S&W 637 quality equal to a taurus?

[MinnesotaFats]

i just read an old THR thread titled S&W 637, BUYER BEWARE from march 7 2004 (i know... its 10 yrs old). i would post a link to it but im operating from a cell phone. basically it paints a real nasty picture of the 637. the op makes it sound as poor in quality as some of the low quality taurus revolvers on the market. is any of this true today 10 years after that thread? ive been wanting a NIB snubbie for awhile and was considering buying a 637 but am having second thoughts after reading the mentioned thread. any thoughts or opinions? thanks.

 

[TennJed]

One bad opinion or experience does not make a it true. Do some more searching. Lot of 637s sold, most owners seem happy

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I have been carrying a S&W Airweight J frame for well over 8 years now and before that it was a Chief's Special.

The S&W Airweight revolvers are ~15oz and include the Chief's Special frame M637, the Bodyguard frame M438 and M638 and the Centennial frame M442 and M642. All those revolvers are of high quality IMO and can handle all the .38 Special +P ammo you feed it. My M442 has has Thousands of +P rounds through it over the past 5 years and it's still tight. Anyone who tries to say a Taurus is of higher quality than a S&W is IMO mistaken.

 

[buck460XVR]

I've bought two new 637s within the last three years. Both have functioned flawlessly. As with any new firearm, inspect it well and make sure you are happy with it before walking out the door with it. Some of the 637s I have seen over the years have the infamous "Smith canted barrel". Something that is mostly cosmetic, but is still corrected by S&W on their dollar under the lifetime warranty. Both my 637s were under $385 OTD and I feel they were a real bargain at that price.

 

[MinnesotaFats]

i should specify the op in the old thread didnt compare them to taurus. he just made them sound equal to or worse than some of the bad taurus' out there. i also know that dosent mean squat coming from one guys experience. im just curious if anyone else heard any reports like this or if any would or wouldnt recommend buying a 637.

 

[harvester]

I have had mine for about 5 years and it is fine. I do not like the lock but the gun has never failed to function.

 

[Twiki357]

I bought a 637 in January 2012 and have been shooting and carrying it daily ever since. I haven’t found any flaws or had any problem in two years and 500+ rounds. I don’t like the IL, but that’s a personal thing, not a problem.

 

[Teachu2]

I have a 637-2, and it is and has been perfect.

 

[stu1ritter]

While not a 637, my Model 37, bought new in 1978 and carried and shot all the time, feels just like new. Still has tight lock-up and cylinder/barrel spacing. Granted, I don't shoot very much +P in it, almost never, but my .38's are pretty hot. Great gun. I've never heard a bad thing about the J's other than trigger pull weight in double action, which can be attended to with some polishing.
Stu

 

[HexHead]

Unless I just plain couldn't afford it, I can't imagine buying any Taurus over a S&W.

 

[Zeke/PA]

I own several " Smiths" and have shot several others and I've never seen one that could be termed "poor quality"!

 

[Riomouse911]

Ditto to Zeke's post. My last 3 gun purchases were S&W revolvers, two used (629 Mountain Gun and 2" M-10) and a new 642. All are first rate IMHO.

I have owned 3 Taurus (Still have .22lr and .22 mag revolvers, sold the .357 years ago) and while they are very functional, they aren't S&W's by any stretch.

 

[BossHogg]

If I remember right they had a problem with the coating flaking off the cylinder. The gun worked just fine, just didn't look good. S&W took care of the problem and all's well since. I have not heard of that happening in years. Buy with confidence.

 

[buck460XVR]

If I remember right they had a problem with the coating flaking off the cylinder. The gun worked just fine, just didn't look good. S&W took care of the problem and all's well since. I have not heard of that happening in years. Buy with confidence.

It's not the cylinder(that's stainless) but the silver coating on the alloy frame. Certain solvents will remove it and like any applied coating it will wear. I have holster wear on mine on the top of the frame were it rubs on the holster. The feedback I get is S&W will refinish the coating one time under warranty if at any point it becomes excessive and you are not happy with it.

 

[BossHogg]

buck460xvr, you are right on that for sure. It's hard on us ole dudes with wore out brain cells. Thank's for getting it right.

 

[MinnesotaFats]

^ but thats been corrected on the newer production ones? cause the flaking was a concern for me being this gun will be a ccw.

 

[NMPOPS]

You're worried about one negative post from 10 years ago?

 

[BossHogg]

S&W 638 not the 637, been pocket carried most of the time some OWB. Mine's still in a good state without much wear. I think they hold up ok. Take the Smith over the Taurus, it will serve you well.

 

[Kiln]

Same can be said about Taurus for the most part.

 

[orionengnr]

If Taurus was the equal of S&W, Taurus could charge S&W prices (and sell everything they made).

Those of us who have owned both (and in many cases, multiple examples of both) have found that S&W builds a consistently high-quality firearm, at a premium price. They support their products with near-flawless Customer Support, and will fix just about anything, just about any time from purchase to 100 years on, free of charge, in a timely manner, and they pay for shipping both ways.

Taurus builds a decent product at (what used to be) a bargain price. Their QC is, ahem, a variable (to put it kindly) and their Customer Support is a bigger variable (some will say, a joke). You will pay to ship your Taurus back the first time, and often you will pay to ship it back a second and third time....for the same problem. After the first time, you are already upside down.

Do yourself a favor...spend some searching and you will find that this is not me saying it...it is many Taurus owners saying it.

Bottom line: Taurus quality equal to S&W?

No. Not on a good day, not on any day.

You may get lucky and get a good Taurus. Or you may have a far more common experience, and join the legions of posters here and elsewhere bemoaning their Taurus experience...

Caveat Emptor.

 

[MinnesotaFats]

NMPOPS- of course i am. id hate to invest 450$ into i gun that may or may not have a poor finish etc. if that problem has been corrected then i plan on buying one.

 

[CZ9shooter]

I've had a 637 for about a year now. I have not noticed problems with the finish, or any other aspect of the gun. It spends a lot of time in an IWB holster. The edges of cylinder are starting to show some normal wear. The coating on the frame looks like new.

 

[NMPOPS]

I don't worry about the finish. Finish wears on any gun with use. The 637 and all the other airweights have a very good record of durability. People see to like to worryabout the clear coat finish on the 642, 638 & 637 but its just a finish as is bluing and yes they wear. Doesn't hurt thefunction.

 

[guyfromohio]

My finish on my 642 is nearly gone. She earned every bit if that....belly-band jogging, rain-storm hiking, tossing into the glove when in WPZs..... I find her prettier with wear.

 

[bannockburn]

I had a Model 38 years ago and it was one fine revolver. Picked up a Model 638 a couple of years ago and have found it to be just as well made and reliable as my old gun.