Avoid the Taurus GX4

[dogtown tom]

I guess you had similar problems with your TCP .....

Nope.
Again, I learned a long time ago to avoid Taurus.
I'm starting to feel the same way about SIG.

 

[Terry G]

Well, because I'm informed enough to know that Taurus by and large is junk. Why bother commenting? Because I have the same rights to an opinion as you do.

I've never owned or driven a Yugo either. But I know they are junk. If someone were to ask "Is a Yugo a good car?" I could accurately tell them they are junk.
One doesn't need to have shot a .454 Casul to know it has stout recoil, and knowing that it does I wouldn't recommend it to a new shooter.

If the only comments allowed were those by Taurus fanboys, it would be a disservice to the gun community. Fanboys see no issues because their sample size is miniscule. I'll see more Taurus pistols and revolvers in my hands this month than you'll ever own. My sample size is bigger because I'm a gun dealer. People bring me guns to ship back to the factory or importer. I'll never tell a transfer customer that the gun they bought online is junk, they'll figure it out eventually. I also won't lie as to my opinion if asked. I don't stock any firearm, I do transfers only.....so I'm not trying to denigrate one brand just because I want to sell a different brand.



I disliked Glocks from the get go. No manual thumb safety, ugly, plastic, Euro trash plastic. I did appreciate the simplicity of the design and it's reliability.
Eventually I bought one. Then two, then it was five. Now its over a dozen: two or three 17's, 17C, 17L, 19, 19C, 22, 22C, 23C, 24, 44 and a 48. They are still ugly, but sometimes utilitarian aint pretty.
If I want pretty I pull out my Woodsmans or Hi Powers.

I would say the difference is I comment I guns I own or have handled and shot. I don’t say Glocks are junk because I owned one I didn’t like and own another I do like. The Taurus guns I own have performed well for me. I don’t own every model so I can’t speak for them. I will praise CZ’s to High heaven, the ones I own and shoot are excellent. Writing about guns that you just “handled” or read about is just hearsay, how can you have a real opinion? To say all guns by a certain manufacturer are junk is meaningless.

 

[TTv2]

Nope.
Again, I learned a long time ago to avoid Taurus.
I'm starting to feel the same way about SIG.

Sig's problem is employee retention, they can't keep people very long at their factory in NH because the management is so bad.

 

[dogtown tom]

..... Writing about guns that you just “handled” or read about is just hearsay, how can you have a real opinion?

When you ship guns to a manufacturer for repair or replacement at a rate higher than other brands it sure as hell is not hearsay.
Neither is the well documented trigger issue with the Taurus TCP..... that I have personally induced.

And again, my customers experiences tell me all I need to know.

To say all guns by a certain manufacturer are junk is meaningless.

Not to me. It keeps me from buying junk......and your opinion of my opinion is irrelevant AND meaningless.

 

[TTv2]

I would say the difference is I comment I guns I own or have handled and shot. I don’t say Glocks are junk because I owned one I didn’t like and own another I do like. The Taurus guns I own have performed well for me. I don’t own every model so I can’t speak for them. I will praise CZ’s to High heaven, the ones I own and shoot are excellent. Writing about guns that you just “handled” or read about is just hearsay, how can you have a real opinion? To say all guns by a certain manufacturer are junk is meaningless.

Saying all guns made by one company are junk isn't meaningless, it's factually inaccurate, but apparently the firearms community is becoming "Woke" in that they would rather form an opinion based on feeling than fact and Taurus gets a lot of shade because in the past it has had prolonged periods of making stinkers, taking months at the factory to be serviced and sent back, only to find more issues and have to be sent back in a second time for several more months.

That was unacceptable then and still is now, but I'm not hearing of those issues now.

However, Tom has a point that we can't act like fanboys and ignore reports of problems because there inevitably will be some, but the flipside is also true in that we can't label all Taurus guns as junk because most will be fine.

 

[Old Dog]

Sig's problem is employee retention, they can't keep people very long at their factory in NH because the management is so bad.

That's interesting, because just a few years back I had occasion to talk extensively with some SIG reps, who basically said totally the opposite.

One thing to consider is that some brands -- Taurus in particular -- are bought up in great numbers by the entry-level, first-time buyers. Those that have zero experience with firearms and haven't learned the operating systems nor how to maintain their firearms. I'd posit that it's entirely possible that certain brands of firearms get a bad rap almost solely because they're mostly bought by novice gun-owners.

I'm not defending Taurus, nor any other maker of "budget" firearms (Charter Arms, RIA, Henry, Kel-Tec, Hi-Point, SCCY, Diamondback, CANIK, SAR, Heritage, ALTOR, EAA Windicator, even Savage and Ruger). I'd submit that it's entirely possible a lot of these guns get dinged on the internet is because that's what people do now, complain on the internet if they can't figure their s*1t out.

Price point is a big factor in firearms sales. Realistically, first-time buyers are not gonna be going for higher-end firearms. And younger, or novice, buyers who don't know guns are more likely to not be able to troubleshoot routine issues and keep their guns running properly. Conversely, they'll be the first to go in and complain to the gunshop that sold them the gun, or vent on an internet forum.

I find it interesting that, for example, on this very forum, a lot of long-term members with presumably more'n a minute's worth of experience with guns, report positive experiences with some of the guns many of us snobs consider cheap or budget guns.

When you have been around long enough and make contacts at the factory level while keeping in close touch with the retailers at the lowest level, you can keep things into perspective a little better than if all your information comes from what you hear from the guy who sells guns down at your LGS or what you read on the internet gun forums by folks posting anonymously whose credibility is undetermined. One reason why I still trust SIG and Colt. Don't mean to discredit anyone's experiences but I think there's more factors involved that what we typically look at or consider when perusing threads on the gun forums.

All this said, there's a couple brands out there I'd never buy, even though I've never bought them or shot them. But having had multiple positive experiences with some Taurus handguns, I wouldn't include them in that category.

 

[TTv2]

That's interesting, because just a few years back I had occasion to talk extensively with some SIG reps, who basically said totally the opposite.

One thing to consider is that some brands -- Taurus in particular -- are bought up in great numbers by the entry-level, first-time buyers. Those that have zero experience with firearms and haven't learned the operating systems nor how to maintain their firearms. I'd posit that it's entirely possible that certain brands of firearms get a bad rap almost solely because they're mostly bought by novice gun-owners.

I'm not defending Taurus, nor any other maker of "budget" firearms (Charter Arms, RIA, Henry, Kel-Tec, Hi-Point, SCCY, Diamondback, CANIK, SAR, Heritage, ALTOR, EAA Windicator, even Savage and Ruger). I'd submit that it's entirely possible a lot of these guns get dinged on the internet is because that's what people do now, complain on the internet if they can't figure their s*1t out.

Price point is a big factor in firearms sales. Realistically, first-time buyers are not gonna be going for higher-end firearms. And younger, or novice, buyers who don't know guns are more likely to not be able to troubleshoot routine issues and keep their guns running properly. Conversely, they'll be the first to go in and complain to the gunshop that sold them the gun, or vent on an internet forum.

I find it interesting that, for example, on this very forum, a lot of long-term members with presumably more'n a minute's worth of experience with guns, report positive experiences with some of the guns many of us snobs consider cheap or budget guns.

When you have been around long enough and make contacts at the factory level while keeping in close touch with the retailers at the lowest level, you can keep things into perspective a little better than if all your information comes from what you hear from the guy who sells guns down at your LGS or what you read on the internet gun forums by folks posting anonymously whose credibility is undetermined. One reason why I still trust SIG and Colt. Don't mean to discredit anyone's experiences but I think there's more factors involved that what we typically look at or consider when perusing threads on the gun forums.

All this said, there's a couple brands out there I'd never buy, even though I've never bought them or shot them. But having had multiple positive experiences with some Taurus handguns, I wouldn't include them in that category.

Reps are always going to talk up their current employer because they don't want people to start questioning the end product and potentially lose sales, which isn't something Sig should be worried about as they have their military contracts locked up good and tight, which means police contracts are sure to follow as the US continues to militarize it's peace officers into urban warfare soldiers.

I was thinking as I made that post about how it seems that the largest gun makers in the US (Ruger, S&W, Sig) seem to be the ones having the most issues currently, but the smaller companies like Kel Tec, Henry, and Hi Point aren't.

I can't speak to Sig or Colt quality right now, don't own any of their guns and have no interest in any of them and there's probably more to a lot of the Sig failures than what we're seeing on the surface, same as with Taurus. It does seem to me that the reason why people are quick to bash entry level brands is to justify the expense they paid for a higher tier brand like Colt or Sig or H&K or because they feel a sense of superiority owning a higher tier brand.

Perhaps this is just a case of styles clashing. I appreciate how well my Redhawk shoots, but I expect that from what was an $800 gun. When I find a $300 gun that shoots just as good I tend to like to celebrate that as proof that owning a quality firearm doesn't mean it requires paying a high premium to do so.

 

[dogtown tom]

Saying all guns made by one company are junk isn't meaningless, it's factually inaccurate, but apparently the firearms community is becoming "Woke" in that they would rather form an opinion based on feeling than fact

I was woke on Taurus before woke had its current meaning.
My opinion IS FACTUALLY BASED. I've said why in earlier posts in this thread.

and Taurus gets a lot of shade because in the past it has had prolonged periods of making stinkers, taking months at the factory to be serviced and sent back, only to find more issues and have to be sent back in a second time for several more months.

Is that your woke opinion or fact?

However, Tom has a point that we can't act like fanboys and ignore reports of problems because there inevitably will be some, but the flipside is also true in that we can't label all Taurus guns as junk because most will be fine.

Show me were I said all Taurus guns are junk.....I didn't. I wrote "I'm informed enough to know that Taurus by and large is junk".
Their Beretta 92 copies seem to be just fine. And relatively few of their revolvers seem to have issues.

But the problems with the Taurus polymer guns are well known. As is how Taurus addressed those problems.
Their repair program is a joke, they kept one of my customers guns for over a year "waiting on parts".....that never arrived. After numerous complaints by customer, they eventually they sent me a new PT82 for him.
Junk company.

Continue to throw $ at them and eventually you'll be woke.

 

[Terry G]

Counter point is that a lot of shooters are asking if the Sig P322 and FN502 "Are as good as the TX22?" . Just one gun, but I've heard the same about the Taurus G3 also. Taurus screwed the pooch big time with their mass production of polymer guns that WERE junk. I never bought any. Mine are pre-90's and nothing until the TX22 and G3. I think Taurus has got itself turned around. These Taurus conversations always get lively. Conversations about my first love, the CZ line, are boring. (Original TZ22 past 3000 rounds yesterday, G3 at only 800, but NO malfunctions.)

 

[AUhiker]

The ole saying you get what you pay for has our minds tricked thinking more expensive means better quality. Obviously sometimes that’s true but manufactures is well aware of this tactic and it’s part of marketing. I always argue with my wife a 2 dollar cotton t-shirt very likely has the same cotton as the 100 dollar designer clothes just simply because of the brand name. Now I’ll also argue a 10 dollar gas station knife is junk when compared to a benchmade, but hey it’ll still cut if you keep it sharp and do your part. Firearms are no different we automatically assume an 800 dollar gun is far superior to 200 dolllar gun. Maybe it is and maybe in someways it isn’t every manufacturer has ups and down.

 

[Buckeye63]

Marketing is expensive… and we pay for it when we purchase our handguns .. big names come at big prices .. and most of time .. it the name you are buying …
I look at PSA .. basically selling snap-tight Glock clones .. pick your slide , pick your frame ..$300
Why ..at that price.. you are buying straight from the manufacturer… no distributor no retailer…
little mark up .. BTW .. I really like my Daggers

 

[Styx]

I'd say Ruger puts out the most lemons and has the highest return return rate more so than Taurus. S&W, Sig, Beretta, other manufacturers aren't much better either. I'd say Glock and HK seem to be the least problematic.

Taurus manufacturers aprox 291k handguns in the U.S. and imports hundreds of thousands more. They're the 3rd largest importer of firearms into the U.S... All in all under the Taurus, Rossi, and Heritage brands, they manufacture approximately 1.5million handguns and rifles and have almost $700 million in revenue annually. They sell a lot of guns, and I do not believe that the number they sell vs the number of lemon they produce is significant at all contrary to what the Taurus haters claim. Even if they sold a billion firearms and 10 people posted about lemons on the internet, everyone would grab their torches and pitchforks to go after Taurus and those 10 stories would be repeated over and over again across the inet for eternity. It's conformation bias on their part. They already have their minds made up, so they're incapable of being objective.

I see Glock, S&W, and especially Ruger and Sig issues being posted online all the time. The general response is other forum members helping troubleshoot what the issue could be or the gun simply gets sent in for repair, and that specific complaint and problems dies within that thread. Let someone post any issue about Taurus, and everyone will flock to bash the entire community, will regurgitate issues they had 40 years ago as if it just happened yesterday, and the issue one person had will live on forever and be brought up ad nauseam. There's a clear double standard.

Taurus of today is a day and night difference from their past, and IMHO, they generally make affordable and reliable firearms. Their only problem is lack of spare parts and turn around time for warranty work, but I've heard that they've gotten better and started to improve with the latter.

 

[Styx]

I picked mine up last week and was excited to try my first Taurus polymer 9mm since they have a $50 rebate available for them and now it makes sense why they're offering such a generous rebate: the trigger has resetting issues and apparently these are widespread throughout the model.

The issue is when any leftward force is applied to the trigger while it is depressed and the slide is cycling the trigger will not reset. This is an issue only when dry firing the trigger with the right hand, every time I dry fire left handed and reset the trigger it works fine.

This is a design flaw that I just found out about and it seems multiple trips back to the factory are required before its corrected.

This is really disappointing because I liked everything about the GX4, the texturing is great, the trigger pull is great, the weight and feel of it is great, but if it can't function it's no good. The two Taurus' that I've bought new the past few years have been absolutely fine, but the GX4 has problems and should be avoided until further notice.

Reading up on the trigger issue, it seems that Taurus has addressed it already. I'd suggest sending it in, and then keep us posted on what your firsthand experience is like with Taurus CS and warranty service.

This is a 2018 post of my experience with new my Ruger, Smith, and Walther. It happens...

This is kind of a venting thread. I owned pistols from several manufactures including 6 Taurus firearms within the last few years starting with the PT111 G2. I now only one 3. but all but the Model 85 is a safe queen. Six out of six have been flawless. Nothing broke and zero malfunctions.

With that said, my wife is interested in getting her CCP and a pistol of her own. She owned a Taurus Slim in the past, but with me being influenced by Taurus bashing, I stirred her towards the Ruger LC9s Pro after she tried one at the range. I ordered myself a Walther PPS M2 LE. Well we had our first range trip with both guns and my relatively new Shield 45 Performance Center. The dots on the Walther's luminescent sights fells out with the first mag. The mag release on her LC9 became very difficult to push, it started to get light strikes, and then later the trigger gave out completely. Pull the trigger and absolutely nothing happens. No sound, no nothin'.To top it all off, when I got home and went to clean the Shield, the captured recoil spring came apart...

In all the years that I've owned firearms, I've never had a problem and never had to use warranty services. If I had to do it all over again, I'd just kept my mouth shut, ignored the naysayers and snobs, and just purchase Taurus Slim like she was wanted in the first place.

I bought this up last year. It's about my Ruger LCR which unknown to me was also a lemon since I had it. It had an issue with the trigger that I thought was normal because I've seen one or two others that had a similar experience that I did. It wasn't until last year when I posted about it on THR that I realized it wasn't normal. Two out of the three Rugers I own had to be shipped back. I own over 100 firearms including 3 Tauruses, and Rugers are the only guns that ever needed to be shipped in for repair. Most people have experience with Ruger customer service for a reason, yet they get a pass while Taurus will be demonized for any and everything.

The main issue is the trigger. I too short stroke the trigger when I am rapid firing. I have used snapcaps, and I can not rapidly pull the trigger on a consistent basis without short stroking the trigger. If and when the trigger is short stroked, the trigger is dead and will no longer index the cylinder.

 

[kje54]

 

[CNobbe]

I was woke on Taurus before woke had its current meaning.
My opinion IS FACTUALLY BASED. I've said why in earlier posts in this thread.

But the problems with the Taurus polymer guns are well known. As is how Taurus addressed those problems.
Their repair program is a joke, they kept one of my customers guns for over a year "waiting on parts".....that never arrived. After numerous complaints by customer, they eventually they sent me a new PT82 for him.
Junk company.

I asked a gun shop owner today who's also a gunsmith. He owns three stores, one w/ range, and sells 10k + firearms a year. Of all of them I asked which brand(s) are the most often returned for repair and the answer was: 1. Kel-Tec 2. Ruger 3. SCCY FWIW, they do not carry Hi Point, but according to him, not many Taurus products arrive defective or come in needing to be returned anymore and they sell a fair share of them.

 

[JB111]

Reading up on the trigger issue, it seems that Taurus has addressed it already. I'd suggest sending it in, and then keep us posted on what your firsthand experience is like with Taurus CS and warranty service.

I bought this up last year. It's about my Ruger LCR which unknown to me was also a lemon since I had it. It had an issue with the trigger that I thought was normal because I've seen one or two others that had a similar experience that I did. It wasn't until last year when I posted about it on THR that I realized it wasn't normal. Two out of the three Rugers I own had to be shipped back. I own over 100 firearms including 3 Tauruses, and Rugers are the only guns that ever needed to be shipped in for repair. Most people have experience with Ruger customer service for a reason, yet they get a pass while Taurus will be demonized for any and everything.

I tend to base my opinions of a company using my own experiences as a foundation. I do look at non paid user reviews on forums and reddit, but that's about the extent of my research, everything else is learned from trial.and error from buying and dealing with a company first hand. I've never really been one to bash on a brand unless it was for good reason. I don't really have anything against buying Taurus. The G2C I have has several thousand rounds through it, and I trust it as as my CCW on occasion and the TX22 I purchased last year has blown me away with its reliability and accuracy. I will continue to buy their products if they launch something that appeals to me. However, I also acknowledge their shortcomings. Their qc is not great and their customer service/warranty service is a joke, and I base that opinion on my own experience and what I have seen with my own eyes.

I will agree that Ruger puts out a lot of flawed, defective product as well. Of the last 4 Ruger products I purchased, 2 had to go back for work. The difference is their customer service and warranty work. That's why they get a pass from most people. I have experience with their customer service, and found it to be great. I never was asked to pay a dime and never had to send something in a second time. I will also continue to buy Ruger, when they launch something I want.

 

[dogtown tom]

I asked a gun shop owner today who's also a gunsmith. He owns three stores, one w/ range, and sells 10k + firearms a year. Of all of them I asked which brand(s) are the most often returned for repair and the answer was: 1. Kel-Tec 2. Ruger 3. SCCY

I don't doubt that is true. But there are reasons WHY various brands would be in that top three list, first and foremost is volume of sales. Ruger accounts for 20% of all firearms manufactured in the US. KelTec & SCCY ain't anywhere close to that.....about 2% each. So if he's seeing Rugers returned for repair that doesn't necessarily say anything bad about Ruger, but should be expected because they make 10-12 times as many firearms each year.

 

[Styx]

I tend to base my opinions of a company using my own experiences as a foundation. I do look at non paid user reviews on forums and reddit, but that's about the extent of my research, everything else is learned from trial.and error from buying and dealing with a company first hand. I've never really been one to bash on a brand unless it was for good reason. I don't really have anything against buying Taurus. The G2C I have has several thousand rounds through it, and I trust it as as my CCW on occasion and the TX22 I purchased last year has blown me away with its reliability and accuracy. I will continue to buy their products if they launch something that appeals to me. However, I also acknowledge their shortcomings. Their qc is not great and their customer service/warranty service is a joke, and I base that opinion on my own experience and what I have seen with my own eyes.

I will agree that Ruger puts out a lot of flawed, defective product as well. Of the last 4 Ruger products I purchased, 2 had to go back for work. The difference is their customer service and warranty work. That's why they get a pass from most people. I have experience with their customer service, and found it to be great. I never was asked to pay a dime and never had to send something in a second time. I will also continue to buy Ruger, when they launch something I want.

I agree 100%. I'm not really into Taurus firearms other than their steel frame revolvers. I have I owned a total of 7 Taurus handguns throughout the years, and I still own two revolvers and two handguns. I don't shoot the handguns anymore and probably should sell them off. That said, I never had an issue with any of them. Taurus had some teething issues with the Gx4 and TX22, but honestly, that's no different than Springfield with their XDs, S&W with the Shield, Walther with the PPS M2, Ruger with the Ruger American and SR22, Kimber with the K6s, Sig with the P320 & P365, so on and so forth which all had safety recalls and other issues.

Taurus's real problem is their CS, warranty service, and the fact that they will not sell spare parts which makes them a no go for me with the exception of their revolvers.

Ruger has paid both ways and gotten my gun back to me within 3 weeks. Good CS, but the LC9s Pro that I sent in practically new came back with the blued finish scuffed up. It's been the the same box it shipped back in for over 3 years now, and because of all the scuffs and scratches, I'll have to take a lose on a gun that should sell Used LNIB when I get around to selling it... I agree with you though. I'd still buy a Ruger over a Taurus just because I feel like Ruger stands behind their guns more. All things being equal with CS and the warranty, I trust Taurus more.

 

[Dan-O]

I can get mine to malfunction 9 of 10 times now that I know how to do it. I can assure you, it’s impossible for me to get the same malfunction under live fire.

 

[TTv2]

I don't doubt that is true. But there are reasons WHY various brands would be in that top three list, first and foremost is volume of sales. Ruger accounts for 20% of all firearms manufactured in the US. KelTec & SCCY ain't anywhere close to that.....about 2% each. So if he's seeing Rugers returned for repair that doesn't necessarily say anything bad about Ruger, but should be expected because they make 10-12 times as many firearms each year.

Another reason Kel Tecs and SCCYs may be getting sent back is becuase they're cheap they sell a lot. That goes under the volume factor, but also the inexperienced buyer as well.

 

[JohnKSa]

https://shootingindustry.com/discover/firearms-report-2022/

They don't really sell as much as one might think.

https://shootingindustry.com/discover/firearms-report-2022/

KelTec accounts for about 1.24% of the domestically manufactured handguns sold in the U.S.
SCCY accounts for about 2.87% of the domestically manufactured handguns sold in the U.S.
Ruger accounts for about 16.13% of domestically manufactured handguns sold in the U.S.

Those numbers suggest that one would expect that Ruger would account for about 13 times more handgun returns than KelTec and about 5.6 times more handgun returns than SCCY if we assumed that all three companies had equally good QC.

KelTec and SCCY each account for about 1.94% of the domestically manufactured firearms sold in the U.S.
Ruger accounts for about 17.35% of domestically manufactured firearms sold in the U.S.

So we would expect to see that overall, Ruger firearm returns would be almost 9x higher than either SCCY or KelTec if all three companies were equal in terms of QC.

The fact that Ruger is actually lower in returns (based on CNobbe's LGS returns--and assuming that those figures are reasonably representative of the country overall) than KelTec does not speak well at all of KelTec's QC. It would be interesting to know just how many more returns Ruger is seeing than SCCY--but if it's even close to the same, that would reflect pretty badly on SCCY.

Now, here's a telling statistic. S&W actually outsells Ruger significantly, they account for about 28.3% of domestically manufactured handguns and 24.3% of domestically manufactured firearms. If we assume that CNobbe's LGS sales/returns are fairly representative of the country as a whole, the fact that Ruger made the top 3 in returns and S&W didn't means that S&W is definitely doing significantly better than Ruger in QC. Significantly more guns sold and yet significantly fewer returns...

Those figures don't include imported firearms. Couldn't find that information in my brief search.

 

[Styx]

I tend to go based off of social media, YT videos, accounts from reputable firearm forums members, firearm online publications, and the manufacturers admitted recall and reported issues rather than anecdotal first or second hand reports from one gun shop from however many years ago.

There typically has been 53,000 to 56,000 licensed FFLs in the U.S. What's standard practice as far as I always knew for the overwhelming majority of gun shops is that once a firearm is sold, the owner must go through the manufacturer to resolve any issues, and the shop does not accept returns. Most manufacturers will issue a prepaid label for the owner to ship the gun back to them, and then they typically ship the firearm back to the owner's home bypassing the FFL in the entire process. When I shipped my Rugers back, that's exactly what happened.

The issues I had with my Walther and S&W Shield were fixed by me without shipping the firearm back because they sent me the replacement parts, and I did the work myself. I believe the same thing happens with Glocks and other popular pistols and even rifles like the AR15 vs other rifles. A Glock owner is more likely to simply buy the replacement parts to fix any issues rather than to ship their gun back to Glock; whereas, a company like Taurus, Kel Tec, SCCY, and the like doesn't have a lot of spare parts that can be purchased, a lot of fellow owners who know how to instantly diagnosis any issues, or information on how to DIY fix any issues from dozens of sources. Then there's the fact that Taurus, Springfield Arms, and some other manufacturers will require you to send the entire gun in even if it's only to replace a simple part that you could very well do yourself, and other manufacturers will simply send the parts for you to DIY.

For all the aforementioned reasons, I don't give much weight to any isolated anecdotal gun shop returns claims when it comes to which manufacturer has the most QC issues. All I do know is based on my personal experience from 2 Rugers that were practically new and what I've seen from hundreds of people via the inet over the years, more people have experience dealing with Ruger’s "warranty" services than with Glock, HK, S&W, Sig, modern-day Taurus, so on and so forth. Ruger does a better job than others when it comes to quickly making their customers whole and happy again, so they typically get a pass and people turn a blind eye to their QC issues. They do have three manufacturing plants around the country, so it maybe an issue with one of their facilities and not the others. IDK...

 

[dogtown tom]

I tend to go based off of social media, YT videos, accounts from reputable firearm forums members, firearm online publications, and the manufacturers admitted recall and reported issues rather than anecdotal first or second hand reports from one gun shop from however many years ago.

There typically has been 53,000 to 56,000 licensed FFLs in the U.S. What's standard practice as far as I always knew for the overwhelming majority of gun shops is that once a firearm is sold, the owner must go through the manufacturer to resolve any issues, and the shop does not accept returns. Most manufacturers will issue a prepaid label for the owner to ship the gun back to them, and then they typically ship the firearm back to the owner's home bypassing the FFL in the entire process. When I shipped my Rugers back, that's exactly what happened.

Thirty years ago, the manufacturer would reimburse a LGS or gunsmith for repairing a firearm. In ths age of litigation and with a dearth of real gunsmiths, the manufacturers no longer want that.

..... whereas, a company like Taurus, Kel Tec, SCCY, and the like doesn't have a lot of spare parts that can be purchased,

Some, for liability reasons, don't want the end user performing their own repairs. Imported guns mean imported spare parts and that would apply to Taurus, not domestic manufacturers like KT and Sccy.

Anyone remember the gun store/importer in Oklahoma City and his dumpster o' shotguns? https://apnews.com/article/oklahoma-city-business-20eb26aaa1de682dd61b0fbb0b0ff02b
It was cheaper to give the customer a new one than fix the defective one.

 

[Lennyjoe]

TX22, 2 each G2C’s, 627, 2 each 85’s, PT100, PT140 all without any issues.

I must be one of the lucky ones.

 

[Dan-O]

TX22, 2 each G2C’s, 627, 2 each 85’s, PT100, PT140 all without any issues.

I must be one of the lucky ones.

I’ve been doing some spring cleaning and stumbled across my 617. It’s built better than the last three smitty’s I’ve purchased.

Need to get this guy slicked up and looking for a prom date.