Old S&W vs New Taurus / Rossi

[zxcvbob]

I've had enough problems with my Taurus revolver (both the fit and materials), and with my attempt to get a RA# from their Customer Service for repairs, that I warn people to stay far away from them.

Some people manage to get a good Taurus handgun and never have problems with it. I am happy for them. But I wouldn't take my chances on another one unless the price was *really* cheap and I wanted something to tinker with more than to shoot.

 

[fireside44]

IMO if you pass up a Model 19 in favor of a new Taurus or Rossi you will be making a very big mistake.

Opinion.

There is just no comparison to a hand-fitted S&W and a Taurus.

Opinion.

Grab the 19 and forget about the Brazilian junk.

Name calling and opinion.

My 19-3 is one of the most elegant revolvers I've ever handled. Taurus makes a decent revolver, but they are downright pedestrian compared to the Smith.

No one was asking whether they were "elegant" or not.

If a new Taurus or Rossi breaks or is defective and needs to go back, you won't have it back for a long, long time. I know someone who could write a very angry book about their customer "support."

Let me guess, a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend who read it on the web?

I cannot imagine ever passing on an older Smith, which is argueably the gold standard of revolvers, for anything new.

And yet daily we hear complaints about MIM parts, lack of pinned barrels, and the death of recessed cylinders, all coming from die hard S&W fans. A gold standard no more?

I'm not into the nuances, I'm into results on paper.

Better answer from McGunner, based on performance rather than speculation.

I think you WILL regret not going for the old S&W no matter what the model.

Opinion.

All my revolvers are S&W's and I have 27 of them.

And this is related to the discussion how?

most any old S&W is better than the others mentioned, I go thru 1000's of used guns a year, we jut dont see S&W that dont still work, even beat to crap

A crap S&W is better than a Taurus or Rossi?

Sounds like an opinion.

The only Taurus revolver I owned (model 94, .22 LR) was absolute trash.

So what do you say to the guy who bought one S&W and it was trash? You are drawing from very limited experience by your own admission.

I've owned and shot Taurus, S&W, and Rossi revolvers for decades, and I'll say this: overall, the Brazilian guns I've had are all fine, but dollar-for-dollar, I think the older S&W's are better.

At least your opinion was somewhat balanced by experience.

I am almost set to purchase a new Rossi 357 mag, but just cant bring myself to do it. I may end up buying the Ruger anyway, the extra 150 dollars is going to hurt though.

And look at the kind of result all these uninformed opinions bring. A guy is afraid to buy a gun from a company that for the most part, has a decent track record quite possibly on account of all smack talk a few opinionated forum members have.

A used, mechanically sound S&W model 19 trumps a NIB Taurus/Rossi
every day of the week and twice on Sunday

Actually, a used, mechanically sound NIB Taurus or Rossi would give every bit as good as service as the S&W. Mechanically sound is mechanically sound. Simply having "S&W" on the side doesn't mean it's greater in any way except for the price, more than likely.

A friend bought a new one recently and I believe it was after the third round it bound up. That's a good revolver for the money?

I don't know, why don't you ask your "friend"?

Facts and truth gentlemen, facts and truth. Lets go there, shall we.

Weregunner, I want to personally thank you for taking the time to lay the endless opinions to rest. Facts are that a good gun is a good gun. Good job dude.

 

[Racinbob]

Fireside44, I was going to pass on all this crap until I saw your post. You stated that I should ask my friend about "a good revlover for the money". No problem. He was pursuaded by another employee of his that a Taurus was great. Want to ask him now? I did. I don't have the time...make that desire to spent all night typing my response with my two fingers. He won't buy another Taurus needless to say.

 

[MCgunner]

I've actually got 3 great taurus revolvers. I have one Smith left, my M10. I had a 1917 that was a clapped out old POS. I did have a smith work it over, make it shootable. He told me to take it easy with the loads. The thing wouldn't shoot cast lead worth a toot. I sold it. I sorta regret that as it was an old war horse and I didn't get much for it. But, I won't shoot something that won't shoot cast lead and these particular revolvers had some rather shallow rifling in 'em, were designed for FMJ ball of course.

Thing is, there are so many Smith koolaid drinkers out there that the price has skyrocketed around here. I went to the gun shows for a while looking for a 2.5 or 3" 13, 19, 65, or 66. Hell, I coulda bought a new Smith. I never found a 3". God knows I could never have afforded it, anyway, even if it was clapped out. I found a 3" 66 Taurus for 180 bucks! It's one of my carries. Hell, I shot a hog with it just the other day. It's 1.5" at 25 yards accurate off the bench, perfectly timed, very little play, even though it obviously has had a tough life. When I got it, the "checkering" on the Pachmayr on it was worn flat on the back side from all the rounds fired. It does winter duty in a Hume JIT slide. 3" medium frame guns are awesome. If I ever get another SP101, it'll have a 3" tube. It's no pocket gun, anyway. But, I'm iin no hurry to get one. The Taurus fills the niche quite well, thank you very much.

I bought my 85UL new in 1996. It's been doing pocket back up duties, but summer, it's a primary. That little gun has the slickest DA trigger I've ever felt on an out of the box DA revolver and it's very acccurate, too, within a 2" barrel's limits. It'll group 3-3.5" at 25 yards from the bench. That's about as good as any 2" gun does for me.

You're free to spend your money as you see fit. I like the bargains that I can find iin a used Taurus, though, and the new ones, well, I don't care much for new Smiths for what they cost. I personally thank all you Taurus hating fanatics for running the price down on Taurus revolvers. Gave me some great deals and hopefully will continue to in the future. Yep, trade in your trash old Taurus. Hopefully it'll be something I've been wanting, like a .41 mag tracker.

 

[19-3Ben]

Fireside-

My 19-3 is one of the most elegant revolvers I've ever handled. Taurus makes a decent revolver, but they are downright pedestrian compared to the Smith.

No one was asking whether they were "elegant" or not.

No. But when making a comparison to decide which one to buy it is relevant. When you have a good quality but relatively 'ordinary' revolver, compared to a truly elegant masterpiece at the same price you can make a direct qualitative comparison.

And I never said that Taurus is bad at all. They are good. Just not up to the level of the old S&W's.

And yet daily we hear complaints about MIM parts, lack of pinned barrels, and the death of recessed cylinders, all coming from die hard S&W fans. A gold standard no more?

That's why people are talking about the old ones. Before the days of MIM and no P&R, etc... New S&Ws are irrelevant to this conversation.

As for sticking to facts vs. opinions...Let me quote the OP:

Thanks for the opinions!!

He wanted opinions, so people gave. You don't like people's opinions and that's fine. But it's the OP's thread. Not yours. When it's your thread ask for facts and not opinions.

 

[content]

Hello friends and neighbors // Yep I was there briefly, the 1983 6" S&W 586 6 round or the new 6" Taurus 8 round, both .357/.38 blued, about the same price.

I got the 586 and never looked back.

 

[Guillermo]

these Taurus lovers are very sensitive.

It is really kind of funny to watch

 

[ljnowell]

And look at the kind of result all these uninformed opinions bring. A guy is afraid to buy a gun from a company that for the most part, has a decent track record quite possibly on account of all smack talk a few opinionated forum members have.

Yeah, thats part of it. Then I went over to that taurusarmed.net site that was posted and read some in the complaints forum. Oh my. It was ugly. I dont want any part of it. I am not a rich man, by anyones standards. That makes every dollar I spend on a gun more critical. I dont want a 400 dollar paperweight. I will cough up the xtra scratch and get a ruger I think. I just think the ruger is ugly.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

fireside44,
Was you post really necessary? You spent a ton of time picking out everything you didn't like in the whole thread and quoted it. For the most part this thread was civil but your post seemed to me to bring this thread down. BTW, your first quote was from me and then you said "opinion", funny thing is I said it was IMO when I made the post so why bother? I gave my opinion because the OP asked for opinions. No reason to knock what others say just because you don't agree with them.

The only post you seemed to like was those made by "Weregunner." I saw all the links to the Taurus forum and what does that prove? I'm guessing those who post on the Taurus forum like Taurus handguns. I could post just as many links form the S&W forum which would support buying a S&W revolver but then again, what would be the point?

 

[evan price]

Fireside- I said "There is just no comparison to a hand-fitted S&W and a Taurus."

Sure it's my opinion. I freely admit that. I own a Taurus 605 in .357. It's a nice gun for what it does. IT works fine, it shoots well. I can't complain about it.

If the choice of the OP were between a NEW Taurus/Rossi VS a NEW S&W, well, imho, I can't stand modern Smiths and their locks and crummy finishes. S&W has lost something in their products, I can't really quantify it...soul, perhaps. But again, that's opinion.
If the choice were a NEW Taurus/Rossi VS a New Smith, I'd take the Taurus.

Since the OP is considering a vintage S&W and not a new one, I stand behind my original opinion.


McGunner- I have no problem with used Taurus pistols. I bought my 605 used. A bargain is a bargain!

Oh, and Weregunner, seriously, do we need a dissertation? Nobody was talking about PT92s, or Taurus 1911s, or anything else.

 

[ljnowell]

If the choice were a NEW Taurus/Rossi VS a New Smith, I'd take the Taurus.

You honestly think that the new S&Ws arent as good as the new Tauruii? I dont mean this sarcastically, but I was pondering paying the coin for the smith, and now I am seeing something like this.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I don't think it's because they think the Taurus guns are better it's just some buyers refuse to buy a new Smith because they refuse to remove the lock.

 

[evan price]

The only reason I would buy a NEW Taurus/Rossi versus a NEW Smith & Wesson is as I said above- their products aren't made with the same level of attention that they once were. Holding one in your hand and comparing to an older model, they just aren't the same. The quality of the finishes. The machining. The feel of the gun. They just aren't the same. The new S&W feels much more mass produced consumer commodity than the older ones, even the Bangor-Punta guns feel good.

For the price of a new Smith, I don't think you get a product that's 1.5 times better than a comparable new Taurus. The value per dollar just isn't there to me.

With both the Taurus and S&W being equally machine-made consumer commodities, and S&W still using the G-D lock, I'd take the Taurus, if for no other reason than the Taurus lock isn't as obtrusive and annoying as a Smith lock.

However, to get back to the question from the Original Poster, given the choice of a NEW Taurus/Rossi and a quality USED S&W of equivalent style and equal price, the Smith would go home with me nearly every time. I've bought 4 used vntage S&W revolvers in the past 2 years- and ONE Taurus.

 

[evan price]

Oh, to Fireside: You can honestly, with a straight face, tell me that a pinned & recessed S&W Model 29 and a Taurus Raging Bull .44 are equal in every way? That if a new Raging Bull .44 and a lightly used pinned & recessed S&W 29 were both for sale in a gun case for the same price- you'd take the Raging Bull?
Heck, throw a Ruger Super Redhawk .44 in there- all 3 of them, same price, and the Ruger and Smith are both lightly used and well maintained specimens. You would still take the Raging Bull?

 

[HisDivineShadow]

Buy used Smiths, new Rugers and shoot other peoples Colts.

Rossi and Taurus probably gets the job done and give value for the money, but I wouldn't want one, I'd gladly put in an extra 100, 200 or 300 for a Smith. And a used smith... now those are very good value for your buck...

 

[Ala Dan]

Go S&W~!

I'm very surprised that a moderator has not stepped in too settle this
argument~!

 

[CajunBass]

I'd like to know where you found a used Model 19 for the same price as a new Taurus/Rossi. Around here, unless the price of those has gone up a LOT, a good used Model 19 costs a LOT more than a new Taurus.

I've owned three Taurus revolvers. They all worked fine, but under the conditions outlined by the OP, I'd pick the Smith & Wesson.

 

[fireside44]

He wanted opinions, so people gave. You don't like people's opinions and that's fine. But it's the OP's thread. Not yours. When it's your thread ask for facts and not opinions.

Yeah, you are right.

When you have a good quality but relatively 'ordinary' revolver, compared to a truly elegant masterpiece at the same price you can make a direct qualitative comparison.

Elegant masterpiece? It's a mass produced pistol.

Was you post really necessary? You spent a ton of time picking out everything you didn't like in the whole thread and quoted it. For the most part this thread was civil but your post seemed to me to bring this thread down.

Is your post necessary? I picked out those comments because they were pure opinion backed by what? Nothing mostly. If I didn't know better, I'd be left thinking that Taurus/Rossi never made a functional weapon in the history of their company.

Sorry if you feel that I brought the thread down. My intention was to clear up the smoke blowing in regards to the generally reliable nature of Brazilian revolvers. If you think calling Taurus/Rossi "trash" and "crap" and "junk" is somehow high road, then you are mistaken.

You can honestly, with a straight face, tell me that a pinned & recessed S&W Model 29 and a Taurus Raging Bull .44 are equal in every way? That if a new Raging Bull .44 and a lightly used pinned & recessed S&W 29 were both for sale in a gun case for the same price- you'd take the Raging Bull?

I'd take the one that was the most accurate and felt best in my hand, which is what the OP ought to do as well. Generally speaking, I just want a gun that functions properly, regardless of what brand is etched in the side. No one revolver maker has failed to turn out lemons at some point in their production.

 

[19-3Ben]

Elegant masterpiece? It's a mass produced pistol.

Yes it was. But, let's take my 19-3 for example. It was made in 1973. Back in 1973 there was a LOT more hand fitting and finishing going into pistols than there is these days. So I don't contest at all that it is mass-produced, but a mass produced pistol from that era is very different from a mass produced pistol these days. Heck, if the OP were asking about an older used S&W vs. a new S&W, I'd be telling him the same thing. It has more to do with the 'old vs. new' debate, than S&W vs. Taurus.

 

[ljnowell]

SO, general consensus in this thread NEW S&W vs. NEW Taurus/Rossi? Whats the take? Are you more likely to get a junk one with Taurus?

 

[MCgunner]

SO, general consensus in this thread NEW S&W vs. NEW Taurus/Rossi? Whats the take? Are you more likely to get a junk one with Taurus?

http://www.chuckhawks.com/smith-wesson_dark.htm

I consider the Taurus far BETTER considering price. But, some don't. Turkeys slip out of both factories, it seems. The one anti-taurus argument I can understand and agree with is that the customer service sux and that has been a valid argument, though from all reports they're doing something about that recently. I wouldn't know, though, as I've not had to send one of mine back. I do know that I much prefer my 66s to the M19 I had and it was bought new in 1980 (and for only 20 bucks more than I gave for my stainless Ruger Security Six in 1978).. Why I, personally, don't buy Smiths is the pricing now days and the hole in the frame doesn't help. That lock design scares me. I'd have to disable it. the Taurus lock is reliable, will not lock itself, and you don't even notice it. Only my 85 has a lock on it. My two 66s are pre-lock.

Buy what ya want. It's a free country....so far. I ain't going to prognosticate the future, but you better get it now if ya want it. That's why there haven't been many firearms on the shelves, or ammo, in over a year.

 

[MCgunner]

Yes it was. But, let's take my 19-3 for example. It was made in 1973. Back in 1973 there was a LOT more hand fitting and finishing going into pistols than there is these days. So I don't contest at all that it is mass-produced, but a mass produced pistol from that era is very different from a mass produced pistol these days

In the 18th century, essentially all pistols were hand fitted. Are they better than your M19? Ruger uses investment casting. Ruger design is MUCH stronger than either Smith or Taurus side plate designs.

The hand fitting argument is a crock. Only thing that matters to me is how it shoots, when it comes right down to it. Both my Taurus 66s out-shoot that M19 AND that Ruger Security Six I had. While it's not as strong a design as the Security Six, it does have a ROUND forcing cone and more room around it. I've had a K frame forcing cone crack on me. They also outshoot that SP101 I had, but that's an unfair comparison due to it was a 2.3" snub. It shot better than my Taurus snub, apples and apples. But, I kept the Taurus because it's better in a pocket. I'd have kept that SP101, too, except for an arrangement with my SIL.

 

[Guillermo]

You honestly think that the new S&Ws arent as good as the new Tauruii?

There are a lot of reasons not to buy a new Smith revolver, sagging quality is among them.

Are new Smiths worth the extra cash? I don't think so.

 

[MCgunner]

I will buy an old Smith if I can find one for reasonable I really want. I can't say that for the new ones. I guess that's how I should put it. Problem down here is that the used market runs the price up on the old ones, too. If I could get my hands on, say, a 2.5" M65 round butt (did they make one?) for 250, I'd jump on it. But, well, I find 'em at night in my dreams.

 

[19-3Ben]

In the 18th century, essentially all pistols were hand fitted. Are they better than your M19? Ruger uses investment casting. Ruger design is MUCH stronger than either Smith or Taurus side plate designs.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that hand-fitting makes a gun stronger, or better. I just said it adds to the elegance of the gun.
And if you look on the first page, I was the first one to mention Ruger as an alternative here. I'm a Ruger man at heart, and believe in the strength of their products above those of Taurus and S&W. So you're preaching to the choir. Stop fighting with a guy who agrees with you.