[deputy tom]

The G-19 killer for me was the S&W M&P 9mm Compact. Same everything except no glock knuckle and no finger grooves. As always, YMMV. tom. :cowboy:

 

[Bradd D]

Some say Glock should sell for less. Why can't Taurus sell for more?

 

[Deputydave]

Some say Glock should sell for less. Why can't Taurus sell for more?

They did, and they sold a bunch of pistols. New management adopted a new strategy, publicly stated, to sell for less and flood the market. They were successful and sold a bunch more.

 

[Gray_Rider]

I purchased my G2C back in July primarily as a car gun and I liked several of its extras like a rail and scalloped front slide. It not only fits my Glock 30 holster, it also fits my old Glock 26 holster. I added a rubber grip and the G2C now handles and feels a lot like the Glock 30.

The double strike option offers an another perk. Now I can dry practice with a lazer cartridge in the chamber without racking the slide for additional shots. The ergonomics are close enough to be able to use the G2C for laser and practice that mimics the Glock 30 almost identically.

All for under $200.

Gray_Rider
Old Secessh

 

[TacticalDesire]

Some say Glock should sell for less. Why can't Taurus sell for more?

If Taurus could get away with selling the G2 or G3 for $500 they would. But they can't. Their position in the market is sub $300 starter guns. Taurus has even said as much. Glock, Sig, HK, SW, CZ etc. can get away with it because that's what the market will bare.

I'm tired of the "jUsT aS gOod As" <insert more expensive brand here> rhetoric. They're not. They're good for the price and nothing else. "Good enough for me" is more like it. For some, Glock, Sig, HK etc. isn't worth the price. I can understand that and I'll concede a G19, M&P, 320 isn't for everyone but saying G19's, 320s etc. are "overpriced" is just dumb when said companies are selling them hand over fist.

 

[TNRonin]

If Taurus could get away with selling the G2 or G3 for $500 they would. But they can't. Their position in the market is sub $300 starter guns. Taurus has even said as much. Glock, Sig, HK, SW, CZ etc. can get away with it because that's what the market will bare.

I'm tired of the "jUsT aS gOod As" <insert more expensive brand here> rhetoric. They're not. They're good for the price and nothing else. "Good enough for me" is more like it. For some, Glock, Sig, HK etc. isn't worth the price. I can understand that and I'll concede a G19, M&P, 320 isn't for everyone but saying G19's, 320s etc. are "overpriced" is just dumb when said companies are selling them hand over fist.

I think this is true to a degree. But that is changing ala canik. Just my opinion.



Sent from my SM-T280 using Tapatalk

 

[Bluescot]

I have not until recently found a need to stray from Glocks, Sigs, S&Ws and 1911s for my auto needs but that changed recently. I shot a Canik TP9SF and was impressed enough to overcome any prejudgments against "clone type shooters". I found it to be very accurate and easy to hit stuff with and very good functioning. The low price was interesting but not a mover to purchase until actually shooting one of the Caniks. I bought the "One" package for $280 and have found a need to keep up on my 9mm reloading as it seems to like to eat.

More recently I shot a Canik Elite pistol of some designation that I don't remember at an indoor range and could not believe how easy and enjoyable it was to shoot and the accuracy was superb. These Elite models can be had for $325-350 now and if Canik offers a "One" package for that model soon they should drift down to the $275-300 range and would be an interesting model to look at.

I would be much more inclined to buy a Canik Elite if I were looking for a G19 bargain replacement than the products in the Taurus line. This is due to my experience with owning both Taurus and Canik products.

 

[cciman]

Hamburger vs. Steak, Dollar store vs. Whole foods, harbor freight vs. Snap-on

If Salisbury steak is enough to fulfill the belly, and is more important than the palate and gets the job done, then to that individual it is good enough.

I'm rooting for Taurus.

 

[cciman]

They need their own fanboy forum, not a topic on Glock tribe site.

 

[Bluescot]

There is an excessive amount of angst on GT about Taurus, which we see manifested as criticism and hyperbole. I think it results from fear more than anything. Glockophiles don't like it known that high quality, reliable guns can be had for less than half the price of a Glock. Taurus reveals that Glock should MSPR at $349 and not $749 (19X). Some people see that as a threat, so they lash out at Taurus. "They are junk! Wouldn't touch one at any price!"

Frighten a dog and it tries to bite you. Frighten a Glockophile and he says your gun is junk.

In my case and probably the case of many others on GT the "angst" comes from their previous experience with owning a Taurus product and being anywhere from disappointed to pissed off with the quality. Some will say "but, but, but, things have changed at Taurus" which may or may not be the case but many of us are still stuck with our previous experiences. Rumors have it that Remington Golden bullets are now "match" grade.......I'll pass on those too.

The true test will be in comparing those Taurus products, that are new, to their Glock counterparts and see what the results come to be in a head to head test for function, accuracy and durability. Works for me .......but I'm letting others do the "field testing" of Taurus shooters for me.

 

[Lt. Donn]

Looked at one Friday at NRA show in Ft Worth, it was about what I expected except for the trigger which would rate close to the top as the worst ever pulled, when we had our store the question from a customer I hated the worse was "need a protection pistol how cheap are they?" That started it all down hill from then. I followed usually as what $$ value do you place on your life and loved ones lives? Some brands we would not even stock, order or trade for.

It is frequently an uphill battle convincing folks the lowest price is not always best, regardless of what it looks like or who makes it. I still remember a gun-store owner in 1985 "tossing" a G-17 in my direction, and my horror as it hit the deck...then the revulsion at how ugly it was...and what, made of Plastic...are you freakin kidding me ??...I mean after being practically weaned on the graceful lines of the classic Colt's and Smiths...what the devil was this Glock thing anyway...well, look where we are now

 

[Pteridine]

Taurus threads are always interesting. The contortions that people go through to justify their decisions are psychological studies in themselves. The elitism in brand choice is reminiscent of all the ladies in the sewing circle agreeing on something for fear of being gossiped about if they don't. It seems that not showing up on a Taurus thread to comment about the failings of Taurus implies guilt and failings as a firearms expert.
The G2C works just as well as a Glock -- even better than the G36 -- and doesn't even have a pig nose problem. The trigger takes some getting used to but can be upgraded if one is unable to adapt to it. The factory sights are adjustable for windage and elevation and can be easily replaced, if desired. Doing that on the Shield requires cooking the rear sight lockdown screw to loosen the locktite to remove it and then drifting the sight carefully so as to retain the pin and spring hiding under it. The Glock just requires a drift or a $100 tool to replace its sights but about half the posters on these boards feel that Glock perfection stops at the factory ball and cup sights and replace them. They will be happy to know that the tool retails at a price that is greater than the cost of producing the pistol. Then they add magazine extensions, undercut the trigger guard, grind off finger grooves, and may even stipple the frame to "improve" it to enhance its perfection.
Some polymer framed pistols have manual safeties, either as an option or as standard equipment, and I see many comments on both sides of the issue. Glock doesn't offer the option which is why we have the malady known as Glock Leg and which can be prevented by the universal prophylactic called "more training." There is never enough of it to prevent even some instructors from cutting grooves in themselves. Interestingly, for those that carp about manual safeties, their use is optional.

 

[Deputydave]

Their position in the market is sub $300 starter guns.

That sold a ton when they were in the $350 price range. They sold a ton more when they dropped the price. Simple facts in both regards.

I'm tired of the "jUsT aS gOod As" <insert more expensive brand here> rhetoric.

Then you appear to be in the wrong thread.

They're not.

Sure seem to be to the people that have actually shot them. Me included. My G2 did everything my G26 does. Round counts last I checked were in the 20k+ range which is quite respectable. So yeah, for 99.9% of end users, they are just as good for a lot less.

I can understand that and I'll concede a G19, M&P, 320 isn't for everyone but saying G19's, 320s etc. are "overpriced" is just dumb when said companies are selling them hand over fist.

Perhaps some people are dumb for spending more money because of a specific logo? Perhaps some people are smart for spending less money for a pistol that does everything a more expensive pistol does? Perhaps some people aren't concerned with impressing others at the range or on a gun board.

For the price of a retail Glock, a person can buy a G2, add night sights and buy a case of ammo. For a pistol that does the same thing. Sounds like a good deal to me.

 

[jr24]

I think this is true to a degree. But that is changing ala canik. Just my opinion.

Sent from my SM-T280 using Tapatalk

Canik is certainly an outlier. Fantastic performance for such low cost. I have heard some stories of breakage issues after only a few K rounds (years for some but weeks for me with a new gun), but my shooting experience with a few has been superlative.

If I didn't have plenty of gear and mags invested in two poly strikers (APX and Glock) I'd be far more tempted to give them a hard look for a full size

 

[bac1023]

Some say Glock should sell for less. Why can't Taurus sell for more?

That’s not their market. Taurus must undercut to sell.

 

[paul45]

The elitism in brand choice is reminiscent of all the ladies in the sewing circle agreeing on something for fear of being gossiped about if they don't. It seems that not showing up on a Taurus thread to comment about the failings of Taurus implies guilt and failings as a firearms expert.

Good one, I believe you just described the General Firearms Forums 1/10th percenters!

They never fail to show up for .40 or Taurus threads.

 

[Terry G]

When the Glock first came to the US Market it was described by not a few gun writers as a "Cheap glob of plastic designed to resemble a pistol."

 

[Steel & Wood]

Certain brands I do not wish to own this is one

Sad.

I bet you have never even held a Taurus gun in your hand, am I right?

So sad.

 

[bac1023]

That sold a ton when they were in the $350 price range. They sold a ton more when they dropped the price. Simple facts in both regards.

They drop the price whenever the mainstream companies do. They have to do it to stay in business.

 

[TacticalDesire]

That sold a ton when they were in the $350 price range. They sold a ton more when they dropped the price. Simple facts in both regards.



Then you appear to be in the wrong thread.



Sure seem to be to the people that have actually shot them. Me included. My G2 did everything my G26 does. Round counts last I checked were in the 20k+ range which is quite respectable. So yeah, for 99.9% of end users, they are just as good for a lot less.



Perhaps some people are dumb for spending more money because of a specific logo? Perhaps some people are smart for spending less money for a pistol that does everything a more expensive pistol does? Perhaps some people aren't concerned with impressing others at the range or on a gun board.

For the price of a retail Glock, a person can buy a G2, add night sights and buy a case of ammo. For a pistol that does the same thing. Sounds like a good deal to me.

If "does the same thing" is the metric we are using I might as well go buy a Raven or Jimenez. They both shoot bullets too.

My criteria for a defensive handgun is buying a known quantity from a brand of good repute that is known for dependability and durability. Taurus is not that. Even if they are moving in the right direction they have a long while to go before that reputation changes. Maybe the G2 and possibly the G3 are gems. But for every one of those they also have a history of s***ting out abominations like the Spectrum, Curve, the original millennium series, the 24/7 and a slew of others. It takes more than a couple models to change a companies reputation. People certainly have a right to be skeptical.

I think the G2S and G2C are fine guns for the money and have spent plenty of time behind them. Probably more than most here. I like it for the money which is why I give the terrible trigger more of a pass. But I'm not going to kid myself and say that the quality is on par with more expensive options nor should I. That would be like buying a ballpark hotdog and complaining that it's lower quality than filet Mignon. Nor am I going to recommend a $200 Taurus when there are police trade M&Ps selling for $240, brand new Shields for $250 and used Glock 22s for under $300.

Also, Glocks, Sigs etc. are a dime a dozen, if people are buying them to impress others they are also dumb.

If a Taurus is for you. Fine. If someone is on a budget you can certainly do much worse. But there's a reason people are willing to pay more for other brands and I promise it's not the logo. There are other metrics other than price and calling others dumb for doing so is just as asinine as whatever forum crimes "Glockophiles" are being accused of. Which I also find the nickname ironic seeing as how we are on a forum called Glocktalk.