-
ODT Gun Show this Saturday! - Click here for info and tickets!
Why so much disrespect towards Taurus revolvers?
- Thread starter Rickwd
- Start date
I had two. One had to go back to Mfg. within 20 rds. The other lasted maybe 250 or so. Then I had to send the first one back again. All three times the cylinders totally locked up. Close relatives had the same issues only worse problems with customer service. These were all new guns from late 90s to early 2000s. We still laugh about the paper weight 1911 debacle!
Conversely, got a buddy with a 92 from the late 80s? that still runs like a champ.
Conversely, got a buddy with a 92 from the late 80s? that still runs like a champ.
Well, the PT92 is (or was, anyway) being built on the machinery that Beretta left behind when they left Brazil and their 92 Series production, and presumably at least for a while, Taurus had machinists who had built the real thing.
It always seems to me that you needed good equipment and experienced staff to pull that kind of relaunch off successfully.
When Colt discontinued the Python, and then restarted recently, they had none of the original Python manufacturing staff left either - and I was a little surprised that the Python has been as trouble-free as it has been.
It always seems to me that you needed good equipment and experienced staff to pull that kind of relaunch off successfully.
When Colt discontinued the Python, and then restarted recently, they had none of the original Python manufacturing staff left either - and I was a little surprised that the Python has been as trouble-free as it has been.
Who wants a decent revolver???? Just sayin
I’ve owned a few Taurus handguns, mostly revolvers. In fact my first ever handgun was a Taurus snub in .38…I carried it for years with no problems.
I can tell the difference in quality between a Taurus and a Ruger, or a Smith just by holding them and handling them.
I realize the bigger names can produce a lemon, but you usually get what you pay for. If that were not true, Ruger, S&W, Glock, etc would have been put out of business long ago by these cost friendly products..Like Taurus.
I certainly believe the more cost friendly guns have their place. For those on a tight budget, and there are many, these products are a good fit. Most average folks who buy a Taurus will never shoot the gun more than 50 rounds, if that, and for those folks I believe they are mostly fine. Those people are not enthusiasts. They just want some protection, and if the gun will serve its purpose through one encounter and the owner survives, then well done Taurus. My first Taurus saved my bacon when I was 24 years old. Though I never had to fire a round, I was glad I had it.
If I can afford a bigger brand name with a better reputation, I will go that route every time. If I had no gun and could only afford a Taurus, then Taurus it is. A person could be worse off.
I can tell the difference in quality between a Taurus and a Ruger, or a Smith just by holding them and handling them.
I realize the bigger names can produce a lemon, but you usually get what you pay for. If that were not true, Ruger, S&W, Glock, etc would have been put out of business long ago by these cost friendly products..Like Taurus.
I certainly believe the more cost friendly guns have their place. For those on a tight budget, and there are many, these products are a good fit. Most average folks who buy a Taurus will never shoot the gun more than 50 rounds, if that, and for those folks I believe they are mostly fine. Those people are not enthusiasts. They just want some protection, and if the gun will serve its purpose through one encounter and the owner survives, then well done Taurus. My first Taurus saved my bacon when I was 24 years old. Though I never had to fire a round, I was glad I had it.
If I can afford a bigger brand name with a better reputation, I will go that route every time. If I had no gun and could only afford a Taurus, then Taurus it is. A person could be worse off.
Regarding colts, the quality of the manufacture looks high, cutting edge technology. metallurgy and computer controlled machining has advanced tremendously. Anyways, people buy them, keep them in the NIB condition, visually fondling them here and there, so shooting the crap put of them is out of question. So they should last for a long time, with no issues.
I think they are pretty good for the money but after owning a couple taurus' I would just spend the extra to get the better product, especially used. You'll often see on the used market a taurus revolver for $100 less than a comparable ruger or smith and wesson, to me that's a no brainer. "Buy once, cry once" and get something you know is probably going to give you really good service.
I've owned three Taurus Model 85 revolvers. I love these with a Hogue grip. I always sell them and regret it, hence why I've owned three. I've also owned a Raging Judge in .45ACP/.410/454 Casull and a Model 431 in .44 Spl. They were all functional, reliable revolvers that I trusted to fire when needed. I've owned three semis, two that I carried for a while - a 709 Slim, a Millenium G2 and a PT100. Never had a problem with any of them either. The G2 I actually dedicated 500 rounds of fire to before I would carry it. I ran the 500 rounds of mixed ammo (brass, steel, HP, & FMJ) through it in two sittings and had zero issues. I put another couple of hundred through that pistol before switching to a Sig P365. For the money, they have represented a good value for me.
Because they suck
I've owned 3 Taurus in the past. All 3 had to sent back for repairs with one of them(PT111) sent back twice. Don't care how far they've come with quality and customer service, they will always suck to me
I've owned 3 Taurus in the past. All 3 had to sent back for repairs with one of them(PT111) sent back twice. Don't care how far they've come with quality and customer service, they will always suck to me
Yeah I think it's just Taurus in general. Gun snobs gotta snob, you know. I dig my G3C and my first gen PT 111.
