Taurus Vs. Ruger/S&W Revolvers?

F

Freyr_255

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 97.1%
33   1   0
Location
Northern BC
I'm just wondering what people think of Taurus revolvers compared to similar Rugers and Smith and Wessons?

I'm looking for things like:
-Is the build quality similar(reliability/function etc)?
-Any known issues with certain models(recalls etc)?
-How do they feel by comparison?
-Is the porting that seems to be on most of the Taurus revolvers worth buying one for(vs an un-ported Ruger for example)?

Questions along this line that you can think of and give answers for are also appreciated.
 
For price and quality the S&W is high. I always buy S&W because of their 'fit and finish' and I don't worry about the price because at the end of the day I'm happy that I spent the extra money.

If you want something that is cheeper buy a Ruger. Ruger is great quality and shoots nice too but when you put it beside a S&W it looks a little dull... but great gun

I don't know about the Taurus, never shot one or handled one in the store so I'll keep my mouth shut about that one.
 
They all will go 'bang' just the same, however there are differences.

The S&W's are precision instruments like Swiss watches.
(Colts are even better)

The Rugers are built like tanks.

The Taurus' are cheaper for a reason. They get loose quick and they are the only revolver I have seen more than once with the cylinder blown to bits.


BTW there is at least one other thread on exactly the same topic.
 
I don't see the point in buying a Taurus given the availability of used S&Ws or even Rugers. Either is a much better wheelgun.

I would avoid the porting. For handgun cartridges, it has minimal effect in recoil reduction for greatly increased muzzle blast and will build up lead and spit when using cast bullets.
 
I had a .44mag Raging Bull. porting and bull barrel made a huge differencein recoil. Overall quality was very good I regret selling it.
 
Last edited:
It is a very easy concept. The more you spend the more you get. Also down the road if you decide to get rid of it the easier it is when you have first bought quality. Of the guns you listed the S&W are far better in my humble option.

Graydog
 
I had a S&W model 19 and it didn't hold up to .357 mag use...it needed to be re-built by a gunsmith and I wasn't impressed. The S&W may look prettier, but I'll choose the toughness and reliability of a Ruger GP100 any day. The Taurus I'd pick up only if I found a REALLY good deal...but in no way does a Taurus meet the quality of a Ruger or a S&W IMHO.
 
AS much as I love Taurus, come to the revolver, I will take Smith anytime, some will say Ruger build like a tank but infact Ruger does have some QC issue, A fellow member here has problem with the single action Revolver and other member need to rim out the cylinder of a GP into spec. This not likely happen to Smith. Taurus also made good stuff but I don't think the revolvers better than of Smith.
 
Last edited:
L and N Frame S&Ws stand up just fine to regular .357 Magnum use. It's just the K Frame guns that sometimes have durability problems, particularly with large quantities of light bullet .357 loads.
 
The only reason for me to even think of buying Taurus is if they are 1/3 the price of a Ruger or 1/4 the price of a Smith.

BTW, this is the same inducement for me to buy Norkie 1911s and this is inspite of Norkie 1911s reputation for reliability, accuracy and durablity (they have not been known kaboom due to their somewhat over-spec'd steel).

Then I will only shoot .38 spl out of .357 magnum Taurus', just in case they aren't strong enough.

I bought Smiths for the looks and sweet trigger, but I baby all my Smiths. I bought Rugers for their rugged build so I can shoot full magnums often.
 
RUGER GP100 4.2"barrel .357 mag...$599ish

S&W 686 4.2"barrel .357 mag...$850-900ish

Same reliability most likely...is it really worth the extra cash just to get a prettier gun???? My next purchase for sure is the GP100...you can't go wrong.
 
I can't comment on the other 2 brands, but my one and only taurus revolver broke on me a few months ago, in mid-transaction, and I couldn't find any replacement parts for it. I was lucky to find a buyer that really wanted the thing, or else it would still be a paper weight on this end. I'm done with that brand, one headache is enough for me.

I'd go with s&w if I were you.
 
22auto said:
They all will go 'bang' just the same, however there are differences.

The S&W's are precision instruments like Swiss watches.
(Colts are even better)

The Rugers are built like tanks.

The Taurus' are cheaper for a reason. They get loose quick and they are the only revolver I have seen more than once with the cylinder blown to bits.


BTW there is at least one other thread on exactly the same topic.
Click to expand...

And you have seen how many Taurus revolvers with the cylinder blown to bits? I've seen two Colts (an Agent and an Official Police), a S&W (Model 19) and a Astra missing parts of their cylinders-all due to overcharged/undercharged rounds-not the fault of the revolver-and I've been in this game for going on 30 years now. Shoot loose quicker-have you fired one that extensively? I have-my Taurus 669 357 has seen plenty of use (10+years with a round count approching 7600, without a sign of strain. Back when Taurus first came onto the North American market (early 1980's I think?) their guns were made on clapped out, used S&W machinery and they showed it. Quality today is much improved and are the equal to most other revolvers. Colts are better than S&W? I really have to doubt your knowledge base now. With the exception of the Python, S&W has always built a superior product to Colt,IMHO. As I've stated here on CGN before, I once owned a Colt Government Model-damn thing spent more time getting fixed than I spent shooting it (and yes, I got rid of it). Rugers....I couldn't agree more. If you manage to damage a Ruger I am pretty confident that Strum, Ruger and Company will want to know how you did it. I mean this is the company that routinely takes guns off the line, deliberately weakens them and then tries to blow them up....the key word there is TRY. Just my two cents, not trying to flame anyone, but I have to question comments that I do not agree with and can back up my opinons with my own experiences.

Cheers All:cheers:
Allan
 
I have had 2 N frame 357 Smith's; one a 28 and now a 27. I only sold the 28 when the 27 came up for sale. I have a Ruger New Vaquero also; it is not a doulbe action, but it gives an idea on quailty. While the Ruger is a nice gun (bright stainless and some pretty), it does not have the quality of the 27.

Someone was mentioning how the S&W 19 would not hold up under 357 loads; they never really were supposed to. Cops wanted a 357 smaller than the 28 and they got the 19 with the idea they would primarily feed 38 Special trhough them with a bit of 158 grain 357 every so often for qualification and for carry. The problem with this idea is that they started feeding more 357 (with light bullets that did not seal the cylinder gap before combustion was finished) than 38 through them, and they get shook lose. This is one reason for the L frame, although the lighter bullets are more prone to flame cutting in any revolver equal metal to equal metal.
 
Colt1911A1 said:
Rugers....I couldn't agree more. If you manage to damage a Ruger I am pretty confident that Strum, Ruger and Company will want to know how you did it. I mean this is the company that routinely takes guns off the line, deliberately weakens them and then tries to blow them up....the key word there is TRY.
Click to expand...

Its things like this that I appreciate in a gun and everything I've heard elsewhere backs this up. Having it put so well may have just sold me on Rugers forever...sure you don't work for Ruger in their sales department? :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom