the bad.

I think you're knee-jerkin' in defensiveness.

 

[PabloJ]

I've read alot of negativity about taurus firearms around here.

What gives? Did I miss a memo or something?

I own one and have never had an issue.

It's not assembled from foreign parts and stamped Made in USA like almost all currently made 1911 style pistols?

 

[JHenry]

they have certain models that usually get a fair amount of praise, like the raging bull line, and a few other of their revolvers. Their autos kind of drag their name through the dirt if you ask me