|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 23, 2007, 12:55 AM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: October 7, 2006
Posts: 57
|
Is Taurus to S&W what Tamron is to Nikon?
This one is for the photographers out there. I'm still having a bit of difficulty assessing the quality of current production Taurus revolvers. I finally checked out their website and the 94B5 pretty much exactly what I'm looking for, save for the bad reputation for quality. If I bought one, I'd get a new one. If you're familar with Tamron lenses, would you say that the comparisons are similar to Taurus, better or worse? Again, I'm looking specifically at the new revolvers.
|
January 23, 2007, 01:59 AM | #2 |
Junior member
Join Date: November 19, 2005
Posts: 96
|
Not a bad comparison... one is supposed to be the cheaper alternative to the name brand and most professionals and serious hobbyists wouldn't be caught dead with the off-brand.
But while Tamrom is lower quality, it is just inferior glass... not so much lenses falling apart. And a camera is not a gun. I take a lot of photos for fun and business - but if my cheap lense doesn't get the bokeh right, at least I'm not dead. A gun is too serious, in my opinion, to compromise on. In the last few days, the Taurus defenders have come out of the woodwork. Don't let their recent numbers put you off. Taurus isn't a respected brand, overall. Take from that what you will. |
January 23, 2007, 05:03 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 5, 2006
Location: SW Florida
Posts: 435
|
Tamron is actually pretty good these days, as their quality, and their pricing, has gone up over the years.
Which is exactly what will happen with Taurus. Eventually. Today, however, the Taurus line is priced very low when compared to some of the other brands. And quality (despite big corporate mantra) is not free. Taurus manufacturing employees are considered to be in the skilled labor pool. Their wages are 10 times that of the unskilled population. In short, these folks don't come as cheap as you might think. In order to keep the end user prices of Taurus products low, you must cut corners somewhere. There is no free lunch. Less costly manufacturing methods, more automation, less time in the hands of your hourly workforce have to be the rule. In my small circle of shooting friends, I know of 4 Taurus handguns. A model 627, a model 608, a Millenium Pro and a .357 snubbie (don't know model). Two of the four have locked up. One went back to the factory; the other, I believe, was worked on locally. That's gotta say something. BTW, the 627 was mine. It functioned just fine, and I liked the gun, but seeing two out of four having problems convinced me to sell it.
__________________
Proud supporter of the NRA |
January 23, 2007, 05:58 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 14, 2006
Posts: 282
|
Taurus quality...
its OK if what ever you are shooting at won't hurt you because you Taurus didn't work.
I haven't heard of a time-out or loaner in a gunfight, yet. Miss the shot with a camera...big deal. Brittney, oh Brittney...could you come back to the limo again. Having your Taurus in for repairs and the BG comes calling...Just ask him to wait until UPS gets here. |
January 23, 2007, 07:41 AM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 6, 2006
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 506
|
I owned, or sort of owned, a Taurus 45 ACP Tracker. The factory and shipping trucks had possesion of my revolver more than I did. Not bashing ALL Taurus revolvers, just the one I had. It is no fun to have a loaded 45 ACP revolver cocked and the trigger pull will NOT drop the hammer. Not something you can just lay down somewhere. The last time it locked up on me I was at an indoor range with others all around me with a loaded and cocked revolver that would not shoot no matter how hard I pulled the trigger. You had to pull the trigger very, very hard to flex it and then use the weak hand thumb to push the hammer off the sear to get it to fire. Needless to say I will never own another Taurus. I traded that POS back in and put $200 with it and got myself a S&W 686 and have never looked back. Just my mileage, yours may vary.
__________________
5.56mm, reach out and touch something. .458 SOCOM,reach out and knock something down. M70 Web Page |
January 23, 2007, 08:15 AM | #6 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 2, 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 217
|
Is Taurus to S&W what Tamron is to Nikon?
what you should compare, take two Nikon 28-70 2.8 zooms, put them side by side and call one a taurus and the other a S&W. ( same price range ) and bicker over that. |
January 23, 2007, 10:20 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 1, 2006
Location: Fairmont, WV
Posts: 1,682
|
I use a Tamaron on my EOS-1N, love it! Hold on this is a gun tread, have 4 Taurus Revolvers, like them all.
__________________
http://www.stevekonya.com |
January 23, 2007, 10:26 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 29, 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 796
|
Lets put it this way. If I go to the range to shoot with my Taurus as my "gun of the day", I will always bring a back-up in case of failure. If I take my Smith, or in my case a Colt, as gun of the day, I don't take a back-up................ck
__________________
Never argue with an idiot, they will just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. |
January 23, 2007, 10:48 PM | #9 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 2, 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 217
|
Lets put it this way. If I go to the range to shoot with my Taurus as my "gun of the day", I will always bring a back-up in case of failure. If I take my Smith, or in my case a Colt, as gun of the day, I don't take a back-up................ck
but why is that ? |
January 23, 2007, 11:17 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 14, 2005
Location: Western WA
Posts: 1,347
|
Taurus quality issues
When it comes right down to it, would you stake your life on your Taurus if it came to that, knowing that quality is definitely an issue with Taurus handguns??
|
January 24, 2007, 12:01 AM | #11 |
Member
Join Date: March 20, 2006
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 93
|
Count the number of Tamron lenses that you see on the sidelines at the SuperBowl. Then again, money for equipment is not an obstacle for most of those photographers.
How about this... If 100 shooters could each pick one gun and be reimbursed for the cost, how may would choose a Taurus? A few maybe, but not a lot. That said, I've never owned a Taurus. But I did have a Tamron lens back when I was shooting 35mm. It worked just fine for me. |
January 24, 2007, 12:41 AM | #12 |
Member
Join Date: October 7, 2006
Posts: 57
|
I'm primarily looking for a .22LR revolver, preferably double-action as my first gun. I've tried a 617 and it's a nice gun but very heavy. Canada doesn't permit 4" barrels so the 4"/10 shot version is not an option. Taurus makes the 94B5 which is nearly half the weight of the 617 and 1 inch shorter on the barrel. The specs are good, the price is good but is it a good gun? Tamron has a good bang-for-the-buck reputation and is considered a decent lens but definitely not pro quality - specs are good, price is good but the quality is only decent. The question with Taurus (remember, the new current production revolvers which I can buy) is whether it is a decent-but-not-pro quality or is it still far below that level and not worth considering?
|
January 24, 2007, 07:50 AM | #13 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 2, 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 217
|
you get what you pay for !
A 1,000 dollar smith and wesson is going to be better quality than 350 dollar Smith and wesson. The $350 wesson isnt going to be better than a $350 taurus. I have researched the difference between Taurus 85 UL and Smith 637. Both the same quality so far. price is near the same. if the smith is better, it would only be a little bit, with both just as dependable.. |
January 24, 2007, 08:16 AM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 14, 2005
Location: Concord, NH
Posts: 2,723
|
Quote:
|
|
January 24, 2007, 11:25 AM | #15 |
Junior member
Join Date: August 9, 2005
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 2,228
|
I bought a new S&W revolver, a Model 625-3. Checked it out at the dealers, paid for it, took it home, cleaned it, and headed to the range. Using 230 gr. FMJ Federal Classic ammo. Fired the first round single-action, and it was sweet. Cocked it for the second time, pressed the trigger, and got a "click". Tried again, "click". Went to open the cylinder, and it spun in my hand while still locked into the frame. Seems as though the hand had broken on the first shot, and the cylinder wouldn't advance with the trigger, nor would it lock. FIRST SHOT. Sent it in for repair.
Now, using the criterion of the bashers, I should NEVER trust that weapon again. Past threads here, S&W revolvers with barrels breaking off at frame gor a Department of Correction, multiple barrels. Cylinders binding, sights canted, cranes bent on new weapons. All S&W. Yet, that's a GOOD brand. SIG replaced the slide on my P229 at the less than 500 round mark, cracked. HK replaced the barrel on my USP at 300 rounds due to "manufacturing difficulties", it would key-hole at 25 yards. Go to the Sig forums, and the HK forums, and check out the repair section. You'll find that all of these brands have many more problem weapons than one would be led to believe by our "experts". Not only that, but these weapons all cost hundreds more than the brand that they're senselessly bashing. If you can afford it, buy quality, just don't expect quality to come from a particular brand or model. ALL manufacturers use CNC today, and have reduced their "skilled labor" pool by at least 75%. The majority of manufacturers, except in the "custom shops", utilize most of their personnel in packaging and shipping, not manufacture. Face it, Europe and America pay $20-40/hour in labor, while Asia and South America pay $10-20/hour. Maintaining the same profit margin, and quality, will still allow for a cheaper product. |
January 24, 2007, 11:38 AM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 14, 2005
Location: Western WA
Posts: 1,347
|
Taurus
ATW525
"Perhaps I'm just lucky, but my Taurus runs flawlessly." Well, so far, so good.................... |
January 25, 2007, 09:34 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 29, 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 796
|
Why is it that are so many threads on here asking "is Taurus any good"? I don't see those for Colt, Ruger, S&W etc. etc., often, if at all. Just Taurus. Maybe therein lies the answer. I truly wish that Taurus made weapons that I had confidence in, but my experience has been just the opposite. Yep, got a lifetime warranty. After five trips to the repair center, the money spent on Fed-Ex wouild have paid for a Smith upgrade. Now the REPLACEMENT GUN is having the same problems as the original gun, which now resides in the repair center.
Obviously any gun with machined parts can fail. Nature of the beast. Of the six dfferent revolver's I own, only one has gone in for repair, only one has been replaced, only one replacement has gone in for repair.........all taurus..................ck
__________________
Never argue with an idiot, they will just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. |
January 26, 2007, 09:53 AM | #18 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 2, 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 217
|
TRUST IN ME , If taurus costs twice as much as Smith, people would automatically think taurus is the best, and ask if smith is any good.
ITs brainwashing, you do think what cost more is better... |
January 26, 2007, 10:04 AM | #19 |
Junior member
Join Date: August 9, 2005
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 2,228
|
The ONLY revolvers that have gone in for repair for me, in forty years, have been my S&Ws. Maybe I expect too much of them, like for them to be accurate, and have triggers that don't feel like they weren't machined. I don't use my revolvers for home defense, or CCW, but, at the prices S&W charge, I do expect them to be capable of the job.
|
January 26, 2007, 10:28 AM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 20, 2005
Location: Mouth of the Rat, Florida
Posts: 1,778
|
I'm with the "any gun can fail" group. I have two taurus's both are good. I have a Ruger and a Smith, and they are good. I had a mainspring replaced on one of my taurus's at 800 rounds, and my dealer that sold it to me did it while I waited. I know a lot of people on this forum complain about their guns, but I'm curious how many of their dealers take care of them and handle the warranty repairs? There are some dealers around my way that once you buy it, they wash their hands and it's your problem if it breaks, and others offer after the sale service. Maybe we should look to our dealers for some solutions to these problems.
__________________
I grew up in New Jersey, but later moved to Florida and made a complete recovery. Keltec: The BIC lighter of handguns http://jkwasblog.blogspot.com/ |
January 26, 2007, 02:39 PM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2002
Location: NW Arkansas
Posts: 229
|
QUOTE:
TRUST IN ME , If taurus costs twice as much as Smith, people would automatically think taurus is the best, and ask if smith is any good. ITs brainwashing, you do think what cost more is better... I'm not so sure about that. Ruger was/is cheaper than both Colt and Smith and I don't recall that many people asking if Ruger was/is any good. |
January 26, 2007, 03:15 PM | #22 |
Junior member
Join Date: August 9, 2005
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 2,228
|
Man, where have you been? There have been nearly as many Ruger threads, where people bashed them, as there were Taurus threads.
|
January 26, 2007, 08:46 PM | #23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2006
Posts: 262
|
Quote:
"Quality is remembered long after the price is forgotten." |
|
January 26, 2007, 08:58 PM | #24 |
Member In Memoriam
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
|
Any discussion of S&W is bound to bring out the S&W haters who will tell stories (and they are stories) all day long about bad, evil S&W. Ignoring that, the fact is that all manufacturers have lemons, but Taurus Q/C is spotty. One can be as near perfect as anyone could want, the one next to it in the case can be nothing but trouble. If I bought a Taurus, I would make clear that I was going to go shoot the heck out of it and expected the store to replace it if anything failed.
My usual criterion of a minimum of 200 successive rounds of the carry ammo without a failure of any kind still holds. (With auto pistols, it is 200 rounds with each carry magazine.) Jim |
January 26, 2007, 09:04 PM | #25 |
Junior member
Join Date: November 19, 2005
Posts: 96
|
TRUST IN ME , If taurus costs twice as much as Smith, people would automatically think taurus is the best, and ask if smith is any good.
ITs brainwashing, you do think what cost more is better... This is another ridiculous statement. Smith & Wesson has more than 150 years of history - and I don't just mean fun reading, but experience in making the world's best revolvers. You can buy 70 and 80 year old guns of theirs and they shoot fantastic and will continue easily for another 70-80 years. They make weapons that are built to outlast you with heavy, heavy usage. I'm sorry but Taurus not only doesn't have any evidence that their guns can last 70-80 years, but they have a reputation for making guns that fail long before that, often ridiculously early. They earned that reputation after years and years of inferior gunmaking and have only very recently (ie. less than FIVE years) begun to turn their brand around with better products. I said better, as in better than what they were making, not better than the long-established industry leader. It was just a few days ago that you came into this forum and had to ASK if Taurus was any good. Apparently, you already had an answer in mind that you wanted to hear because ever since then you have been trying to convince anyone who will listen that the guns you were asking about are better than the finest mass-produced revolvers in the world. You want to talk about reputation - it isn't derived from gun forum posts or guys at gun shops shooting the breeze. It comes from years - decades - generations of making quality, reliable weapons. The S&W Model 10 or 686 or others have reputations that have been carved in granite because they are rock-solid reliable and have proven themselves to be so over millions and millions and millions of units in all forms of military, law enforcement, sporting and personal use since before most of us were even born. Those reputations - which have made those guns absolutely synonymous with RELIABILITY and ACCURACY - have nothing - zilch - to do with "brainwashing." I mean, really. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|