How can Taurus do this but not Smith or Ruger?

[chaim]

6 shots v. 5? The 5 shot snubs are thinner and better for pocket carry. For belt carry though, I'd much rather have a 6 shot revolver (my 3" S&W 65LS is for that role). I'd rather Taurus put out their 82, 65 and 66 revolvers with a 3" barrel. The heavier medium frame is easier to control for accurate follow-up shots, the 3" barrel is just about the perfect handling revolver and the size is great for CCW. If I did want the extra capacity in a smaller revolver I'd get their 817 (.38spl) or 617 (.357mag) with 7 shots in a 2" barrel revolver sized between the J-frame and K-frame instead of a 6 shot smaller framed revolver reminiscent of the old Colt DS (there is a reason I've never bought a used Colt DS).

 

[KyJim]

The 6-shot Detective Special is only 1/10th inch thicker than a J-frame.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=360911

 

[Bullet Bob]

Cancelled post - remembered my first rule of internet reasoning. Sorry.

 

[Huddog]

I agree with CA2005.

 

[Rexster]

A gunsmith of my acquaintance recommends against anything by Taurus, and he will no longer work on them, though he did at one time. The issue was light strikes, which do not ignite primers reliably. When I carry my Ruger snubbies, I do not feel naked and unarmed because there are only five shots in the cylinder. So, I, for one, don't care why others choose not to emulate Taurus. Taurus is simply irrelevant, to me. If I want a six-shot .357, I have my Speed Six, which for all practical purposes, rides just as comfortably, and conceals just as well, as an SP101 snubby, for any role except pocket carry.

 

[Okiecruffler]

I love the fact that everytime a Taurus thread pops up immediately people line up to make Taurus owners out to be the unwashed ignorant masses. I bet my life on my PT745 day in and day out. But I only have 7,000 rds thru it so far, when it breaks down I'm sure I'll start bashing with the rest of the experts out there. My wife is also one of the unlearned who carries a Taurus, her's a 650. I know she ain't too bright because she can't count. She swears she's run 9500rds of 357 thru her's and that can't possibly be right since they fall apart after the first 3 shots. I wonder what she's doing with all of those reloads I keep making up for her. Probably trading them for majic beans.
As far as S&W goes, the last one I looked at had more tooling marks than a freshmen's shop project. But being so unlearned, those were probably just engravings that I wasn't upscale enough to appreciate. If they ever get back to charging for quality instead of just because they are the great S&W I'll look at them again.

As far as a 6shot snubby, kinda neat idea, but not much market. For folks worried about capacity there are lot's of autos out there that would be as easy if not easier to carry. The reliability issue of autos doesn't carry as much weight now as it did a few years ago.

 

[Prince Yamato]

The reason you hear so much Taurus bashing is that revolver forums have many older shooters in them because (surprise) many older shooters had more exposure to revolvers. Many older people also still believe that nothing from a foreign country can beat what we make/made here in the USA. Yet, ironically, these same people who bash Taurus and then laud American products, are the first to bitch about S&Ws built in safety and the billboard on the side of all Rugers. I have a Taurus 605 .357 mag snub nose that I purchased new over a used S&W .38 special snub nose. It wasn't hard to justify a new gun that shot more powerful rounds, had a lifetime warranty, and cost exactly the same as the used gun.

 

[papajohn]

I've owned two Taurii, one was fine, the other was junk. Bad Quality Control is one thing, bad Customer Service only makes it worse. I TRIED to get the second Taurus fixed, CS wanted nothing to do with it. It was two feet low and left at 15 yards, and they called it an ammo problem, and refused to fix it.

Now Rossis, on the other hand, are apparently a different story. I've heard a few horror stories, but every one I've seen has been solid and dependable. The 44 Special I recently picked uo is already a favorite.

I know Taurus has made some good guns...........but when there's THIS much negative response, there has to be a reason. I was skeptical, until I actually hads to deal with them. Now I avoid Taurus like the plague. Once bitten, twice shy, I guess.

PJ

 

[RX-178]

There's a blued Taurus .38spl 4" revolver in the house in El Paso. My father has owned it since the 70's, I started practicing on it since I was a kid, and it eventually became the first firearm I carried after getting my CCW permit.

There's no way to tell how many rounds have been put through that weapon. I'm not even sure it was new when my father first purchased it.

It's never had a problem that even required a gunsmith's service, let alone a trip to Taurus USA.

Even with a USP Tactical at my disposal now, I wouldn't feel any less safe if I reached for a weapon and grabbed the Taurus instead.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The reason you hear so much Taurus bashing is that revolver forums have many older shooters in them because (surprise) many older shooters had more exposure to revolvers.

The reason you hear so much Taurus bashing is that revolver forums have many older shooters in them because (surprise) many older shooters had more exposure to revolvers and know what quality is in a revolver.

 

[MCgunner]

A gunsmith of my acquaintance recommends against anything by Taurus, and he will no longer work on them, though he did at one time. The issue was light strikes, which do not ignite primers reliably. When I carry my Ruger snubbies, I do not feel naked and unarmed because there are only five shots in the cylinder. So, I, for one, don't care why others choose not to emulate Taurus. Taurus is simply irrelevant, to me. If I want a six-shot .357, I have my Speed Six, which for all practical purposes, rides just as comfortably, and conceals just as well, as an SP101 snubby, for any role except pocket carry.

Well, I have a SP101 and find my self carrying my 3" M66 Taurus more often. It's more accurate, quicker to acquire sights, 6 shots, and about as easy to carry cause it's not, but a few ounces heavier.

I sold my Security Six, a 4" Taurus M66 took its place. FAR more accurate, handles recoil of heavy loads better (that Security Six had too much muzzle flip), and is tighter. The M66 is sweet, very accurate and easy to shoot.

To each his own, but I'm one old revolver shooter that don't drink the Smith and Wesson/Ruger Koolaid, though I have one Smith and EIGHT Rugers now. I do own more Rugers than any other brand, but my three Taurus revolvers, a M85SSUL, a 3" M66, and a 4" M66, get more carry. They just plain work for me and have been for a while now. The only TRUE POS revolver I ever owned was an RG .22. Didn't care for a Charter undercover too much, either. I own a couple of Rossis, though, and have owned 5 others and they're pretty decent guns that ain't Ruger or Smith.

Anyone on this board is welcome to make a comparison range trip with me and we'll do some competitive shooting if ya want. Of course, that ain't the gun, but I think you'd be impressed with my 4" M66 as medium frame .357s go. I love the thing. When I found that thing, my medium frame .357 search was over. Sold the 19 K frame, traded the Security Six for a Blackhawk. The M19 was a good gun, but the Taurus is just as good and a smidge more accurate. The Security Six? Well, it was a well designed and built gun, had its good points, but accuracy with .38s was less than great and what with the recoil with heavy loads, I really don't miss it.

 

[Majic]

If the sales of the Taurus revolver takes off like a wildfire you can bet money S&W will develop one also. Remember Taurus came out with the 7 and 8 shooters and the use of the exotic alloys for the revolver market. Smith followed suit when they saw there was a market. Ruger may lag behind as they still believe in pure utility firearms.

 

[MCgunner]

With the intro of the LCP, I think Ruger is breaking out of their shell a little bit. I mean, I love the strength of their guns, but they don't have much for practical concealed carry. Like I say, I'd as soon carry a K frame as an SP101 and I have one. Now, they come out with the SR9 and the LCP. Looks like they're trying for other markets at long last. Might have something to do with ol' Bill passing on, don't know. I'm not sure about Ruger ever going titanium or any other metal if they can't investment cast it.

 

[SAG0282]

A Taurus could double the Smith's capacity and I'd still take the S&W.

 

[akodo]

Taurus makes some 5 shot 38 special snubnoses and some 'small' 6 shot 38 special/357 snubnoses. If you compare the two, the 6 shot models are bigger than a J frame while the 5 shot models are the same size as a J frame.

Note however that the 6 shot snubs from taurus are smaller than a K frame from Smith and Wesson. I think that Smith figures they have enough size variation, someone who wants the smallest revolver will pick J, someeone who wants a bit bigger will have no problem going up to a K

Majic is mostly right. It was Taurus who had the idea of taking a large frame normally used for a 6 shot 44 mag (and in the old days 6 shot 357) and squeeze 7 shots in it. Smith and Wesson then reacted by saying 'even with 1 more round the big frame is still too big' and instead switched their regular 357 frame, the L, to handle 7 shots. Taurus responded to this by going to 8 capacity 357s using large frames. Then taurus switched all it's 6 shot medium frames to 7 shot, and Smith, who made very few large frame 357s, mostly just performance center models, switched it's large frame 357s to 8 shot.

The same technology that allowed going from 6 to 7 (better steel, relocating cylinder stop) wasn't able to take a 5 shot J frame sized cylinder to a 6 shot cylinder, that is why Taurus made a new framesize for that, calling it the compact, They basically looked at their current medium frame 7 shot and worked backwards to get it a little smaller.

now, Taurus is bragging about their new 6 shot small revolver the 856 saying it is "essentially a model 85 in a six-shot version" They did this the same as their other 'compact' frame, took a model 85 cylinder and expanded it just barely enough to get 6 chambers in there. Note, however the use of the word ESSENTIALLY, which means it isn't really as small as a model 85. Also note, Taurus is grouping this new frame with the 'Compact' frames, not the 'small' frames. It seems like they may be having two different classes of "compact" frames now.

Anyways, I wonder if it will be able to handle 357 mags. I wonder if they will introduce a 7 shot 327 or 32 H&R magnum on the same frame.

What would be interesting is going the other way, make a 5 shot 327 or 32 H&R magnum cylinder to have the smallest of the small revolvers, well without totally going NAA minirevolver

Here's my final quesiton, why has Ruger never switched the location of it's cylinder stops on it's GP100 to make a 7 shot version of their medium frame 357/38special revolver? GP107, GP700, whatever, where are you?

 

[weregunner]

So what's the argument?

If anyone's been keeping track of things theywould notice that professionals,even the .45ACP pistol advocates, a lot of them,carry a snub gun of some kind either as a back up or when weather dictates full size guns are going to be a problem.

I have many of the old police and tactical journals, as well as old gun magazines from over the last few decades.
This includes past and present versions of the Gun Digest Book of Combat Handgunnery. SwAT magazine, and Special Weapons and Tactics magazine.

Many of the writers are now retired or have passed on.

One of the eye openers is that when large conferences and gun training were attended by these people everyone compared notes including what they were carrying on themselves as armament.

It was not unusual for the majority of these folks to be carrying a snub. 5 or 6 shot. Some attendees had two such revolvers on their person.

For those who like the 5 shot snubbies, no problem. Bully for you who have those. Doesn't mean you are underarmed. Do have a 5 shot Taurus 85CH. Never feel undergunned. Not in this area anyway.

Those who own a 6 shot ( have a recently aquired Rossi 462) are as well protected. They just have a 1 extra round. There are a few documented fights where 1 extra round would be needed, but carrying extra ammo is or should be the norm. So for the most part that's a moot point.

By the way, the 462 is still measureably smaller than my model Taurus 65 that's 3" barreled revolver. Not by much,but enough to be easier to hide.

6 shot snubbies are more for belt carry than for pocket carry. Either 5 or 6 shot snubs can be carried IWB or in any number of other ways.

Since the difference is more of what one needs and the differences are minimal at best why argue 5 versus 6 shots?

Individual owners are going to make up their individual minds as to what works best for them. That's above and beyond any claimed superiority by either side.

So use what works best for you. 5 or 6 shot, it doesn't matter a whole lot.

There are plenty of 7 shot revolvers that others carry, but they are not saying that the 7 shots are superior to the supposed lowly 5 and 6 shooters. Just that they chose to bear the burden of carrying discreetly the extra bulk and weight. Gives them peace of mind and they have the equivalent of what many single stack pistols carry round wise.

No harm,no foul.

All Taurus is doing is updating and filling a niche that the other gun companies have decided to leave open.

In many of the gun mags,tactical, and police journals down through the decades there have been plenty of articles on decrying the fact that no 6 shooter snubbies existed, or very few did. In the articles it was apparent there was a market for these. Even Ed Lovette's book on the snubby says that. Paladin Press in case anyone's interested.

I actually have 3 older Taurus revolvers either in .357 magnum or .38 Special that are older than 20 years old and still going strong.

If need be I can bring MANY links from other sources just on that very subject of longevity and endurance of 10 year or older Taurus revolvers.
There are members here who claim the same and are satisfied customers.

People vote with their wallets. If the company makes garbage they will soon be out of business. Got links galore on that too if need be.

Just purchased a Taurus 82,66,and the Rossi 462 in the last few days.

All are in good order and work fine.
So if a manufacturer wants to fill a needed niche and the people vote with their pocket books where's the problem?

Don't see one.

Most snubbie .357 magnum revolvers have problems with a steady diet full house hot 125gr. loads. There are many standard .357 maggie revolvers that have that same trouble.

Ruger SP101 and the S&W L frames are the exception to that. If you can find a shorty S&W in that guise good for you.

For a lot of us light magnum or .38 Specials are going to be the carry load of choice. No problem there. Light magnum, the +P, or +P+ .38 Special loads have gotten the job done for decades and even now.

So have confidence in what you choose to carry. There's good reason to feel that way.