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.
Options
warranty sevice for taurus good or bad?
sixgunbob
Member Posts: 41 ✭✭
I am looking for a good compact carry gun.I have looked at springfield micro.Nice gun but a little pricey.I like the springfield xd sub compact.And I know springfield has excellent warranty even if you are second owner.A frined of mine had a taurus millenium 40 cal. compact.Is this a good gun?And do they compare to springfield warranty? thanks BOB
Comments
Neal
Read this:
http://members.aol.com/Namerakis/Taurus_Repair.htm
Shop I worked part time at dropped Taurus altogether after getting tired of having to send some of their guns back for their Lifetime Warranty.
I wonder what he had done to ruin the finish on it the first time.
Reading IS Fundamental. Taurus has never warranted "Finish, grips and sights" since forever...READ the terms of the service agreement.
D.
quote:Originally posted by drobs
Friends don't let friends buy Taurus:
Read this:
http://members.aol.com/Namerakis/Taurus_Repair.htm
Shop I worked part time at dropped Taurus altogether after getting tired of having to send some of their guns back for their Lifetime Warranty.
I find your remark totally unappropriate, and uncalled for. If you use your fundamental reading, you can see that he used a load containing a black powder substitute. 200 years ago, when using black powder, the finnish stayed on the gun, and it is hard for me to believe that with modern technology that it shouldn't adhere to the weapon just as good these days. Why in the world would Taurus have a backlog in their warranty/repair department that is 3, 4 or 5 months long? Hmmmmm....top shelf quality there I suppose?
sixgunbob,
It is my experience, that Taurus or Mossberg labels are better left on the display. Try a Khar.
AZEX,
I find your remark totally unappropriate, and uncalled for. If you use your fundamental reading, you can see that he used a load containing a black powder substitute. 200 years ago, when using black powder, the finnish stayed on the gun, and it is hard for me to believe that with modern technology that it shouldn't adhere to the weapon just as good these days. Why in the world would Taurus have a backlog in their warranty/repair department that is 3, 4 or 5 months long? Hmmmmm....top shelf quality there I suppose?
sixgunbob,
It is my experience, that Taurus or Mossberg labels are better left on the display. Try a Khar.
Since we're picking at details in the reading, how well did the finish last 200 years ago when using 'black powder substitute'?
quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
AZEX,
I find your remark totally unappropriate, and uncalled for. If you use your fundamental reading, you can see that he used a load containing a black powder substitute. 200 years ago, when using black powder, the finnish stayed on the gun, and it is hard for me to believe that with modern technology that it shouldn't adhere to the weapon just as good these days. Why in the world would Taurus have a backlog in their warranty/repair department that is 3, 4 or 5 months long? Hmmmmm....top shelf quality there I suppose?
sixgunbob,
It is my experience, that Taurus or Mossberg labels are better left on the display. Try a Khar.
Since we're picking at details in the reading, how well did the finish last 200 years ago when using 'black powder substitute'?
non mortuus,
Just for furtherence of your intelectual ability, it would be safe to assume that 200 years ago they did not have a black powder substitute. I have seen specimens that quite a bit of the original finish still remains. Is there anything further you would like to be educated on?
EDIT:
non mortuus,
Black powder was basically charcoal mixed with sulpher, and salt peiter. Both of those substances when comustion has been derived, produce some by products of sulpheric and hydorchloric acids. Those are very corrosive, and unless the firearm is cleaned well, will corrode.
The black powder substitutes have been gradually getting rid of the sulpher and salt peiter, for a non corrosive formulation, but most of it still is not smokeless.
The article in which AZEX was ridiculing stated that there were loads using a Goex formulation of such. In today's world there is no excuse for what happened to that gun in the amount of time it happened. If you took the time to look over that link, it looked as if the finish was painted on the gun.
moose,
I agree whole hartedly that they had a good thing, and then seemed to have lost it. It is truly to bad.
quote:Originally posted by non mortuus
quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
AZEX,
I find your remark totally unappropriate, and uncalled for. If you use your fundamental reading, you can see that he used a load containing a black powder substitute. 200 years ago, when using black powder, the finnish stayed on the gun, and it is hard for me to believe that with modern technology that it shouldn't adhere to the weapon just as good these days. Why in the world would Taurus have a backlog in their warranty/repair department that is 3, 4 or 5 months long? Hmmmmm....top shelf quality there I suppose?
sixgunbob,
It is my experience, that Taurus or Mossberg labels are better left on the display. Try a Khar.
Since we're picking at details in the reading, how well did the finish last 200 years ago when using 'black powder substitute'?
non mortuus,
Just for furtherence of your intelectual ability, it would be safe to assume that 200 years ago they did not have a black powder substitute. I have seen specimens that quite a bit of the original finish still remains. Is there anything further you would like to be educated on?
Yes could you explain the chemical similarity of black powder and any of the past or current black powder substitutes and how these compounds might react with finishes made with modern technology?