[dahermit]

So you went out and bought some Bersas and Taurus instead?

Bought one Taurus, a M85 in stainless steel. It is my primary carry gun.

I never said that paying more was a guarantee to zero defects.

But, were you not implying that by evoking the platitude: "...you get what you pay for..."?

But AS A WHOLE you cannot tell me Taurus makes a product on the same level as S&W and Colt. Period.

Based on what? Anecdotal evidence or do you have the metal-working and engineering knowledge to give credibility to your opinion? Can you give examples of personal experiance?

And who knows if those guns you purchased were used or how many guns your purchase.

They were new, many guns over the years. The faults I stated were from factory new guns.

The more you buy the more chances are that you've have some type of issue or stoppage.

There were other problems with S&W and Colt (factory new) guns that I did not mention. Addendum: A (new) Series 70 (collet bushing), Colt Government .45 that did not have the proper bend in the extractor so that it malfunction frequently. (took me awhile to figure that one out inasmuch as there was no INTERNET then). In short, for most of my life I only bought mostly new S&W and Colt guns and they (along with later purchases), all had some fault that had to be corrected. According to your logic, I should have paid more to insure quality. Or, I could have done what I did...study metal processing, machining, and study the internals and workings of firearms so that I could contend with the lack of workmanship (S&W revovers...rough bosses, lateral play in hammers, burrs, etc.), or Colt's lack of quality control (weak springs, extractor profile incorrect, etc.). However, I can find no mechanical fault or any issue with my Taurus 85...I must have paid too much.