Taurus handguns.

[gto.kroh]

Most of it is blown out of proportion. How about my Remington 700 that I had a trigger recall on and took 6 months to get back and now they have a class action lawsuit against them for the replaced trigger.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N930A using Tapatalk

 

[RX-79G]

Most of it is blown out of proportion. How about my Remington 700 that I had a trigger recall on and took 6 months to get back and now they have a class action lawsuit against them for the replaced trigger.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N930A using Tapatalk

Remington's dangerous 700 triggers have been an issue for decades. I don't see how Remington's problems relate to Taurus' problems.

 

[BLB68]

My general impression of Taurus is that there are product lines with very good reputations and those without. Their Beretta-based semi autos and some of their S&W-based revolvers, the PT-111 and the TCP all seem to have decent reputations. They simply seem to make some models better than others.

The big beef I think comes from lower levels of QC (to be expected at the price points they sell at), combined with a lot of people having issues with slow or ineffective repairs when they get a gun that slipped through QC.

Taurus does seem to be making an honest effort lately to at least improved on the manufacturing and QC side of the equation, while dropping prices on popular models like the PT-111 G2 and TCP.

 

[badkarmamib]

No confirmation, but a theory that I have heard is that they push out "beta" models, and, after they find the flaws under warranty, is when they release the Gen 2's. This (hopefully) is not their business model, just the way it happens, which is why so many of their models have Gen 2's. Perhaps it is the owners of these updated models that are happier, whereas I always bought the first Gen for mine, that were disappointments.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Taurus quality and customer service comes up in discussion regularly. I have personally seen three bad Taurus guns owned by friends, and have attempted to shoot all three.

I know of a fourth also. Is this a significant sample size when considering how many Taurus guns are out there? No, it isn't. But those experiences, combined with all the stories I've read have definitely biased me against ever owning a Taurus gun.

Their guns just don't interest me. None the less, I'm happy for those who like their Taurus guns. Me not buying any just means more for you all. Enjoy.

 

[enloe]

I only own 1 Taurus a Raging Bull in 454. It is one of the best shooting guns i own no complaints from me.
So far i am 1 for 1

 

[PapaG]

Having worked in a gun shop since retirement eight years ago, I have seen both sides. Our experience has shown that our biggest problems were with the small frame 22s, trigger pull and indexing issues. Next up, the Judge with way oversized cylinder throats (as large as .466") contributing to horrendous leading with 45 Colt ammo. Twice I called customer service, got agreement on that problem and a promise to replace the cylinder with a correctly dimensions one only to get back the same guns with the original cylinders and notes that they "adjusted timing". Thirdly, parts orders are a joke. "Yes it is in stock and will ship today". Card charged and parts not received for weeks. "Oh, it was out of stock and is backordered". Multiple times.
All that said, the big frame guns andmost autos have been fine. My Tracker .17HMR, is still the most accurate 100 yard handgun I have ever shot.

 

[stiab]

And what did your buddy do with the replacement?

He held it until the original buyer came in and filled out another 4473, then turned over the replacement to him.

You offered a theory that states it was a manufacturing issue.

That's incorrect Ed, I didn't offer any theories , I only posted a picture. You must be thinking of someone else.

 

[Ed Ames]

He held it until the original buyer came in and filled out another 4473, then turned over the replacement to him.

That's a strange thing to do.

To quote the ATF, "An ATF Form 4473 is required for the return of the firearm, except in instances when a firearm is delivered to a licensee for the sole purpose of repair or customizing, and the same firearm or a replacement firearm is returned to the person from whom received (27 CFR § 478.124(a))."

That's incorrect Ed, I didn't offer any theories , I only posted a picture. You must be thinking of someone else.

Eh... I can see both sides of that one. On the one hand, it is easy to read, "He sold this Taurus nib along with a box of American Eagle ammo, guy brought it back the next day, happened within the first mag he said..." as implying that the failure was induced by normal use of American Eagle ammo. On the other hand, you didn't actually say it in so many words. So... maybe the solution would be for you to go ahead and say that you think it was a manufacturing defect. That would reduce the need for interpretation and inference, thus preserving the harmony of the argument. Your call of course.

 

[RX-79G]

Geez, Ed, c'mon. If someone shows you a target with a nice group, do you insist that the holes were probably made by a unicorn?

I posted a photo of another Taurus developing cracks into front of the locking block - is it really such a ridiculous idea that a void in the plastic or an out-of-spec locking block could split the frame in those thin spots when the barrel unlocks?

 

[stiab]

That's a strange thing to do.

Wrong again Ed. The Taurus was not returned for "repair or customizing" as you stated. It was returned to be replaced by a new gun, which it was.

Eh... I can see both sides of that one...

There is only one side to see Ed, I posted the picture and told the forum what the purchaser said, without offering any personal opinion. Hard for you to dispute or spin that.

 

[Ed Ames]

Wrong again Ed. The Taurus was not returned for "repair or customizing" as you stated. It was returned to be replaced by a new gun, which it was.

So you didn't actually read the ATF quote. Noted. However, I must point out that when YOU don't read something, and don't know the relevant law, you really shouldn't claim that anyone else is wrong. It raises the issue of your credibility, which I suspect you don't want.

To quote the ATF, "An ATF Form 4473 is required for the return of the firearm, except in instances when a firearm is delivered to a licensee for the sole purpose of repair or customizing, and the same firearm or a replacement firearm is returned to the person from whom received (27 CFR § 478.124(a))."

The firearm was returned for a repair. The manufacturer elected to replace as a means of effecting that repair. No 4473 was required.

There is only one side to see Ed, I posted the picture and told the forum what the purchaser said, without offering any personal opinion. Hard for you to dispute or spin that.

I don't need to dispute or spin anything. I offered an easy solution but apparently you don't want that, so instead I will ask what you think your photos contributed to a thread about Taurus quality?

Geez, Ed, c'mon. If someone shows you a target with a nice group, do you insist that the holes were probably made by a unicorn?

It depends on what they say about that group.

I posted a photo of another Taurus developing cracks into front of the locking block - is it really such a ridiculous idea that a void in the plastic or an out-of-spec locking block could split the frame in those thin spots when the barrel unlocks?

Did you? I don't recall, but anyway, it is not at all ridiculous to think there would be voids or defects. Many things can go wrong when casting plastic parts. What I found/find odd was the location of the break. Normally the dust cover is not a highly stressed part.

 

[stiab]

So you didn't actually read the ATF quote.

I did read it Ed, but you are the one misinterpreting it. It says a new form is required "except" when a gun is delivered for "repair or customizing", neither of which applied in this case.

I don't need to dispute or spin anything.

Good, then please do not repeat your incorrect assertion "You offered a theory that states it was a manufacturing issue", which I clearly did not.

 

[Ed Ames]

I did read it Ed, but you are the one misinterpreting it. It says a new form is required "except" when a gun is delivered for "repair or customizing", neither of which applied in this case.

Again? Sigh. Uness there are facts you have omitted it is absolutely the case that the firearm was sent in for repair. The owner had a broken frame and wanted Taurus to make it whole again under warranty. Taurus repaired the frame by replacing the gun under warranty. Taurus could have elected to take the metal bits (including the serial number plate) out of the old frame and cast them into new plastic, and swap all the other parts across, and make the repair that way, but replacing the whole thing was a less expensive way of repairing the broken frame. The 4473 was absolutely NOT required.



A year or two ago I bought a 1911. It had a frame mounted feed ramp that never did ramp. In the time between when I bought the pistol and when I sent it in, the maker had switched to a barrel mounted feed ramp. When I sent my gun in saying "it's broke, make it right", they repaired it...by sending me a new gun. New serial number, new barrel mounted feed ramp, completely different gun in every respect, but - because it was a replacement to repair - no 4473. In fact they had FedEx deliver it directly to my home from three states over, because federal law allows that in the situation.

The situation you described does not require a 4473 under federal law. You have not cited a relevant state law. That leads me to believe you know less about this stuff than you claim and are making up details. That is my interpretation of the evidence you are presenting.

Good, then please do not repeat your incorrect assertion "You offered a theory that states it was a manufacturing issue", which I clearly did not.

Do you read these at all before you reply? I have not once repeated that assertion. You act as though I have said something more than once when the very first time you brought it up I said I could see your point. However, you never did answer my question: what you think your photos contributed to a thread about Taurus quality?

 

[RX-79G]

The dust cover isn't stressed, but the area around the locking block definiately is, which is where both of these guns appear to be cracking:



I would call this one a design flaw, though.

 

[Ed Ames]

Yeah, that looks like it has some stress risers that could cause problems. I'm just not sure I see how those problems would translate into the trigger guard breaking and the rest of the damage seen in those other pictures.

It is also possible we are seeing a combination...some cracks occurred due to a bad design and the owner helped it along after that, maybe out of curiosity. Who knows? I surely do not.

 

[walnut1704]

Does it count if the frame was already cracking before it went into the vice?

View attachment 754553

Every time Taurus comes up, these two pictures get trotted out. The first is a PT709. Yup cracked. Who knows what was being shot through it though. The second is a PT111. This was a known cracking issue with gun that was corrected. But this is the original source of Taurus' poor reputation. Both these pictures are at least six or seven years old.

But this is what happens, a pic goes up and it gets copied and posted for years as proof of ..something...

Google "cracked frame [insert brand of choice]"

 

[BLB68]

Not to nitpick too much, but Taurus had a negative reputation long before the PT-111 was introduced.

 

[justice06rr]

In my experience, you either a) have Taurus, love them, and try to convince everyone that they are perfect, ignoring Group B, b) you have owned Taurus, it let you down, and you will never forgive them, or c) you have never owned one, but you follow along with Group B's opinion, because it is louder.

You missed another option:

You've owned one (or more) and didn't have too many issues. Like them but not love them, but would still own one or recommend one to someone on a budget.

FYI no gun is perfect.

 

[stiab]

... go ahead and say that you think it was a manufacturing defect.

Again ED, you are trying to put words in my mouth. That would be pure speculation, which I will leave up to you, along with the conspiracy theories (vise).

 

[Ed Ames]

You are uncomfortable admitting error. Why do you feel that is?

Anyway...here's the problem with your denial.

When we interpret what another person writes, we rely on context and implication to understand the meaning. So for example if someone writes the words, "undesirable traits should be eliminated", the meaning we take from those words is different depending on if the conversation is about cooking, automotive performance tuning, writing obituaries, birth control, immigration, et cetera. Same words, different context and implication.

In this case, we have the context of Taurus firearm quality. Manufacturers defects and the like. And we have a photo showing a broken gun which we assume to be made by Taurus. Within this context, the implication is that the photo represents an example of Taurus firearm quality.

If the photo represents a quality issue, that implies a theory that the damage shown was caused by a manufacturing defect. Otherwise the picture would be at best a non sequitur.

As such, your claim that you didn't express a theory is disingenuous. You didn't explicitly state a theory, but you made an effort to imply it. I was willing to let that pass with a "I see both sides", but you seem to want to double down on this issue.

So...yes, you expressed a theory via implication...and now you are trying to distance yourself from it for the same reason you would characterize an alternative theory of the damage as a "conspiracy theory" despite the utter lack of any conspiracy being alleged.

 

[stiab]

So they read the "no returns" printed on the receipt and decided to social engineer an exception by putting the dust cover end of the frame in a vice and leaning on the grip to deliberately breaking it?

...and the owner helped it along...

Sure sounds like you are offering up a conspiracy theory, i.e. that the damage was done intentionally. In your theory, what would be the motive for him to damage his new gun, or what benefit would he expect to receive from that deliberate action?

So...yes, you expressed a theory via implication

Nope, just posted an interesting picture, don't have the answers or any theories as to what really happened.

 

[Ed Ames]

Sure sounds like you are offering up a conspiracy theory, i.e. that the damage was done intentionally. In your theory, what would be the motive for him to damage his new gun, or what benefit would he expect to receive from that deliberate action?

It is actually a fairly common practice amongst people who lack ethics and want to guarantee they don't get their old item returned to them with a note about it "testing within spec" or the like. E.g. in this thread there is a story of sending back a judge with oversized throat and getting it back with a note about timing...if the person had instead bent the frame slightly they would have gotten a complete replacement.

I have seen it first hand as an engineer tasked with evaluating returned consumer products to determine if there are design or manufacturing changes that could be adopted to lower failure rates.

It can also happen that people get too enthusiastic about testing and then don't want to bear the costs. E.g. someone may have decided to put it between layers of carpet and drive over it to prove how tough it was, fully expecting it to survive because they had seen similar things done in YouTube videos about Glocks.

Either way it has zero to do with conspiracies. Do you know what a conspiracy is?

Nope, just posted an interesting picture, don't have the answers or any theories as to what really happened.

So you had no conclusion that you thought people should draw?

In that case, why are you fighting against the idea that it could be deliberate harm? If you have no preferred interpretation then you should be just as happy with the deliberate harm hypothesis as with any other.

 

[stiab]

It is actually a fairly common practice amongst people...

But I still don't understand in your vise theory what the person had to gain by damaging the gun and returning it on day two of ownership? Do you think he may of done that it seeking a refund?

So you had no conclusion that you thought people should draw?

None, don't know what caused it, and have drawn no personal conclusions about it. Same with the American Eagle reference. Just posting an original picture and telling the forum everything I knew about it.

 

[Kendal Black]

Well, cracking near the locking block is a known failure mode for plastic pistols, which is where I started in looking at the notorious picture. Could slide motion, perhaps in a rapid mag dump, account for the rest? The broken trigger guard bow is something of a puzzle. In which direction did it shear or snap? Any evidence of early unlocking and venting gas into the works?