Author Topic: New handgun.....Can you spell K I C K ??? (Read 1618 times)

Dogshooter · « **on:** October 21, 2003, 03:44:07 PM »

Bought a S&W Airlight (Scandium ? ) 357 magnum and took it to the range with some 38 Spl +p's and some 357 Hydra Shok's and had to force myself to get beyond the +p's. They were no pleasure to shoot. The 357's are a real experience. Won't be using the 357's unless it's a self defense situation. Anybody else fired one of these things??? :eek:

Graybeard · « **Reply #1 on:** October 21, 2003, 07:12:17 PM »

The Taurus Total Titanium super lights do not have this problem. They are a pleasure to shoot with the .357 mags. You guys really need to take a look at Taurus who supports gun owner rights and over look S&W who doesn't support our rights.

GB

DzrtRat · « **Reply #2 on:** October 21, 2003, 08:04:21 PM »

Greybeard,

Has Taurus really improved their guns that much since the early days of Taurus' existance?

I know a lot of times I sound pretty picky, but I have a real thing for good quality, and a gun that will last a lifetime is a big part of it. I have an early Taurus mod 66 .357 mag that's a total POJ. Yes, it still shoots, and I've put some rounds through it, but not THAT many. The cylinder has a lot of slop, the cylinder gap is .007, and in double action it will sometimes turn the cylinder without catching the hammer. Sure, that last problem could be me, but I sure don't have that problem with any Smith & Wessons I've shot.

I've handled a lot of Smiths that have had a lot more rounds through them that are in a lot better shape, so what's the deal with Taurus? Have they really improved that much? If so, what are they doing different?

williamlayton · « **Reply #3 on:** October 22, 2003, 12:40:02 AM »

i have the s & w .38/357--i do not shoot the .357 in it--the .38 works jest fine fer my purpose. i like it-has some recoil-but not as bad as my sig in a .40. the s&w's i have are good guns-not gettin into politics-an tha scadium suites my needs for a carry gun. i like tha lightweight-sights a re wonderful fer old but refurbished eyes. accuracy to mass is good an it gets back on target pretty quick.
blessings

Graybeard · « **Reply #4 on:** October 22, 2003, 05:57:44 PM »

DzrtRat, you better betcha. The difference is day light and dark. Quality of the current crop of Taurus revolvers I have are fully the equal if not superior to any of the S&W guns I have all of which are pre agreement.

Fit and finish are just better on the Taurus and they lock up much tighter especially the RBs.

GB

DirtyHarry · « **Reply #5 on:** October 22, 2003, 08:15:28 PM »

I agree with Graybeard on the Taurus compared to the S&W. I have owned quite a few S&W's but only have 2 right now, both pre agreement(model 39 9mm, and model 19 357). My Taurus's seem to just feel better. Believe me there was no bigger S&W fan than myself,the only reason I bought my first Taurus was because I couldnt pass up on the price, and it looked like a S&W copy. Now when I am shopping for pistols I find myself looking at the Taurus first and everything else later..

jamie · « **Reply #6 on:** October 23, 2003, 06:29:27 AM »

I have to agree about Taurus, I wouldn't think twice about buying another.
Taurus is slowly becoming THE brand in handguns. Well, OK, maybe not better than Freedom Arms but since the FA's start at $1500 they ought to be the best. Taurus firearms are equal to any other, and alot better than most. Plus, they are truly behind us in shooting and hunting!

Oh, you probably want to shoot those +p's, there is not much like a .357 going off in the house at 3:00 a.m.

DzrtRat · « **Reply #7 on:** October 23, 2003, 09:08:31 AM »

Thanks Greybeard.

I've been hearing good things about Taurus lately, that's for sure. Somehow those first impressions are hard to shed though, you know it?

Take care,
~Rat

Graybeard · « **Reply #8 on:** October 23, 2003, 06:27:51 PM »

Yup Rat I know. I had two of the early Taurus revolvers one in .22LR and one in .22 Mag. They nearly soured me on the brand. It just ain't the same these days.

GB

Dan Chamberlain · « **Reply #9 on:** October 25, 2003, 09:14:48 AM »

Graybeard;

You better get on over to the outdoorsbest.com site and set the record straight. They're bashing Taurus pretty good over there. Me, I like'em.

Dan C

Graybeard · « **Reply #10 on:** October 25, 2003, 06:28:18 PM »

Dan I've never even heard of that site before. Don't have a clue who is posting there. I have no financial stake in Taurus so don't feel the need to defend them anywhere. Just like to try to help folks who post here by letting them know what I've found to be true for me. I often don't even find time to visit my own site each day. Didn't at all yesterday as I recall and didn't make it until late tonight for first time. I just can't find the time to make it to a bunch of other sites as I used to do. I miss it but just don't have the time.

GB

Dogshooter · « **Reply #11 on:** October 30, 2003, 12:16:10 AM »

The only problem I have with Taurus MIGHT be based on a false premise. I would love to be enlightened so if any of you guys care to set me straight, please do so. I seem to remember hearing a story about Taurus's "humble" beginnings. The story I heard was that the Brazillian gov't talked S&W into building a state of the art manufacturing plant there and after it was operational, they nationalized it and just took it away from S&W. Tooling, blue prints and all.mHence the interchangeability of parts of some of their earlier guns. The F & F wasn't as good at first and S&W did retool and incorporate some cosmetic changes to make their product different if not better. Assuming this story was correct, I didn't want to help line the pockets of the Brazillian gov't and therefore never gave a Taurus a second look.
And as for S&W not supporting "us". I also heard that S&W was bought out by another company sometime after they entered into their agreement with Klinton and the new owners were legally bound by the agreement BUT were trying to live it down. The person that gave the interview I read seemed to have "our" interests at heart. And anyway, they are still made here and the Taurus isn't. That alone is almost enough to make me lean toward the Smith.

Graybeard · « **Reply #12 on:** October 30, 2003, 09:45:45 AM »

That story simply is NOT true.

Yes S&W did set up the original plant for the Brazilian government but it was not nationalized and taken from S&W. S&W make a tidy profit on what they did there.

GB

Dogshooter · « **Reply #13 on:** October 30, 2003, 03:34:33 PM »

I stand corrected. Thanks, GB..

rocco · « **Reply #14 on:** October 31, 2003, 12:30:19 AM »

I have owned over 50 handguns over the last 30 plus years .All but two were all Rugers ,Colts and Smiths great guns . I bought my first Taurus last month .A Ultra Lite Blued 85 with a 2 inch barrel . I LOVE IT !

markc · « **Reply #15 on:** October 31, 2003, 03:28:59 AM »

an old model 29 S&W I had, but since I purchased a Tarus model 44, I see no need for any other revolver in the same caliber. The model 44 finish has held up to lots of hours in and out of several different holsters and is the one I hunt with when I hunt with a revolver. Love it, a pleasure to shoot even with stout hand loads.
markc

jfruser · « **Reply #16 on:** October 31, 2003, 05:17:02 AM »

Gotta agree with you on the felt recoil of the S&W Ti/Sc revos. Their recoil is no joke.

A while back I rented a .38 S&W Jay in Ti and a Taurus .38 Total Ti & shot 'em back-to-back. Factory non-plus-P .38s through the S&W were enough for me to determine that it was not the hogleg for me. The Taurus, OTOH, was manageable. The problem with the Taurus's managability is that they manage it with bbl porting, which is a deal-breaker with many (due to the extra muzzle flash.

What I'd like to try is S&W's new 329, the Ti/Sc .44 mag N-frame. I bet THAT wakes up the shooter.

Quality of S&W & Taurus is comparable. S&W gets the nod for external finish & tradition, Taurus for value without sacrificing quality.

As to the politcal side of the S&W vs Taurus controversy, for a while I would'nt buy S&W. I have no problem, however, with the new owners. As far as the "Boycott gunmaker (fill in blank)," deal, other gunmakers have done worse than S&W's *current* ownership.It's easier to go after S&W "hammer & tongs" because there is a readily available substitute for nearly all of S&W's revos to be had from Taurus. This is not necessarily the case with Ruger's products.

Ruger's rifles are a reasonably priced almost-mauser action. Also, Ruger has other rifles that are unique (10/22, .44mag bolt & semi rifles, others). If you want a hunting 6-shot big-boy revo, the Redhawk & esp SRH are the only acts in town. The Tauri are only 5-shot ("only" 5 shots of .454 or .480--still a lot of lead). Ruger's SA revos are the only game as far as powerful revos (BH, SBH). The Peacemaker clones are not built to take the BH/SBH-pressure-level loads.

Some gunmakers were outstanding, RKBA-wise, during the Klinton years, Taurus being exceptional, esp considering they are not an American company. Other companies were weasels: S&W, Ruger, Colt come to mind. Of the Klinton butt-boy weasel contingent, only S&W has made any effort to redeem itself (new owners, disowning the HUD mess, work for broader RKBA). Ruger and Colt have not worked to expunge their RKBA-un-friendly acts.

Finally, it strikes me as just too-cute and too convenient for folks to revile S&W while buying Ruger & Colt products (not that Colt makes anything worth a hoot, these days). Boycotting S&W is easy & costs one nearly nothing in the realm of product selection, 'cause of the Tauri equivalents. Boycotting Ruger, OTOH, would mean cutting oneself off from their numerous procducts unique to Ruger. "You mean I can't buy Ruger's 6-shot SRH in .454 or .480? But nobody else makes something like it!"

Whom one boycotts kinda depends on whose products one likes or can get readily-available substitutes.

My $0.02, of course.

1911crazy · « **Reply #17 on:** October 31, 2003, 05:44:40 AM »

I can't imagine a handgun in 357 being lighter than my ruger GF32 2 3/4" stainless in 357. I had herrit grips made to my hand for it, while it still jumps, I can still hang on/comtrol it better. Its still tough with hot loads.
BigBill

Dogshooter · « **Reply #18 on:** November 01, 2003, 11:52:45 AM »

My Smith weighs 17.5 ounces. How much does your Ruger weigh?

williamlayton · « **Reply #19 on:** November 02, 2003, 01:35:40 AM »

my smith-like yours-.38/357--is a real joy. i doan shoot tha .357 in in much but tha .38 is OK.
blessings

Dogshooter · « **Reply #20 on:** November 02, 2003, 03:12:01 AM »

In mine, the 38 spl's are OK. The 38+p's are a handfull. I carry with 357's for self defense but I know that if I HAVE to use it, it is gonna be one of those "this is gonna hurt me more than it hurts you" situations. :-)

EricG · « **Reply #21 on:** November 10, 2003, 03:32:06 PM »

Regarding Taurus quality...I have a used Taurus .454. I was looking at a new stainless Ruger Vaquero .45colt in the shop this weekend. With the trigger back that Vaquero had way more slop in the cylinder than my used Taurus which still locks up perfectly tight. I'm not running down the Ruger here because I have an old superblackhawk .44 and it's pretty loose but still shoots great for me. I don't doubt the Vaquero would shoot great too. All I'm saying is that I see no problems with Taurus quality and I will be the first one to complain if I think something is a POS.

Eric