You are better off buying a used Smith or Ruger than a new Taurus.

 

I'm not sure what used Rugers are going for but I know used Smiths are expensive.

 

IME, all new mass production revolvers are a crapshoot, regardless of make.
I would say spend wisely on an older one, also regardless of make. Even a "classic" Taurus 82, 65 or 66 from 30ish years ago would be a solid buy over some of the slapped together examples I've seen from Ruger in the last 7 years.

 

IME, all new mass production revolvers are a crapshoot, regardless of make.
I would say spend wisely on an older one, also regardless of make. Even a "classic" Taurus 82, 65 or 66 from 30ish years ago would be a solid buy over some of the slapped together examples I've seen from Ruger in the last 7 years.

Wow. I thought new Rugers were of better quality than new S&Ws. I know Rugers are less refined, though.

I'm very surprised to hear that about Rugers.

 

My brother pocket carry a Taurus snubby and it was out of time before his second visit to the range.

 

Did he send it back? Did they take care of it at Taurus?

 

Taurus & Kimber are firearms to AVOID.....!

 

I have to disagree. I own both and they both have 1000’s of rounds through them and I’ve never had an issue with them.

 

get a model 60 pro

 

I have a late 1970's Taurus M669 in .357. Blued, 6" barrel, shoots like a dream. Cylinder timing is spot on, lock up is very positive I have the adjustable sights set perfectly for 25m shooting we do at my club. The only niggle was the front sight ramp was plain black but I coloured it with some orange acrylic paint and it's nice and visible now. Wouldn't mind a new set of grips for it though.

 

Bone up on how to check a revolver for proper timing, cylinder to forcing cone gap, cylinder end shake etc if you decide to buy one.

When I sold at retail some were perfect, some were pretty far off. Plenty of Smith Wesson were off as well.

So it's very helpful to learn how to check a revolver before you accept it at retailer or at FFL delivery

 

Trustworthy and reliable yes, Strong enough for hot loads, probably, and though it's a medium frame, I don't know if it's closer to an K frame of an L frame smith or GP100 which is closer to a heavier L frame. And both L and N frame smiths are better with the heavier loads than the K frames.

But the problem with the Taurus is that the trigger is not optimum for self defense. S&W triggers are the best and can be made even better. Ruger triggers are good with some gunsmithing and a spring kit, but Taurus triggers right out of the box are best shot single action only and even then are not as precise for accuracy but some gunsmiths might be able to improve on them and Wolff spring kits are available.

https://www.gunsprings.com/TAURUS/LARGE%20FRAME%20REVOLVER/cID3/mID65/dID289

 

Trustworthy and reliable yes, Strong enough for hot loads, probably, and though it's a medium frame, I don't know if it's closer to an K frame of an L frame smith or GP100 which is closer to a heavier L frame. And both L and N frame smiths are better with the heavier loads than the K frames...

158gr at 1250 out of a 4" barrel is a normal .357 mag load.

 

A friend has owned one for a couple of decades, he shoots it often and likes it. By contrast, I'm a S&W snob, been shooting them since the early '70s. I bought a K-frame 65-5 heavy barrel police trade-in for less than $500; the 13 and 65 heavy barrel Smiths are iconic in LE history, from feds, state and local agencies.

Also, check out 686P L-frames, they are heavy duty .357mag for those who must shoot "full" power loads, I don't handload max, the .357mag doesn't need to be maxed out.

 

The first new handgun I ever purchased was a S&W 629 back in 1984. The first round (factory 44 mag) broke the hand (pawl) that rotates the cylinder. I've had 2 Taurus revolvers, a 617 (snubby, 7 shot 357), bought in 2010, and a snubbie in 44 special bought around 1994. Both had zero problems. One of my shooting buddies has a raging Bull in 454 Casull that had a slight timing issue that was corrected by the factory about 15 years ago, many rounds later and zero problems. Another friend has a SS 44 mag purchased about ten years ago that has been used every season to hunt deer. Zero problems. I know a bunch of people who have Taurus revolvers of different calibers and I have never heard any of them complain (other than the afore mentioned 454 Raging Bull). Would I buy a Taurus revolver today? If they made a 44 magnim in 4" non-ported.... I'd be on my way to the gun shop as soon as I could get my shoes on.
Just my personal first-hand experience with Taurus revolvers..... your anecdotal internet experience will probably vary.

 

Look around for an older S&W, still can be had for a decent price.

 

For a shooter that won’t be carried I’d look at a 4+“ 686. They are not bad on the used market. 3” guns will fetch 100’s more. That Taurus in the ad is equal to a K frame which is good for carry with a shorter barrel but not meant to shoot 357 every range trip. The K frames fetch more than the 686’s.

 

I like 4", not 3".

Thanks for the post. I didn't know where the Taurus was relative to the K and L frame S&Ws.

 

I picked this LNIB 586-4 for 649.00, these and the 686 are still not to bad price wise.

 

Friends don't let friends buy Taurus....

 

or carry low capacity (revolvers).

 

I have a Taurus 817. It runs flawless. No issues whatsoever. I had a Taurus .357 (model 66?) back some 20 years ago. It had timing issues.
I agree with spending money on a used S&W or Ruger. You just got to know what red flags to look for.

 

My only Taurus is a .410/.45lc ‘Judge’ that looks good and shoots reliably. This gun hasn’t been shot a lot, so I can’t brag that it has high mileage. I can say it hasn’t presented any problems, and it has been accurate enough in indoor range trials with .45Colt.

 

I've owned several Taurus revolvers over the years, including a Model 65. Mine were all from the 80-90's time period, when they still had wood grips, but I would have put those guns up against any Smith and Wesson I've ever owned (dozens of them) for fit, finish and just plain shooting. That Model 65 was especially nice, as was a 7 shot Model 66. I wish I'd held onto both of them.

 

While I know lots of folks like them, the price point makes them attractive, and there are some solid ones out there, I avoid Taurus. They’re a roll of the dice when it comes to QC. Apparently the quality has improved over the years but I’ll spend the extra coin on a S&W.

 

its not their guns that are the problem. for their cost, their not that bad. its the service if you have a problem. i will never own another taurus because of their service issues. EVER

 

One person spent $90 on shipping to send his back for "warranty" service.

Before I knew what I know now, I called Para for servicing a couple of weeks after I bought one of their 1911s. I was told it would cost between $50 and $100 for shipping. They called their warranty "gold medallion".

Now that I think of it, Taurus may pick up the shipping if something goes bad in the first year of ownership. Not sure.

 

Never had a taurus that I didn't have to send back to the factory. The last one I had was about 20 years ago, bought it and shot it at the local range where I bought it. It failed on the second load. It went back to the factory that day and when I got it back it went in the used gun for sale case. Haven't bought a Taurus since.
You might want to look at the Ruger security 9. Its a SA and sells for about 325.00 nice little 9mm. Good luck.

 

Had a nine or ten cylinder 22 lr Taurus for not too long. Third or fourth time I had it to the range my dad had come along and the piece of crap gun had a double fire. He got sprayed with lead when it bounced of the frame but not seriously hurt. Small cuts only thank God. I sent that crappy gun back to Taurus to see what had happened. They said it was fine. It promptly was sold. Never again. Trying to save a buck is fine but when it comes to firearms spend some. If nothing else getting holes in you is worth some extra money.

 

Pass on it and just buy a Ruger GP100. Take it out of the box and clean it up and PROPERLY lubricate it (this does not mean "spray stuff into it") with something like Mobil One Synthetic motor oil. Then you should be good to go.

Of note, the makers might be doing something different now, but... brand new DA revolvers, no matter who made them, used to typically seize up fast (as in they'd try to seize when firing your first cylinder full) if not properly lubricated. Lots of people don't shoot what they buy so they never found out about this, and some who did confused the lack of lubrication with "needing an action job.". Most likely some of those people will appear shortly to say this is BS.

 

Smith and Wesson revolvers made in the 60's, 70's and 80's are the best revolver purchase you can make. Forget the Taurus and spend a little extra to buy an S &
W in good condition. You won't regret it. But, I am not a fan of the most recently manufactured revolvers. Quality just isn't the same.

 

Smith and Wesson revolvers made in the 60's, 70's and 80's are the best revolver purchase you can make. Forget the Taurus and spend a little extra to buy an S &
W in good condition. You won't regret it. But, I am not a fan of the most recently manufactured revolvers. Quality just isn't the same.

Smith & Wesson had a huge quality control problem during the time frame you mentioned. But if you did get a good one they were fantastic.

 

I have had the M66 Taurus since the 80's. Never had a problem with it. None of these has been anything but reliable and accurate. I can't speak to modern Taurus Revolvers however.

 

I have one of those and they are very reliable. Many years ago the Taurus was a cheep made gun but in recent years they have become one of the best and the price is staying low. They are now made in the USA and have a home office and plant in Florida. There are many "gun snobs" who have not owned or even shot a Taurus and they will always say things like a used (whatever) is better than a Taurus