For what any "opinion" is worth, my thoughts posted on another related thread:
My thoughts about Tarus are along everyone else's line from personal experience because Tarus is most definitely "unpredictable" in the highest echelon of the term. However, if Tarus could ever manage to get their production standards and quality control consistently up to par with some of their "better" units (as pure luck of the draw determines), they would be serious competition and genuinely worth consideration.
During my LE stint, the department's full-time armorers at the practice/combat range decided to do an experiment to test the strength of a number of revolvers that were suitable for service weapons by purposely reloading test .357 mag ammunition with fast-burning powder (Bullseye) at increasing degrees of overload to see how much it took to disable each particular brand to the point that it would no longer operate after the firing - which was remotely done from the test blockhouse (on the adjacent bomb disposal range) with the pistol in a rigged vise out on the range. Brands used were S&W, Colt, and Ruger with a Star and Tarus just tossed in as a joke. Unsurprisingly, the cylinder in the Star jammed and wouldn't turn with only a 25% overload. All others survived a 50% overload, 75% overload and a full double-charge (including the Tarus). As loads were continued to be increased over dougle-charge, the major brands began dropping out as well with jammed cylinders in order of (Colt, S&W, and finally Ruger), but the freakin' Tarus survived everything including a triple, then quadruple charge that both knocked it out of the vise. They finally figured out that increasing the load was doing no good because the bullet was leaving the barrel before all the extra powder could burn and continue raising the breech pressure.
Being astounded at the results, they called in the chief and other high-ranking officers to witness a possible recommended addition to the department's "acceptable" service revolvers. After all the pomp and circumstance, they started the test with new revolvers of the exact same models as before. As expected, the Star jammed at just the 25% overload; but to everyone's embarrassment, the cylinder blew completely out of the Tarus with the 50% overload. So, if one is lucky enough to get that one Tarus out of many that is accidently "good", then you have a truly fine weapon; but such a radical inconsistency between identical models is most certainly no selling point for people who trust their life to the known and proven dependability of their weapon.
No details? :confused:
Originally Posted by retsupt99
Check these out. I'm not sure what the point of the .380 is, but it's smaller than most.
One must remember that in some countries that Taurus sells their firearms, that the largest caliber the regular citizens can have is the .380acp. I hope this helps. God Bless :smile:
I have 2. A 2" revolver that I have owned for 4 years or so and put a few thousand rounds through it without a single problem (is my edc). A few months ago I got my wife the "slim" 9mm. Love it. Only have about 400ish rounds through it but again, no problems.....
I have 3 taurus weapons...
24/7 OSS - .45acp
24/7 DSS Pro - .40s/w
PT145BP - .45acp
..the first 2 are bullet proof...fired several thousand rnds thru them and they are just dead nuts accurate..
the pt145bp is junk....gets hot after several mags and won't eject the mag...I have to physically take it down and push the mag out....gonna sell that thing....but the other 2 are great shooters...really fun....
I have a couple of Taurus hanguns in my '' aresanal '' , I also own Glocks, Colts, a Kimber, 2 Smith & Wessons, and a couple more, buti think you get where I am coming from, I CC with a taurus most of the time. If I bashed Kimber because I had a FTE, and honestly I have, not bashed but had a FTE, and everyone bashed every gun that has had a malfunction at some point, we would all be on a gun bashers sight..... as for looking like a Smith on revolvers, read below, a little known fact , that might suprise some... Why do Taurus revolvers look like Smith & Wesson?
•In 1965 Smith & Wesson had been purchased by a conglomerate named Bangor Punta Alegre Sugar Corp., a conglomerate based in Bangor, Maine, with operations in railroads, textiles, foundry equipment, sewage disposal systems, yacht manufacturing, commercial finance, grain elevators, and other areas.
•In 1970, Bangor Punta also purchased 54% of Taurus. Thus, the two companies became "sisters." Smith & Wesson never owned Taurus. They were both independent companies.
•However, during the next seven years, a great deal of technology and methodology was passed between the two. What may come as a surprise to some is that more of what was "right" in Porto Alegre was sent to Springfield than was sent from Springfield to south of the equator.
•Today's revolvers still bear a superficial resemblance to Smiths, but Taurus has made many modifications and improvements to its original designs and today's revolvers owe very little to any other manufacturer.
Just take it for what it is worth...... a Taurus in not a Glock, a Glock is not a Colt, a Colt is not a Kimber which is not a Hi-Point....... which can go on and on, most mfgrs make quality weapons in my opinion.... just to what degree of quality you can afford, and how much of the name are you buying ?
"•However, during the next seven years, a great deal of technology and methodology was passed between the two. What may come as a surprise to some is that more of what was "right" in Porto Alegre was sent to Springfield than was sent from Springfield to south of the equator."
Hi JerryMac. Can you elaborate and provide details? What sort of "right" things were sent to Springfield? Engineering? Manufacturing techniques? New model ideas? Marketing?
Please don't get me wrong. I've read your posts since you joined and really like your comments. I'm just a little dubious about this one. I've got a number of pre-Bangor Punta Smith & Wesson revolvers that sure don't have any flies on them as far as quality, function, and durability. Smith & Wesson got a long way without Taurus input. Some of the manufacturing techniques that may be considered improvements aren't really appreciated by the end users.
I bought a PT709 several years ago and have 2000 flawless rounds through it. I like it quite a bit. I had a PT845 and I wasn't impressed with it. So, based on my own personal experience I'd say they are hit and miss. If I were looking for a single stack 9mm today, I'd be looking at the new Bersa 9cc. Since I already have a good single stack 9, I don't see any need to sell it and buy another.
Care to tell us why?
Originally Posted by BugDude
The PT845 trigger left a lot to be desired, and I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with it. I've never had a gun that after a hundred rounds or so I couldn't get it dialed in other than this one. No point in putting more expensive 45 rounds through a gun that was too large to carry andi didn't like the trigger and couldn't shoot well. I traded it for a Glock 36. I like it, but don't have enough trigger time behind it yet to feel confident in my abilities to carry it. I will put the rounds through it to get it dialed in (shooting just a hair left) and I will be able to carry it comfortabley.
I've had much more experience with Bersa handguns (I own Bersa Thunder 9 uc and have shot a buddy's Bersa Thunder 380 a lot) and all of my personal experiences with them and others I know that have them have been outstanding. They are consistently very well made, reliable, and under-appreciated. The new 9cc is a very impressive 9mm single stack and it was not available a few years ago when I was looking for a very small thin 9mm. At that time, it was Kahr, Kel Tec, or the Taurus 709. I evaluated all three and I preferred the 709 and it has proven to be very good. If I were in the market today and didn't already own a proven reliable single stack 9, I'd be looking at the Bersa 9cc. Since the Bersa Thunder 9uc is not that much bigger and has 13+1 capacity, if I had bought it before the 709 I probably would not have been looking for a smaller 9mm at all. I thought about selling my 709, but I just really like the gun and enjoy shooting and carrying it.
I own one Taurus, its a millennium pro pt 745, I shoot it atleast twice a month usually atleast 40 rounds per trip, it shoots 6 inches low at 21 feet with 230 grain ammo, and there's a pin on the slide that keeps popping up but does not effect its shooting capabilities, I bought it for a every day carry gun cause it was $350 brand new out the door, it was inexpensive so it don't bother me if it geta beat up a little, putting it under your seat in the car taking hunting with ya putting it in the glove box etc. Stuff I won't do with my glocks, Springfield's, and other nicer handguns that I have, as far as reliability, out of over 500 rounds I've had a couple ftes but I changed from wolf ammo to bvac and have had no issues since, its your choice.
My 745 was a mess, sold it off. Its too bad, size wise and ergonomically it was great.
My one experience with Taurus:
Bought their .44Magnum 8-3/8 inch ported revolver when it first came out.
Took it out for some excercise.
Trigger. Hair trigger is not the proper term more like breeze trigger. Must have been 1/10 of an ounce.
Continued shooting (very very carefully) it to see if there were any other things to have corrected... Yuup there was one more.
Cylinders were rough and after 20 or 30 rounds I had trouble extracting fired brass.
Two or three weeks later it was back and back to the woods it went.
WOW !!! What a handgun. Trigger smooth as silk and cylinders gave me no more problems.
With the ported barrel it felt like a 1911 and was as accurate as any revolver I ever owned.
Just one example and it was quite a while ago.
My friend has a ported .357 Taurus revolver and it's a mother. The first time I shot it, it felt like someone clubbed me on the head or something. My ears instantly started ringing. I had to put muffs over my earplugs to shoot again.