So I'm getting the impression that the autoloaders are relatively good, but the revolvers are somewhat questionable.
I find that interesting as that has always been my experience with Taurus. (good autoloaders, bad revolvers) Speaking of which, I checked prices on Taurus today. Man, those things have gone up. No longer what I would consider "budget" guns anymore.
I was looking for a .38 snub and my research led me to consider that it was just the opposite - Taurus revolvers had a long history of value for the money with the autos being too new to fully trust.
They are running under $250 if you shop them, the black models are the least expensive as they take less finishing. In comparison the Armscorp pistols had plenty of similar issues. If you discount the complaints about fit and finish leaving function as your measuring stick they aren't so bad. Goes to you get what you pay for.
One thing to sort out is how new owners treat the gun, and many are literally new to gun ownership. I read a lot of posts where the new owner didn't clean it, used reloads from the first shot, and then attempted to fire long strings without wiping the front of the cylinder or keeping debris out from under the extractor. Many appeared to be completely uninformed that revolvers are prone to debris buildup which can lock up the cylinder, or use ammo which lacks enough crimp to keep the bullet from sliding forward until it catches the barrel. Since the clearance is usually about .002" its not hard for a loose fitting round in front of a +P load to move forward under recoil.
You guys insisting revolvers are utterly reliable are likely exercising due regard to these things, yet new owners are largely clueless. My point is that revolvers came of age in an era where nobody fired 500 rounds in a range session. Finances and supply a hundred years ago were drastically different, but now, if you treat one like an auto loading pistol, these issues are more common.
Armscorp vs other snubbies boils down to more than a price advantage, tho, as we often prefer to purchase a firearm which impresses us more than anyone else. So it goes - does it actually have the styling cues of a more expensive gun? No, not even the S&W's do that well, with the barrel shape and underlug the primary visual items. So it goes - I bought a Taurus 85 UL - and saved $100 off the price of a BIN S&W 442. Which leaves a lot of ammo, loading strips, and a holster as the difference. This is why they are even considered, as they will be carried far more than shot, and are certainly not a major heartbreak if they should be entered into evidence. You could temporarily carry something else while ordering a replacement and not be exorbitantly punished in the process. When a revolver starts costing more than a full set of tires on a daily driver, tho, then you have to ask what is the real point, defense, or - ?
At half the price of the average LCR, it becomes significant and yes, you can improve the trigger with careful work that doesn't need the replacement of springs. Like the AR15, hammer spring tension governs pull weight, you trade reliable ignition for a lighter trigger. Be aware, if it's for self defense, adopting target range modifications is a pit of snakes for a carry gun.
