Why are ruger/s&w revolvers almost always .38/.357mag/.44mag and not 9mm or .45?

[wow6599]

every 9mm Luger revolver has been discontinued for lack of sales, and I believe none are currently produced.

Taurus 905

 

[Gato Montés]

Got to give him this one. The 45lc/.410 revolver, AR's, 1911s and polymer framed autos (combined) make up the bulk of Smith's sales and all were developed by Smith.

A truly innovative company

Yeah, that's right. They also get agency contracts for those AR's and polymer framed autos. Wonder how many Taurus has gotten? Not to mention their Airweight models which have been selling like hotcakes and are priced quite reasonably.

The 45lc/.410 revolver makes up a huge portion of their sales? HA, whatever dude.

 

[Guillermo]

The 45lc/.410 revolver makes up a huge portion of their sales? HA, whatever dude

(combined)

read more carefully "dude"

Wonder how many Taurus has gotten?

probably none.

How many agency contracts have they gone for?

Yes...that is what I thought...zero.


besides...are you going to tell me that the Ford Crown Victoria is the best car because it is the most used police car? I don't know anyone who would drive one of those crap wagons.

But if you want to use that criteria...that is fine.
If it is good for guns it is good for clothing too. Go buy some polyester shirts and say they rock because the meter maid wears them.

"whatever dude"


LOL!!!!!

 

[Gato Montés]

probably none.

How many agency contracts have they gone for?

Yes...that is what I thought...zero.

But if you want to use that criteria...that is fine.

Their lack of ambition going after contracts is certainly indicative of what quality their products have (or lack). So yes, I will use that criteria.

read more carefully "dude"

Oh I read perfectly, "sir". Don't act all smart.

"Oh hardy har har, S&W copied Taurus!" I get it, and I think the Governor is as pathetic as it's Judge counterpart. Which is the only reason you included it, because S&W copied Taurus. And this rare exception proves what now???

Taurus makes a budget product for the budget crowd, and they know it. And as I said in my first post, that is absolutely fine. They have the capacity to pump out quality products with a warranty service you can rely on, but they don't, cause that's not their market. Again, this doesn't make them a bad company, it is what it is. What crosses the line is people telling new shooters that they are just as good, if not better, than S&W when you know damn well what hassle they may walk into if they get a lemon.

To the OP, a good starter revolver would be a 4 inch Ruger GP100. A good all round revolver in .357 Mag (so you can shoot .38 special) that's only about 500 brand new. I wouldn't take a chance on a Taurus, not for your first one.

 

[:( I live in Cali :( :(]

If it was 500 brand new it would already be sitting next to me on the couch here as I write this post.

At Turners it was well over $700 for one of those

I'm not sure if maybe Turners is a chain that makes a habit of massively overcharging (although, from what I've seen of people mentioning their guns cost them brand new that they bought recently, I always notice myself scratching my head wondering how the hell they get such good prices when they are always quoting prices literally hundreds (plural) of dollars cheaper than it costs at Turners, so, I'm starting to think this really might be the case, in which case I guess I have to find a different gun store to go to in Los Angeles)

I wonder if maybe I went to the "bad" part of town (i.e. compton/watts area) the gun shops sell cheaper there for the same exact guns maybe, cuz, I live in a fairly expensive area, and I figure maybe that's what's going on with why the guns at the Turner's near me always seeming to cost a lot more than they are supposed to, often being even well above msrp in some cases if I remember correctly.

Sigh

I dunno what the policies are though about talking about this sort of thing on this forum though, so, in case we aren't allowed to discuss prices or whatever, then please delete this post mods, and I apologize for it etc

 

[Gato Montés]

Discussing prices is perfectly fine. People often do "price check" threads to check for the average price on a certain firearm.

$500 is an ideal price. Budsgunshop.com has the stainless steel version for $534, which of course you would have to add in the transfer fee (usually no more than 30, but it depends).

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/21_49_76/products_id/70258

That being said, I don't know the rules and regulations of shipping firearms to California. If you cannot go the online route, you may have to bite the bullet and play by local pricing rules.:banghead:

 

[:( I live in Cali :( :(]

Yea I actually got curious after I made that last post, to the extent that I went on google and started researching to see what the cheapest gun shops are in Los Angeles.

From my brief google-session the general gist of it seems to be that ALL gun shops in los angeles are SUPER duper ultra freaking expensive and charge massive premiums (compared to in some gun friendlier states where apparently there actually are gun shops where guns can be bought for what they are supposed to normally cost, instead of $200-300 (yes literally) more than that.)

So now I am starting to think maybe I really should buy online then I guess, cuz I mean, once it's not just a $20 difference or something minor like that, but a $200 or $300 dollar difference, that's not really a joke to laugh about anymore (at least, in my financially grouchy opinion lol)

I have no clue how that works though. I didn't even know you could buy guns online. How does it work?

Do you get to pay whatever the price of the online store is, and then you just go to the local gun store like Turners and be like "hey I'm here to pick up this gun that I had them ship to you guys" and then Turner's just charges a small fee, but you end up still saving massively by buying for say $500 + $30 fee for $530 compared to buying it at turners for like $750 or some absurd crap like that?

If this is so, then, I don't understand why anyone would even buy from Turner's when they charge so much above the online prices, if you can just do it that way, like, why would Turner's even agree to do that whole middleman thing for a small fee like that, wouldn't it be smarter for them to just not do the middleman transfer role thing for online stores and instead just not offer that service but instead just drop their prices to match the online stores, and thus massively beat out the online stores by having it available in person to view in person at the counter and hold, thus beating out the online stores since you can just conveniently wander in and pick all the guns up to find the perfect one that you want, and then buy it for the CORRECT price, not the correct price +200 more dollars for no reason whatsoever. It just seems like a really stupid business model compared to if they would instead do it that way, but maybe I'm missing something

bleh

 

[Gato Montés]

You need to have the online retailer send the firearm to a federal firearms license holder (an FFL), whereby they preform the background check and then hand over the firearm to you. Bud's explains it here, as well as an option to find FFL's in your area.

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/howtobuy.php

Now sometimes, in order to battle cheaper offerings online, gun shops will offer the service at an exorbitant amount (I have one gun shop by me who will preform the service at a minimum of $100 bucks), but a lot of times you can find an FFL who preforms this service out of their home and usually are a lot cheaper. So you might have to shop around for a reasonable FFL.

In the end, you're gonna have to weigh the online price plus transfer fee against the local price, including the convenience of being able to handle the firearm before purchase if you buy locally.

Good luck!

 

[Guillermo]

Their lack of ambition going after contracts is certainly indicative of what quality their products have

By that logic gun manufacturer that does not go for police contacts are of poor quailty

I read perfectly

if you had read perfectly you would not have made the statement

the 45lc/.410 revolver makes up a huge portion of their sales

because that is not what I said




The price of the products in question have nothing to do with the quality thereof.

With Smith's cost slashing production methods I would doubt that were they both made in the same country, the Taurus revolver would cost less to produce.

The price difference is there because the public is willing to pay more for Smith. A once fine reputation coupled with a lot of advertising makes Smith revolvers very expensive.

I am quite sure that Smith could put their logo on a Liberator and the fan boys would talk about how innovative it is.

You can claim that your revolver filled with MIM parts, bad engineering and the Clinton-lock is a premium product because you paid a lot for it. A lot of people will believe you.

I hope that works out for you.

 

[Guillermo]

from what I understand, transfer fees are high in Cali

 

[Overkilll0084]

Overkill

Certainly I understand your point. And in reflection I was bordering on rude...please accept my apology for leaping so far.

I am not sure that Smith has a better "return rate" than Taurus....because Smith has fallen...very far.
This is because of their corporate strategy that went along with their decision to go to MIM parts.

Certainly we can agree that a new 627 filled with MIM parts, the lock and a crush fit barrel is not near the gun that a 1958 model 27 is with its hand fitted forged parts and a threaded and pinned barrel ....can't we?

No problem.

I would love to have a nice early Model 27. But nice examples aren't exactly growing on trees. The 8 shot capability of the 627 is very appealling too though.
I haven't studied the MIM parts issue in great detail (I probably should have, considering...) . What little I do know is that with due diligence in the right application, they aren't the end of the world. Will they bite me with the 627? Perhaps, I guess I'll find out eventually. In the meantime, it is a great gun to shoot. I seem to remember that the idea of a polymer frame semi-auto was met with more than a little skepticism.
In truth, I would love to hear that Taurus got their act together and produces consistantly good reliable firearms. Arguments about quality aside, they have a pretty decent line-up of firearms. I think that the Tracker revolvers are pretty appealing. If purchasing a Taurus didn't feel like a dice roll to many people, think how nice that would be.

 

[22-rimfire]

On line sales work this way... first you find the gun you want to buy, say at Bud's. Then you contact your local FFL dealer (gunshop) about transfers and if they do it and what they charge for the transfer. This can be done with a phone call perhaps. Next you buy from Buds (pay for it) and they ship the gun to the FFL dealer. Bud's must have the receiving FFL dealers FFL license on file to ship the gun to them. The gun comes in and you go to the dealer to fill out whatever paperwork is required ("the transfer"), and take you gun home with you. If there is a waiting period, you do the paperwork and wait until you are allowed to pick up the gun.

This is a fairly interesting thread that has wandered around a bit. But the wandering has been pretty useful and the you (OP) state things that reflect your frustration on understanding the "good, better, best" discussions about handgun brands and so forth. You could buy a Taurus and be perfectly happy for many years of shooting, or you could take it out the first time and it breaks. This seldom happens with S&W and Ruger handguns, but it can happen. A gun is a widgit that is manufactured and sometimes stuff slips past the QA/QC inspections. Basically, you use your best judgement and make your decisions. The compromise position is generally to buy a Ruger product. I personally have not seen all these problems with S&W revolvers that are newly made. But I tend to buy mostly older revolvers (Colt, S&W) with an occasional new one. I don't own a Taurus product by the way. My most recent revolver purchase (newly manufactured) was a Smith and it seems to work perfectly well so far. I have no complaints.

 

[Dimis]

jeese i think thats enough...

yes S&W has been copying taurus with the .410 governor... they also started copying a good deal of other companies with the polymer revolver (that s&w reps said would never take off and that they would never consider such a notion) and a small pocket .380
and various other "new" models

i bet next year they will just start making S&W AK47s with the lock and mim parts and with such bad QC and CS that smith just falls off the map completely (there is that ridiculous enough for you?)

also taurus does in fact have government contracts... lots of them
they just happen to be outside the united states but non the less have supplied firearms for police and military personnel in many parts of the world (come on think outside the borders)

and as for taurus' quality and reliability (especially about the judge) i refer back to my original signature from THR...


"Nobody wants to stand in front of a Judge"

any volunteers?
any people have enough faith to think it will lock up or jam or missfire to the point they would stand in front of one?
didnt think so

people gotta remember your opinions are not fact... they may be based on fact you may have a better set of facts to base it off of than others but in the end your opinion is still not concrete and can suffer to change at any given moment


now can we get back to the OP and stop arguing over mine is better because its not yours type junk

 

[Guillermo]

Overkill,

If you are interested in reading about MIM with regards to guns here is a short, well written piece by Grant Cunningham.

Please note that Grant is a good writer...also note that he works with Smith & Wesson. You will find that he uses his writing ability to say a lot of things without saying them.

Example "I'm not at all averse to the use of MIM parts, where appropriate. Note those last two words!"

Smart guy.


http://www.grantcunningham.com/blog_files/2ca22a8b4cae7a2da440a1f09f72d8bf-86.html

hope you enjoy

 

[Cosmoline]

Modern autos are MUCH more reliable than the guns of yesteryear.
Modern "premium" revolvers have suffered because of QC and cost cutting
Modern "budget" revolvers are much better due to computer manufacturing

This bears repeating and remembering. The budget outfits of today such as Taurus are actually producing a much better product than the second tier lemon squeezers and chepo imports of the pre-war era. I have however noticed a decline in quality in top tier standard production revolvers from the major companies. S&W is the most obvious example of this. Ruger has kept up the quality but even though I love Rugers, they have not had as high a standard to match as S&W. Their products are investment cast and require minimal hand fitting, and their triggers have never been much to write home about.

 

[Gato Montés]

The price difference is there because the public is willing to pay more for Smith. A once fine reputation coupled with a lot of advertising makes Smith revolvers very expensive.

And I agree, you do pay a premium in part due to the name. But that doesn't automatically make Taurus a better buy.

Taurus still has issues when it comes to fixing the lemons they put out there. It's not uncommon to find someone who had to send their firearm in multiple times to get it fixed. S&W on the other hand has an extraordinary reputation for their customer service, and usually on their dime will have the firearm back to the owner in two weeks time max, all problems fixed, good as new.

And that is the point I originally made in my first post. Taurus is a bad first buy because of the gamble.

EDIT: Nevermind

 

[Guillermo]

"Nobody wants to stand in front of a Judge"

I don't want to stand in front of a Yugo either but I am not going to tout it for it's performance.

That is not a useful criteria for measuring the effectiveness of a firearm.

(The same would apply to a CB cap...I am not standing in front of it)

 

[buck460XVR]

Overkill,

If you are interested in reading about MIM with regards to guns here is a short, well written piece by Grant Cunningham.

Please note that Grant is a good writer...also note that he works with Smith & Wesson. You will find that he uses his writing ability to say a lot of things without saying them.

Example "I'm not at all averse to the use of MIM parts, where appropriate. Note those last two words!"

Smart guy.


http://www.grantcunningham.com/blog_files/2ca22a8b4cae7a2da440a1f09f72d8bf-86.html

hope you enjoy

......good read. Precise and to the point. Not a lot of innuendos there unless you put words in his mouth. Don't know why his example on 1911 sears is relevant here in a discussion about revolvers, except for the fact, he too seems to accept the fact the MIM parts are fine and are being improved and refined, (as he states) "this gets better on an almost monthly basis". Since the article is almost 5 years (56 months) old, I assume the technology has come along, just as he states. The interesting thing is if you click on his link to S&W revolvers, the first line he writes is this......

S&W revolvers are perhaps the most famous in the world for their quality construction and long life.

....he does not rebuke this, nor does he make any differentiations as per old or new models. All he says is his gunsmithing can improve them. Same thing he says about Colts and Rugers. This is not news....anyone with any experience with revolvers knows a standard factory revolver can be much better with custom gunsmithing.

I also like his write up about why he doesn't work on your favorite modern revolver, Taurus.

Thanks for the good read.

 

[Guillermo]

on your favorite modern revolver, Taurus

Actually I am not a Taurus fan.



As to the statement "S&W revolvers are perhaps the most famous in the world for their quality construction and long life" I would not disagree with it. They are FAMOUS for quality construction.

I only wish that they were still doing it.

 

[MCgunner]

Never buy a revolver sight unseen, new or used, Taurus or Smith or Colt or Ruger. Alsays check it out first before spending the cash.

Nasser, you think all Taurus is junk? I've got 3 that are fantastic. How'd you explain THAT? Luck? Two of 'em are the best DA revolvers i've yet owned, accurate, reliable, and flawless. I own Smith AND Ruger, also, more of a Ruger fanatic than a Taurus fan. I have 7 Ruger firearms at the moment, 6 being handguns. No DAs at the moment, would like another SP101, though.

 

[MCgunner]

I've never had to use Taurus warranty. I had a forcing cone split on a M10 Smith, no warranty at all, had a local smith rebarrel it with a 4" heavy barrel I bought from J&G. Taurus is a lifetime warranty for the life of the gun. Not Smith.

 

[Gato Montés]

Nasser, you think all Taurus is junk?

I never said that.

I see Taurus as a copy cat generic gun manufacture whose products are directed towards the budget orientated crowd, and that's fine. It is what it is. I also have no doubt that people here have had outstanding experiences with Taurus products. As someone else mentioned, the model 66 and 85 have a long standing reputation for durability and reliability.

Taurus is a lifetime warranty for the life of the gun. Not Smith.

The problem I have with Taurus is their customer service reputation. Until they improve upon that, their super awesome no questions asked lifetime warranty becomes less a guarantee and more a mere sales pitch to get people in the door. This is why I think a lot of people, including the OP, are quickly directed away from their products, especially for a first time buyer.

There warranty is only as good as the service they back it up with, which many have found to be severely lacking. Further, did you bother to see if S&W would fix your 2nd hand K frame? There's a good chance they might have...

 

[:( I live in Cali :( :(]

What are some good, large/well known/reputable online gun stores btw, cuz I think I might actually buy this thing online, since it looks like the prices are just a little too ridiculously inflated at the gun stores here in Los Angeles for me to just swallow the burn for no reason when I can just get it way cheaper online or whatever.

I'm still not sure if I'll go with the ruger gp100 or if instead I'll go for a taurus, cuz with taurus I could even get a 7-capacity or even 8-capacity 357mag revolver for as cheap or cheaper than a standard, blued, 6 shot ruger gp100 (let alone stainless, in which case the disparity would be even bigger), which, as long as I luck out and it doesn't come broken, seems like almost too good of a deal for me to pass up maybe. (not to mention the fact that, although it will be my first revolver, it isn't going to be my first gun or anything (I already have some bolt action rifles, a .22lr pistol, and most importantly an ak-47, so, the ak alone is already plenty enough to protect my home if things came down to things lol, so, if let's say I were to get a lemon for my Taurus, and I had to send it in 2 or 3 times to get it fixed before it finally worked, it still wouldn't be the absolute end of the world or anything, like, I'd still have some guns here to screw around with while waiting on it, although it would be pretty annoying obviously. So, I guess I might just risk it and get a Taurus for cheap, and just hope I luck out and get a solid one hopefully))

So anyways yea if you know of some good online gun stores for me to check out, I would much appreciate it. thanks

 

[:( I live in Cali :( :(]

oh wells

 

[MCgunner]

There warranty is only as good as the service they back it up with, which many have found to be severely lacking. Further, did you bother to see if S&W would fix your 2nd hand K frame? There's a good chance they might have...

They'd have fixed it...for a price. I elected to have a trusted local gunsmith repair it. Found the barrel in J&G for 50 bucks. It still shoots just fine, but I really don't like K frame forcing cones. This gun was traded for by my grandpa back in the 60s, seen little use, and is in really good mechanical shape. It was a local sherriff's gun. Don't think he'd been carrying it for that long when my grandpa traded for it.

Now, you wanna hear the sad story? The cop traded my grandpa for my grandpa's turn of the century Colt '73 Peacemaker. The Colt was needing work, trigger was horrible, but it coulda been fixed. My grandpa came to me, was a kid at the time, says "you're going to inherit it someday, just wanted to hear what you say on it." Now, I KNEW the Colt was worth one heck of a lot more, even at the time, but my grandpa really wanted that Smith M10 (dime a dozen, dangit) so I told him to do what made HIM happy. It was HIS gun, after all. Anyway, the gun has memories and it's a good shooter. My grandkid will inherit it some day, I reckon, cause I don't shoot it much.

I'd rather shoot the Taurus, since it's a fantastic shooter, and save the old Smith rather than put wear on it. I've got probably 3K down that Taurus' pipe with no apparent wear so far, most of it .38 handloads, but quite a few 165 grain SWC magnum handloads. It shoots both rather well.