In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Are Smiths REALLY worth TWICE a Taurus

footlongfootlong Member Posts: 8,009
edited May 2009 in General Discussion
Was looking at the Taurus thread of D@Ds. Lots of talk about Taurus vs Smith. Looking at the Auction side of GB prices I noticed a Smith 686 costs twice a Taurus 66 . Having never owned or shot a Taurus I was wondering if the Smith is TWICE the gun a Taurus is[?]

Comments

  • Survivalist86Survivalist86 Member Posts: 3,105
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by footlong
    Was looking at the Taurus thread of D@Ds. Lots of talk about Taurus vs Smith. Looking at the Auction side of GB prices I noticed a Smith 686 costs twice a Taurus 66 . Having never owned or shot a Taurus I was wondering if the Smith is TWICE the gun a Taurus is[?]


    Yes....Yes they are!!
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    The 686 is one of THE best revolvers EVER IMHO.

    It will never command the (stupid amounts of)money a Python will, but they will outlast the owner, his son, and his grandson too, if maintainted.




    (again, JMHO, but the best 686's are from the Bangor-Punta or Lear-Sigler era)
  • BHAVINBHAVIN Member Posts: 3,490 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    ? Are Taurus really worth 1/2 a Smith? Answer NO. Not even close.[}:)]
  • Survivalist86Survivalist86 Member Posts: 3,105
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by PBJloaf
    The 686 is one of THE best revolvers EVER IMHO.

    It will never command the (stupid amounts of)money a Python will, but they will outlast the owner, his son, and his grandson too, if maintainted.




    (again, JMHO, but the best 686's are from the Bangor-Punta or Lear-Sigler era)


    Well said!!!

    c936e0470f543b048fb0306a640b053f-1.gif
  • 1911a1-fan1911a1-fan Member Posts: 51,193 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    only one that will tell you any different is a Taurus owner


    why do you think they copy smith?
  • select-fireselect-fire Member Posts: 69,446 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I am up to buy any $200 dollar smith snubby's. Anyone got any?[:)][:)]
  • RtWngExtrmstRtWngExtrmst Member Posts: 7,456
    edited November -1
    I like Smiths but IMO older is better.
  • 44caliberkid44caliberkid Member Posts: 925 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    If you read the other posts you'll see that neither gun is a good value if you get a crappy one. The only bad Smith I ever owned was a 686, made around 1985. I like the 66 much better. I've only owned large frame Taurus', but haven't had any problem with them, and I shoot them a lot, with stout handloads.
    In general, the older a Smith the better. I'm not interested in anything new they have. My last two Smith purchases have been a 66, made in the early 70's and a 28, made in the 60's. I plan to add two model 27's to the group, a 5 inch and a 3.5 inch, neither made before 1970.
    Don't buy a gun just because it's cheap. Either Smith or Taurus can be a good value.
  • dav1965dav1965 Member Posts: 26,540 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I have a Taurus 44 and a S&W 357 State Troopers model. They are both good guns. I like the grips better on the S&W. They feel tighter. The Taurus came with hogue grips and they just dont tighten up. I would buy them both again. David
  • A J ChristA J Christ Member Posts: 7,534
    edited November -1
    To answer the question................Yes
  • blackhawk45blackhawk45 Member Posts: 481 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    If you want a dependable handgun buy a S&W, If you want a paperweight buy a Taurus !!!!!!!!!!!
  • MaxOHMSMaxOHMS Member Posts: 14,715
    edited November -1
    the 5906 is the best I have ever owned
  • JohnnylikesgunsJohnnylikesguns Member Posts: 2,887 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Not worth two times.



    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -More like 4 or 5 times.
  • MMOMEQ-55MMOMEQ-55 Member Posts: 13,134
    edited November -1
    Prefer Colts. Especially my Python.
  • yoshmysteryoshmyster Member Posts: 21,645 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I would say yes as long as it's the Pre-Frame lock. We all know the lock weakens the frame structually[:D].
  • sharpshooter039sharpshooter039 Member Posts: 5,897 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I own both,I like both,I have never had a problem with a taurus handgun and I own several,their new 1911 is one of the most accurate out of the box 1911's I have ever shot,much better gun than the 2 springfields I own,IMHO, my everyday carry gun is a Taurus 357,First revolver I ever bought my youngest son was a model 94 Taurus .22 ,in the last 4 years you could not count the rounds through it way up in the many of thousands and it still shoots as new
  • drobsdrobs Member Posts: 22,611 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    If you buy a firearm in the same spirit as buying a fire extinguisher (for just in case) buy a Taurus.

    If you shoot alot buy a Smith or Ruger.

    Friends don't let friends buy Taurus.
  • kidthatsirishkidthatsirish Member Posts: 6,981 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    everyday when I carry, I trust a S&W.
  • M1GarandloverM1Garandlover Member Posts: 2,676 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
  • bandcollectorbandcollector Member Posts: 218 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The fit, finish, and shootability of the smith is much better, so it is worth the increased price, however I own a couple of taurus revolvers and have never had a functional issue with them. Then again I don't shoot them half as much as my smith's though.
  • redneckandyredneckandy Member Posts: 9,705 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I shoot my Taurus's and the few Smiths that I own are just too nice to carry or shoot too much.
  • fideaufideau Member Posts: 11,895 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Mid 80's Smiths quality was not as good, when that Limey group, Tomkins was trying to over profit, and then kissing up to Clinton and his liberalass crap. Gun owners showed their strength and boycotted them right out of business in 2001. Smith was purchased by Saf T Hammer (USA) for about one tenth of Tomkins investment. Quality improved as well as product lines. I think S&W is back up to its former quality. But I sill prefer pre 64 models when they were still owned by the Wesson family. But ANY S&W is preferable to a Taurus copy.
  • p3skykingp3skyking Member Posts: 23,916 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Not really. It's American from an anti-gun state that caters to the likes of Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank, but that aside, I laughed when I read how Taurus "copies" Smith. S&W hasn't had an original idea since the bored through cylinder in the 1860's. Just look at Sigma, a Glock copy. Just look at the .22 pistol with the recoil spring above the barrel, Dreyse 1907.

    I've played with Taurus's 1911 and I've played with Smith's 1911. One is very good and the other just HAD to put the extractor outside the slide. S&W's PPK had to be recalled, a pistol made since 1929 by Walther, Manurhin, and Interarms. You would think they (Smith) could get it right the first time.

    I played with a Taurus Judge the other day. It is a beauty of fit, finish, and balance although to look at it, you wouldn't think so.
    Now add that to the customer service and warranty that will always be honored and you have a superior product from a country that supports gun rights. They let the people vote to keep guns legal and they did!

    I don't own a Smith or a Taurus. I own Colts. They rotate the cylinder properly.[:D]
  • fideaufideau Member Posts: 11,895 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Play and laugh. Taurus revolvers are knockoffs of S&W.Look it up. I didn't have to. Their first decent auto was due to Beretta leaving them a factory in Brazil. What's the idiot voters in Mass. have to do with S&W. I've owned and fired hundreds of revolvers in my life. S&W is the best. Ever stripped a Colt revolver? I can do a Smith with my eyes closed. Colts are not easy and a Smith can be made just as smooth. I've seen a lot of Colt revolvers in bags because their owner couldn't get it back together. How many Colt revolvers have you ever seen in revolver matches? Why doesn't Jerry Miculek use a Python to set his records? How about Ed McGivern? I don't like S&W autos. I do like Colt autos. I think Taurus makes some decent guns. Smith and Wesson makes better guns.
  • Freedom FirstFreedom First Member Posts: 454 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    TAURUS: A No-Bull History

    Forjas Taurus ("Taurus forge") began as a small tool manufacturer in Porot Alegre, Brazil back in the 1930s. The company produced its first revolver, the Model 38101S0, in 1941, combining elements from several manufacturers of that day, including Colt, Smith &Wesson and certain Spanish brands.

    Taurus soon became a major factor in the South American market and entered the U.S. market in 1968, employing the services of a succession of U.S. distributors over the next several years. Their efforts met with only marginal success and marginal acceptance by American shooters.

    In the meantime, Smith & Wesson had been purchased by an international conglomerate named Banfor Punta, which later purchased 54 percent of Taurus. Thus, the two companies became "sisters" (neither ever owned the other), and over the years a great deal of technology and methodology were passed between the two. In fact, due to efforts to upgrade Smith & Wesson's factory, more technology and manufacturing know-how passed from Brazil to Springfield, Massachusetts, than vice versa.

    Many of Taurus' young engineers did extended tours of duty at Smith & Wesson as part of that process. One of those was Carlos Murgel, who in 1977 , put together a group of investors that bought back Bangor Punta's 54 percent of Taurus outright. Dr. Murgel has since passed away, but the ownership structure continues today.

    The change sparked a quest to improve overall quality of Taurus guns as well as an expansion program. Taurus eventually bought a factory that Beretta had built as part of a Brazillian government contract. Along with the purchase came tooling, machinery and a very experienced work force.

    In 1982, Taurus opened Taurus USA, in Miami, Florida, to increase the firm's visibility here. Over the next several years, the company introduced guns such as the Raging Bull .454 Casull double-action revolver, the polymer-frame Millennium autoloader series, the 24/7 duty and service pistol family, the world's first all-titanium revolver line and also became the first company to offer its customers an unqualified lifetime repair policy.

    Copied from Guns & Ammo Handguns (August/September 2008).
    I have a Taurus .44 Magnum Raging Bull in my opinion it is of equal quality to my S&W .50 Model 500. They are both excellent revolver's.
  • fideaufideau Member Posts: 11,895 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Good info FF. I must have missed that article. I have to say I like the safety on the PT92 better than the Beretta 92 and 96, which unfortunately was my duty weapon for many years. I've heard that Taurus quality has improved greatly over the years. I don't currently own one but it's something I have considered, especially the Judge. I just like S&W better. And the Taurus lockwork is based on S&W's.
  • SpartacusSpartacus Member Posts: 14,415
    edited November -1
    quote:Prefer Colts. Especially my Python.

    +1[:D]

    but I do have one of the original model 60's that i really like.
  • cce1302cce1302 Member Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    As said above, S&W are worth at least twice as much as a Taurus. I wouldn't buy a taurus at any price.

    quote:Originally posted by Freedom First

    I have a Taurus .44 Magnum Raging Bull in my opinion it is of equal quality to my S&W .50 Model 500. They are both excellent revolver's.



    How does the Taurus .500 Magnum Raging Bull compare to the S&W?

    ...

    Hey didn't Taurus discontinue it?


    ....wait a minute, is this a trick question?
  • William81William81 Member Posts: 25,185 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I will take a S&W 29, 60, 66, 686 over anything that Taurus makes. They will cost more, but they will be worth more used, have better trigger pulls and are just better all the way around. IMHO
  • Colonel PlinkColonel Plink Member Posts: 16,460
    edited November -1
    I've shot them both.

    Though I couldn't tell much difference, (besides the trigger) I still preferred the S&W. Old biases die hard, I guess.
  • dan kellydan kelly Member Posts: 9,799
    edited November -1
    iv`e got a taurus tracker 627 in 357 magnum. it was second hand, and at the time i got it i had the choice of either the taurus or a s&w 686 for around the same price, both had had around the same amount of rounds through them, and were around the same condition...except the s&w had a lot of movement in the cylinder,and the taurus was far more accurate, and i fired 20 factory rounds of 357 and 38 special through each one, and 20 rounds of 3 different loads of hand loads.

    the taurus ran rings around the smith...it was chalk and cheese...i`ll stick with my taurus...you s&w lovers can stick with them.
  • AlpineAlpine Member Posts: 15,093 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Simply yes.
    ?The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.?
    Margaret Thatcher

    "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
    Mark Twain
Sign In or Register to comment.