Problems with the Taurus revolvers?

[FortKnox]

I was at TN Gun Country a few weeks ago talking to a few guys working the counter and they said they don't carry Taurus revolvers anymore because, over the course of a few months there would be problems with them.

Like the cylinder would fall off right out, it wouldn't close right, all right out the box and then they would have to pay to send them back. It became to much of a hassle so they quit carrying there revolvers but, they still carry the semiautomatics.

I've never had much experience with Taurus but, from reading online it seems they have great revolvers but, the semiauto's are hit and miss outside of their Beretta clones.

So what is your experiences with Taurus?

[Steelharp]

I've seen a Rossi .38 that blew the barrel off on the first shot... and a Taurus 454 Casull that didn't lock up completely right that sent shards back into the shooters face...

[tnhawk]

The only Taurus revolver I've seen have a problem was during a class at a range.  It appeared to be an old, worn pistol and may not have been properly maintained.

[Will Carry]

   My Taurus model 85 ultra light had problems out of the box. The cylinder was not machined well. One chamber locked up well, two chambers were a little sloppy and two chambers were real sloppy. The gun fired OK for 200 rounds or so, then one day the cylinder locked up so tight I had to use a wooden mallet to get it open. I tried it again with different ammo and it locked up again. I sent it back to Taurus and they kept it for 5 months, then they sent it back saying that there wasn't anything wrong with the gun. I shot it 11 more times when it jammed again. I freed it up and polished it up and sold it, I told the buyer of all the problems.

  I know people who swear by Taurus revolvers. A couple of years ago the CEO of Taurus pledged to have better quality control. Since they have a lifetime warranty, they didn't need any quality control, they sent the good guns out with the bad and let the customer send them back if they were bad. Today's Taurus is better but a reputation is hard to live down.

Edited November 30, 2014 by Will Carry

[z0mbies fear me]

I have a Taurus model 444 (ultralight 28 oz 44 magnum on a Tracker/Raging bull frame). It has preformed flawlessly for well over 3000 full powered loads and at least 2000 of my lead loads.

I have absolutely no doubt that when I pull the trigger it will fire and it will hit where it is aimed.

[graycrait]

I would not keep a modern Taurus revolver.  I had 3 from the early 90s that worked well but I have seen a lot of them the last few years that didn't work, or worked poorly.  The examples above are indicative of the usual problems I have seen.  Getting a good new S&W or Ruger or used S&W, Ruger, Dan Wesson or Colts is money better spent. I would take a Rock Island .38 before I would take a late model Taurus .38.

[rockman6]

I have a 357 M66 from the early 1980s that works great.  Sent it back for a 30 year tune up. I also have a 22 model that works good but stays stiff both in the trigger and case ejector.  With  life time warranty, I think one woudl be covered.  Any company that make that many guns is going to have a lemon once in a while.  I know of others that have had great luck with the raging bull models. 

[wileecoyote]

I have purchased, sold, traded, shot, cleaned, worked on, and inspected literally more than a hundred Taurus revolvers, both on my own and while helping a friend with an FFL business. I have also done the same with a similar number of revolvers from other makers including Colt, S&W, Ruger, etc. As a firearms instructor and gunsmith I tend to see a good bit more than your average shooter, and I am extremely detailed when inspecting and cleaning guns, often taking more than 1 hour per gun and using a jeweler's loupe, borescope, and headlamp for inspection.

My personal collection has contained MANY Taurus revolvers, from old Rossi guns to the modern Titanium guns and everywhere in between. In all of my experience I have never seen a bad gun from Taurus, or any defects in their workmanship or performance. They are well made, work properly, and they hold up just fine. I've never needed to use the lifetime warranty but I like having it just in case.

Now they aren't the Cadillac of the gun world, that's for sure. The Colts, S&Ws, Dan Wessons, etc. have a higher quality fit and finish, and sometimes a few more features, but that's why they cost so much more. I have owned many of those other guns too and love them, but when it comes to simple reliable shooting I trust the Taurus revolvers to perform just as well as the fancy looking guns.

Now I absolutely detest the Taurus semiautos, mainly because I dislike their design and find them to be ugly and less ergonomic than their competitors, and also a few of them are pretty cheaply made, and there are better quality options in the same price range, so I don't own or shoot any of the Taurus semiautos, but I never hesitate with their revolvers.

So that's my $0.02, perhaps worth just a penny more than someone who has only handled, sold, or shot a few guns, but to each his own.

[Guest Vetteman]

I am certainly not as versed as many of you about the mechanical side of a Taurus but I have owned/still own a few and I have never had any problems with any Taurus. I have a 44 mag revolver that I have shot a lot through the years and it has always performed flawlessly. I would not hesitate to drag it out of the safe in any "have to" situation. I have deer hunted with it and banged gongs at all sorts of long distance(for a pistol) with all sorts of different ammo that I built and it has never let me down. I hear a lot of people bash a Taurus but I never had a problem.

[E4 No More]

I had a Taurus .22 revolver that SUCKED!!! The trigger was too hard to pull repeatedly for my wife who is small in stature. I polished the bearing surfaces and clipped one coil and the damned thing was still too hard for her to use, so I traded it off for her S&W revolver. I have had two semi-automatics that were great!

[wileecoyote]

I had a Taurus .22 revolver that SUCKED!!! The trigger was too hard to pull repeatedly for my wife who is small in stature. I polished the bearing surfaces and clipped one coil and the damned thing was still too hard for her to use, so I traded it off for her S&W revolver. I have had two semi-automatics that were great!

Yes, that particular revolver model is known to have a heavy double action trigger pull (assuming you had a Taurus 94). But this was NOT a quality issue or defect, it was functioning as designed, and the issue is not unique to Taurus guns.

Nearly every double action 22 LR revolver has a very heavy double action trigger pull due to the heavy springs which are necessary to ensure reliable ignition of rimfire cartridges. The trigger pull may be slightly improved if the gun was highly detailed with ideal fit and polished bearing surfaces, but the long heavy trigger will still be present. If you measured the pull weight with a scale on several comparable revolvers in different brands they'd all be within 2 lbs. or so of each other, but the more expensive guns would likely feel a little smoother.

One notable exception would be the Ruger LCR which has a non-traditional trigger system which allows a reduced trigger pull weight and smoother stroke even with 22 lr, yet this is still far from perfect.

The bottom line is that to get really light short triggers in a rimfire revolver you need to shoot them in single action mode (cocking the hammer first) or buy a single action gun altogether. Most of the 22 lr revolvers are designed for target shooting, pest control, or hunting where single action firing is often preferred, and double action firing is rarely needed, so if you purchased the Taurus 94 for your wife as a defensive gun then it wasn't the gun that sucked, it was just a bad choice for her needs. Nobody should rely on a 22 lr gun for defense unless they have extreme circumstances that rule out every other more powerful option. Edited December 2, 2014 by wileecoyote

[Tncobra]

I wouldn't have another, if you gave it to me.

 

I bought three new sent all three back, then sold them. 

 

1) Bought a snub .38 from the factory with the barrel sticking out past the shroud. Was suppose it be 2.5 barrel, had 3.5 barrel. Could have threaded it. The gun box wouldn't close on it. How the heck did that make it out?

2) TCP 32. Wouldn't fire at all. 

3) Tracker .22/22wmr. Cut my hand on the frame where the casting had not been ground off. Fired one cylinder of 22 long, then the cylinder locked solid along with trigger/hammer. Had to take it apart to clear the revolver.

 

JUNK, some may work but heck if I would ever trust my life with one.

[hipower]

Have owned many Taurus pistols over my gun years. Semi-autos and revolvers. I still have several.

 

Some are better than others. A few have been absolutely great. But that has been my experience and not everyone has been this well off with them.

 

Will agree with wileecoyote about the Taurus 94. It was hands down my least favorite. It looked good and felt good, but just didn't compare well against the other 22 revolvers I have.

 

It did not have the trigger quality of a Smith and Wesson or the newer Rugers. But it didn't cost me what one of them would either.

[chances R]

......... so if you purchased the Taurus 94 for your wife as a defensive gun then it wasn't the gun that sucked, it was just a bad choice for her needs. Nobody should rely on a 22 lr gun for defense unless they have extreme circumstances that rule out every other more powerful option.

 

That is a fairly broad and IMO, incorrect statement, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.  Are there better choices, yes, for some people it may be their only workable choice because of inherent weakness, minimal experience at shooting, weapon size, comfort etc. or simply preference.  Rather than rehash go to http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/83554-a-9mm-aint-sht/  

[wileecoyote]

That is a fairly broad and IMO, incorrect statement, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Are there better choices, yes, for some people it may be their only workable choice because of inherent weakness, minimal experience at shooting, weapon size, comfort etc. or simply preference.

I standby my statement, and believe we are actually in agreement. I specifically said "Nobody should rely on a 22 lr gun for defense unless they have extreme circumstances that rule out every other more powerful option."

I have been shooting, carrying, teaching, and working on guns for more than 40 years, and I have taught literally hundreds of shooters including young kids, old women, weak, small, and disabled. I have yet to come across a single person that absolutely had no better option available for defense than a double action 22 lr revolver. I realize there are probably a few folks out there that might fit that mold, I just think they are vary rare, and that with proper instruction and advice most of the shooters would easily do well with something more appropriate for defense. Edited December 2, 2014 by wileecoyote

[TNWNGR]

I've seen good and bad products made by Taurus...but can say the same for all of the other firearms companies as well.

[E4 No More]

I standby my statement, and believe we are actually in agreement. I specifically said "Nobody should rely on a 22 lr gun for defense unless they have extreme circumstances that rule out every other more powerful option."

I have been shooting, carrying, teaching, and working on guns for more than 40 years, and I have taught literally hundreds of shooters including young kids, old women, weak, small, and disabled. I have yet to come across a single person that absolutely had no better option available for defense than a double action 22 lr revolver. I realize there are probably a few folks out there that might fit that mold, I just think they are vary rare, and that with proper instruction and advice most of the shooters would easily do well with something more appropriate for defense.

I disagree. With women it's not always physical. My wife is 5' tall with very short fingers. I took her to On Target in the Boro to shoot several weapons in semi-auto and revolver. She couldn't deal really well with the semi-automatics because of the hot brass flying back at her after bouncing off the range divider. When the last hot brass went down her shirt between her boobs and burning her there was no convincing her to purchase a semi-automatic and learn to shoot it well. One of the revolvers was a 4" .22 that she had no problems pulling the trigger repeatedly, and she liked it. Working on the theory that shooting a badguy with a .22 repeatedly was better than scolding him sternly, I took my wife into the store to look at .22 revolvers. No snubby is designed for target practice, so designing a weapon, (the 94 in this case), for self-defense with such a trigger pull is unacceptable. I'm 6'4" 290 lbs so I don't look at a weapon like someone who's smaller, and I certainly don't look at it like an inexperienced small woman who'd simply worried about it fitting in their hand and can they handle the recoil. My wife didn't think to try and dry fire the revolver once let alone repeatedly since she had already done so on the range, and since I wasn't the one handling it I sure didn't think of it either. Unfortunately, "all sales are final" bit us in the bum. It wasn't until I took her back on the range that we discovered the problem and then it was too late. 

[wileecoyote]

That's a great story SWJ, thanks for sharing. It is a very common scenario, one that I have heard and dealt with many times as an instructor, with more than a few students coming to class after going through similar experiences and developing some serious bias against brand, caliber, action types, etc. or even being afraid to shoot at all. Often once the damage is done it is quite difficult to undo or steer someone in another direction, so I completely understand where you are coming from.

 

That's what I meant when I referred to "proper instruction and advice". For new shooters it is best to avoid starting with semi-autos or high calibers, and they should be instructed to wear proper attire to the range to avoid brass burns from their own shooting or others nearby. I usually tell folks to wear closed-toe shoes, pants, and closed-neck shirts, and ideally a ball cap or hat with a bill to deflect any casings which might slip down inside their shooting glasses. I also take them to a quiet private range, or at least get the RSO to allocate a few lanes at the far end away from other shooters. Once they are comfortable with simple rimfire shooting and basic guns, then you can gradually introduce them to other calibers and action types, and ideally you will have allowed them to handle and try all of these options with real guns and dummy training rounds in a safe classroom environment, so that they already have confidence before they arrive at the range.

 

When it comes to people with small hands, weak hand or arm strength, or other physical limitations there are special methods which you can teach them to allow them to safely shoot and enjoy quite a few calibers and guns even though they initially don't believe they can do so. A recent example was a retired couple that went through a class last year. The woman was quite reluctant to shoot at all, and only doing it because her husband insisted they both learn for safety purposes. She had small hands and terrible arthritis, which initially made it a challenge for her to load and shoot anything, and after some initial practice her and her husband had assumed that she had to go with a small caliber revolver and the lightest possible trigger pull. I convinced them to wait until class was over and try a few more guns, and get a little more training and practice in, after which time she became much more comfortable with shooting. She ended up being able to handle several revolvers in .38 /.357, and a few semi-autos in .380 / 9mm. She also went on to qualify on several levels of the NRA Winchester Marksmanship program, and now they own several guns and shoot for fun about once a month or so.

 

You are right that the Taurus 94 does have a long heavy trigger, and it is not nearly as smooth as a similar gun from Smith & Wesson, Colt, Ruger, etc. but then it doesn't cost anywhere near as much as those do, and it is not defective or faulty, it is just not the best choice for most people to use for defense in most situations.

[DWARREN123]

Every one makes a bad product every now and then but Taurus has a bad rep.

Tried a PT1911 and it locked up twice, had to do some clean up on internal parts then traded it off. POS pistol.

[Jonnin]

One of ours was broken out of the box.   We sent it back and it was fixed quickly, and the seller paid for the shipping so it was a win across the board.   Trying to remember, I know the cylinder spun both directions and would free spin, it was like it didn't have a stop at all but it did because it worked if you cocked it or pulled the trigger, even locked up correctly, but it was also clearly fubared.

[atlas3025]

I am not sure about newer ones, but I had a Raging Bull in the late 90's that was awesome!  Locked up very tightly, shot very good groups, and really solid feeling.  I traded it because of ammo availability, but I shot a lot through it in the 10 years or so that I had it.

[hipower]

My 44 Tracker is pretty good. Not in the league with the Raging Bull though.

 

The barrel ports can be somewhat troublesome.

Edited December 3, 2014 by hipower

[HvBikeWlTravel]

My only negative review was back in the 80's. Bought 2 Model 65s in Satin Nickel. One 3" and one 4". 3" was perfect. 4" appeared to have barrel cross-threaded to frame. Slightly crooked when you lined up the sights. Wish I had see that before I purchased. Anyway, sent back to Taurus and received fixed weapon in about 3 weeks. There were some tool marks on barrel. No biggy. It shot! Have had 2 PT92s and a 99. Cycled well but not very accurate. Currently have PT111, and 6 revolvers. All performing acceptably.

[charlessummers]

I have a 357 M66 from the early 1980s that works great.  Sent it back for a 30 year tune up. I also have a 22 model that works good but stays stiff both in the trigger and case ejector.  With  life time warranty, I think one woudl be covered.  Any company that make that many guns is going to have a lemon once in a while.  I know of others that have had great luck with the raging bull models. 

My first revolver was the Taurus M66. Love it and carried it everywhere I went, even though I didn't have a HCP... but that was back in the early 90's/late 80's. Wished I still had it.

[zgunbear]

Taurus has very spotty quality control.

Some are good some are very bad.