C-grunt
Member
I like the idea of a .22 revolver but dont like the price tag of the S&W 17. Local shop has a Taurus 94 for fairly cheap with about a 5 or 6 inch barrel. Are they good plinkers or should I get the Ruger semi?
Taurus Model 94 .22lr any good?
- Thread starter C-grunt
- Start date
- Status
Master Blaster
Member
I have a 94 made in 1996 4" barrel, I have shot many thousands of rounds with it. It been accurate and trouble free. 9 Shots in a j frame gun. My children both like to shoot it and its the gun I use to introduce new shooters to handguns.
I can highly recommend the 94 if you want a revolver.
Other folks will be along to tell you how bad theirs was, heavy gritty trigger etc.
I would also recommend a Browning buckmark for a great moderately priced semi auto.
I can highly recommend the 94 if you want a revolver.
Other folks will be along to tell you how bad theirs was, heavy gritty trigger etc.
I would also recommend a Browning buckmark for a great moderately priced semi auto.
I just bought one recently. Got very dirty but that is due to the ammo not the gun. I put too much pressure on the cylinder whilst cleaning it and it detached from the frame.
I took it back to GM where I bought it and they re-assembled it. Said the side screws were loose and advised checking them once in a while.
Quality? It's no S&W in terms of fit and finish, but I like it for a plinker. Yeah, the DA trigger's rough but this isn't my "pride and joy" piece.
For the $ it's OK. I don't regret the purchase.
I took it back to GM where I bought it and they re-assembled it. Said the side screws were loose and advised checking them once in a while.
Quality? It's no S&W in terms of fit and finish, but I like it for a plinker. Yeah, the DA trigger's rough but this isn't my "pride and joy" piece.
For the $ it's OK. I don't regret the purchase.
I had two of the 94's , sold one for $$ , not because of any problem. My aunt has the 94 and a 941 . They all have been running good. DA is stiff but needs to be for reliable firing. A little help by going to a weaker trigger spring but do not change the hammer spring.
A good gun for the money.
A good gun for the money.
John Wayne
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,133
I have a 94 that just got back from the factory. Cylinder got stuck (only with ammo present) when cycling...around 1 month turnaround.
Mine isn't the most accurate, and if the timing were any more sloppy it would probably fire the round in the next chamber.
The DA pull is terrible but SA is actually not bad. Decent adjustable sights (which like to adjust themselves) are a plus, as are the grips. For $200 I'd say yes, but given that there are several reliable autos in the $300 price range like the Browning Buckmark and Ruger Mk. III, I'd say there are much better choices.
Mine isn't the most accurate, and if the timing were any more sloppy it would probably fire the round in the next chamber.
The DA pull is terrible but SA is actually not bad. Decent adjustable sights (which like to adjust themselves) are a plus, as are the grips. For $200 I'd say yes, but given that there are several reliable autos in the $300 price range like the Browning Buckmark and Ruger Mk. III, I'd say there are much better choices.
Marlin 45 carbine
Member
I've got the 94 w/4" and s/s, good, tough revolver - not the most accurate .22LR revolver I've shot but good enough. my anti-gun sister even enjoys shooting it.
rockhunter
Member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2009
- Messages
- 16
I have two model 94 22LR revolvers both in SS a 4 inch that I have had for over a decade and that I liked so much when I got a chance to buy a 5 inch barrel model last year I didn't hesitate. Both revolvers have been reliable accurate trail guns that I carry on hikes and camping both seem to me to be equivalent to the S&W 22 Kit gun I had thirty five years ago.
Ditchtiger
Member
I found one that was low priced so I bought it to resell for a little profit. It is quite accurate and no trigger issues. Liked it so much I did not sell it.
OurSafeHome.net
Member
What is a good price for one of these?
Vonderek
Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2006
- Messages
- 1,536
If I've been away from the range for a while I like to start off with a box or two of .22 through mine...just to knock the rust off of my trigger pull. I think the heavy DA trigger is great for re-learning the nuances of trigger pull without wasting expensive ammo if I were to start right off on heavier caliber stuff.
maroast
Member
I bought my 94 from a gentleman I met at the local range for $140, nice soft case and holster included.
I like the gun. Long, hard double action... pretty light and crisp single. These days I mostly run CCI 22 CB shorts through the gun with minute of beer bottle accuracy. I find a secluded spot in the woods, collect a bunch of junk, and plink away in a shooting gallery style. Florescent bulbs, beer bottles, random toys...anything the swollen river sweeps into the woods.
I also have a Ruger MK III Hunter 6' 7/8 barrel with a volquartsen trigger/sear/extractor... ultra light/ crisp trigger pull and is more accurate than I am.... It really depends on what you want the gun for, i look at the 94 as a real rough plinker that gets tossed around and generally sees more action than the MK III.
I like the gun. Long, hard double action... pretty light and crisp single. These days I mostly run CCI 22 CB shorts through the gun with minute of beer bottle accuracy. I find a secluded spot in the woods, collect a bunch of junk, and plink away in a shooting gallery style. Florescent bulbs, beer bottles, random toys...anything the swollen river sweeps into the woods.
I also have a Ruger MK III Hunter 6' 7/8 barrel with a volquartsen trigger/sear/extractor... ultra light/ crisp trigger pull and is more accurate than I am.... It really depends on what you want the gun for, i look at the 94 as a real rough plinker that gets tossed around and generally sees more action than the MK III.
rockhunter
Member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2009
- Messages
- 16
A 22 RF revolver versus a 22 semi-auto pistol is a tradeoff with the revolver you have the option of the spectrum of 22 RF ammo, short, long, long rifle, hyper velocity RF, HP, solids, bird and pest shot rounds. The semi-auto generally is limited to one category such as LR or short and may be picky about brand and bullet style. The revolver is generally an integrated unit there are no magazines to become lost or damaged which is why many folks prefer them for a trail and camping gun.
The medium grade semi-auto can often have a better trigger, generally will deliver higher velocity for the same ammo and barrel length (no cylinder gap) and might have better accuracy.
As has been observed it depends on your personal preferences and use which would be a better choice. But so my experiance with the Taurus 94 is that it is a well built well designed revolver.
The medium grade semi-auto can often have a better trigger, generally will deliver higher velocity for the same ammo and barrel length (no cylinder gap) and might have better accuracy.
As has been observed it depends on your personal preferences and use which would be a better choice. But so my experiance with the Taurus 94 is that it is a well built well designed revolver.
22-rimfire
Member
I have both 22 revolvers and pistols. My revolvers tend to be either S&W or Colt. The pistols range from target guns to plinkers. I agree with what rockhunter said about the choice.
If I were stictly thinking cost versus utility, I'd go with the semi-auto (aka self loading) pistol in 22. My favorite plinker and light shooter is a Ruger Mark II with a 5.5" bull barrel. Mark III is very similar. I do think there is a substantial difference in quality between most Smiths versus a Taurus revolver. But is 20 or 30% better worth the extra cost to you? For me the extra cost is worth it in the long run but I didn't start out that way as I didn't understand what the extra cost gave you other than a name like Smith & Wesson or Colt.
If I were stictly thinking cost versus utility, I'd go with the semi-auto (aka self loading) pistol in 22. My favorite plinker and light shooter is a Ruger Mark II with a 5.5" bull barrel. Mark III is very similar. I do think there is a substantial difference in quality between most Smiths versus a Taurus revolver. But is 20 or 30% better worth the extra cost to you? For me the extra cost is worth it in the long run but I didn't start out that way as I didn't understand what the extra cost gave you other than a name like Smith & Wesson or Colt.
sparkyguy66
Member
I had a blued 4" model 94, wood grips..must be an older version. Gave light primer strikes in DA and SA, but mostly DA. Cylinder release button was always jiggly, could never tighten. When it did fire, I found it to be pretty accurate to 20 yrds or so, I never tried further. For around $250 +/-, and me being a non-Taurus fan, I would say they are a good bargain.
Have had a M96 (older 6 shot "version" of the M94) for about 25 years or so. Blue, 6" bbl. Still looks new, very accurate. Never have used DA much, but the SA trigger pull is superb. Put Pachmayr Grippers on mine, when new.
Possibly the best $125 I've ever spent, at least firearms-wise?
Possibly the best $125 I've ever spent, at least firearms-wise?
10-Ring
Member
I have had my 4" 94 for a long time. It is one w/ a nasty heavy gritty trigger. I kept the gun and have put ALOT of rounds through it. There was a time when I was putting one or two bricks of 550 a week through it for a few years! I had figured that if I could learn to shoot w/ this gun, everything else would be easy. This gun has also seen a lot of abuse -- spent the night in a shallow stream once, been dropped a bunch of times, but still going. I've gotten my $$ worth out of it and still have it.
I don't plan on buying another Tauri but this one, even w/ its shortcomings, has served its purpose well.
I don't plan on buying another Tauri but this one, even w/ its shortcomings, has served its purpose well.
- Status
