Taurus 44 vs the 29 !

[rocco]

I was at the Gun Store Saturday and saw a Taurus 44 in a four inch barrel .It looked really nice and felt nice it was $400 plus tax  new blued  . How does this compare to the S&W 29 . I have owned three 29's over the last 30 years but no experience with any of the Taurus .

[Questor]

Given your history with the 29s, if I were in the same shoes, then I would buy a Taurus 44 to satisfy my curiosity about the difference between the two guns.  I own a 629 and am completely happy with it and would never consider selling it.  I would, however, prefer the Taurus 480 or 454 if I were going to get one of those cartridges. Some day I will own one of those two.

I'm curious: Given that Taurus makes the 454, are you considering the 454 and perhaps downloading it to .44 magnum levels? I find that an appealing option that I would likely have exercised had the Raging Bull been available when I was in the market for a magnum revolver.

[rocco]

I honestly did consider the 454 but it was to high for me right now. 600 dollars . I wanted to get a small powerfull handgun like a four inch 44 or maybe even a 4 5/8 Ruger 45 LC  for around 400. The 45 costs 350 with tax .The Tauras is 425 with tax .
I have a 7 1/2 Ruger 44 SBH Stainless and love it .
The Smith  Mountian Gun is around 600 also maybe little more  . So it looks like it comes down to the Ruger or Taurus 44 . I handload for them both .But boy years ago I had trouble getting cases etc... for the 45 . Thats way I am leaning towards  the 44 . I wish now I would have kept one of my 29's !

[Hcliff]

Buy the Smith.  Taurus is stonger but the trigger isn't as nice.  As for strength you have too shoot the new Smiths ALOT to wear out (stell shooter are the one who have consistantly done that).  I am still trying :grin:

Hcliff

[myronman3]

taurus, taurus, taurus.   a few years back the smith would have been the better gun.   but that was a few years back.   taurus revolvers have the rest of the industry still trying to figure out what happened.   AND... my local gunsmith says that he would much rather work on taurus revolvers than any other.   we didnt have time to discuss his reasons for this,  but he was very pronounced in his opinion.   and fyi,  i have never heard of anyone wearing out a taurus.

[Litefoot]

I recently shopped extensively for a .44 Mag. I was set on buying a Taurus because of all the positive feedback I had heard. I didn't want a Ruger...just too chunky, not a classic-looking revolver. The 629 seemed just too expensive...until I handled one. I have to agree that there really is no comparison between a Taurus and a Smith. The Smith has a better fit/finish, better grips, smoother action and better trigger. I really expected a lot more out of the Taurus after hearing the hype.  Needless to say, I'm a Smith owner. As always, perceptions are usually more subjective than not, so it's always good to see for oneself.

[Mikey]

rocco:  the Taurus is a nice, well built piece that gets favorable reviews.  The S&W is the original 44 Magnum and it is very hard to beat history and the quality S&W put into its products.  I have S&W revolvers from every generation they have built, whether under the original American ownership, the Brazilian ownership or the English ownership and have never had a problem with either.  

You mentioned that you have had 3 Model 29s.  If you still have one I will bet that  you could return it to S&W for a 4" Mountain Gun barrel and the finish of your choice, to get literally the perfect backpacking/companion sidearm you would want, for less than you would spend for a new revolver.  I had Smith do that to my 29-2 and it is one of my favorites.  Believe it or not, she groups exceptionally well at 50 yds which is the maximum range I would shoot with a hunting pistol these days.

Hope this helps.  Mikey.