chaim
Member
So, I'm not reawakening my old thread with a number of guns listed that are no longer under consideration (this time) since many people look at the title, maybe the first post, and ignore follow up posts before they post themselves. Sorry for the partial duplicate.
I'm looking for a gun that will primarily serve as my home defense revolver. It may get occasional carry time, sometimes "just because" and if I go with one of the .357mag it will also be my camping/fishing/outdoors gun (though for hiking, kayaking and other times I may want to keep weight down, my lighter new model 3" Colt King Cobra will come with me).
I've dropped the S&W and Ruger options from the list for now since I'll probably be buying a new car between now and mid-summer. If I luck into a great deal on a used one I may go that way, but please no Smith or Ruger suggestions since I can't count on lucking out on a great deal. It does pain me a little since I've long wanted a 3" 686 (though this time I'm looking for a 4"), and the 2.5" and 4" current S&W 66 has my eye as well. But, I do want a 4" gun this time around, and since I'm soon buying a car I need to go cheaper (two guns I had on consignment just sold, so basically my budget is what I got for them and I want some left over for more ammo).
I'm considering a Taurus 65, a Taurus 66 or a Taurus 82.
Logically, I should get the 66. I want .357mag, I would love a 7 shot revolver (I've never had one, and an extra round in a home defense situation would be reassuring), and the slightly larger size doesn't matter much since it will only see occasional carry. Yet, I am posing the question of which would you pick? If you hate Taurus, think about whether you'd go with a 6 shot or 7 shot L-frame vs. a Model 10 (i.e. don't say you'd pick none since you don't like Taurus, think about the advantages and disadvantages of the main differences in these guns).
Since the 66 makes the most logical sense, why am I considering the others:
I'm looking for a gun that will primarily serve as my home defense revolver. It may get occasional carry time, sometimes "just because" and if I go with one of the .357mag it will also be my camping/fishing/outdoors gun (though for hiking, kayaking and other times I may want to keep weight down, my lighter new model 3" Colt King Cobra will come with me).
I've dropped the S&W and Ruger options from the list for now since I'll probably be buying a new car between now and mid-summer. If I luck into a great deal on a used one I may go that way, but please no Smith or Ruger suggestions since I can't count on lucking out on a great deal. It does pain me a little since I've long wanted a 3" 686 (though this time I'm looking for a 4"), and the 2.5" and 4" current S&W 66 has my eye as well. But, I do want a 4" gun this time around, and since I'm soon buying a car I need to go cheaper (two guns I had on consignment just sold, so basically my budget is what I got for them and I want some left over for more ammo).
I'm considering a Taurus 65, a Taurus 66 or a Taurus 82.
Logically, I should get the 66. I want .357mag, I would love a 7 shot revolver (I've never had one, and an extra round in a home defense situation would be reassuring), and the slightly larger size doesn't matter much since it will only see occasional carry. Yet, I am posing the question of which would you pick? If you hate Taurus, think about whether you'd go with a 6 shot or 7 shot L-frame vs. a Model 10 (i.e. don't say you'd pick none since you don't like Taurus, think about the advantages and disadvantages of the main differences in these guns).
Since the 66 makes the most logical sense, why am I considering the others:
- Taurus 82: A Taurus 82 was my first gun and I shouldn't have sold it. About 2 years later I bought a Colt Police Positive Special but I didn't like it enough to keep it. I haven't had a medium framed .38spl since, though I have a few small framed revolvers that are dedicated .38s (S&W 442, Taurus 85CH, Taurus 856UL). It is a hair lighter and smaller than the .357mags (same cylinder width, but 1 1/4" shorter in length than the 66 and 65, 0.2" shorter in height than the 66, and an ounce lighter than both). While I'd like a medium framed .357mag, for home defense I'd load with .38+P anyway so the .38 only 82 is only at a disadvantage for woods/camping carry and for at the range fun. For 6 shots (Taurus 82 and 65) vs. 7 shots (Taurus 66), see the Taurus 65 discussion below. It is a good $100 less than the 65, so I could get a very inexpensive gun to serve as my main home defense revolver, and wait until I'm ready to get the S&W K-frame or L-frame to get a 4" .357mag, though I really do want a .357mag that is heavier than my Colt for range comfort and I no longer shoot magnums out of my older 3" K-frame (it has seen a lot of rounds, and I want to keep it as long as I'm still here on this planet).
- Taurus 65: It is the same size and weight in all measurements except for height where it is 0.2" shorter than the 66. No real difference for when I decide to carry. There is only about a $30 difference with a little shopping between the 65 and 66, so when paying $450-550 for a gun, the savings are pretty insignificant. So why am I drawn to the 65? Since it is a defensive gun the fixed sights are an advantage over adjustable sights, but not really enough to pick it over the gun with the extra round. The only thing I can think of is when it really comes down to it, I'm a traditionalist with revolvers. A revolver (with the exception of a J-frame) is supposed to be a six shooter. When looking around but thinking more in theory because the purchase was in the future, I barely even looked at the 65. The S&W K-frames have a slight advantage over the L-frames in that they are lighter and a bit smaller, but Taurus seems to make both the 65 and 66 on the exact same frame so no such advantage. But, now that I'm about ready to "pull the trigger" on the purchase, the 65 is really creeping into my consciousness.
Last edited: