P95 thanks for the picture of the 85 that makes me feel so much better knowing that my 850cia isnt the only one with very thin cylinder walls, also how many rounds have you fired in it. Maybe i'm just to dumb but these thin walls scare me, is smith j frames the same. Also on a side note both of those rachets look horrible I wish I could post a picture of the new ones they are absolutly perfect or at least mine is. Upon looking at my rachet star closer it is also a completely diffrent design than either one of those.
The ONLY thing that I've found wrong with my Taurus revo's. A Fast Survey, please.
- Thread starter Hand_Rifle_Guy
- Start date
- Status
Okiecruffler
Member
Interesting discovery
Pulled out my 650 that I've had for a few years to take a look. Ratchets look like someone skipped the finishing process. One is obviously out of shape with the others and there are tool marks thru-out. Then I checked the wife's that I bought just a few weeks ago, and it's like a whole different gun. Everything is uniform, to the naked eye at least, and polished nice and smooth. Just the other day at the range I was wondering why her trigger pull was so much nicer than mine, even tho I had put wolf springs in mine. Now I think I know.
Pulled out my 650 that I've had for a few years to take a look. Ratchets look like someone skipped the finishing process. One is obviously out of shape with the others and there are tool marks thru-out. Then I checked the wife's that I bought just a few weeks ago, and it's like a whole different gun. Everything is uniform, to the naked eye at least, and polished nice and smooth. Just the other day at the range I was wondering why her trigger pull was so much nicer than mine, even tho I had put wolf springs in mine. Now I think I know.
P95Carry
Moderator Emeritus
mastinson .....
The walls are thin yes but .... both the M66 and M85 have the cyl notches exactly between chambers ... so none of your ''Smith wall thinning'' effect ..... I expect the effective thickness is not too bad functionally.
Outa interest ... compare these figures ...... just measured quickly ...... +/- a thou or so probably .......
M85 ...... 60 thou (proofed 38 spl)
M66 ...... 65 thou (proofed .357 mag)
M27-2 Smith ........ Max thickness 115 thou .... BUT!! Subtract 60 thou for depth of cyl notch and weakest and thinnest part of the cyl is .... a mere 55 thou ... for an N frame .357 mag!
So in relative terms, the M85 is maybe not so thin!
The ''style'' of teeth differs between M85 (relatively old gun) .... and the M66 (much newer).
I'll reiterate ..... the M66 functionally is sweet as sweet .. Mike Irwin tried once and was quite complementary.
If there are different versions yet (Okiecruffler?) ... any chance of a pic for comparison' sake?
as I mentioned ... all but impossible to know really. I bought that lil fella used .... tho since it has gotten rather shabby due to lot of carry, some effects of sweat etc! I have put a fair quantity thru plus quite a lot of dry fire too.
The walls are thin yes but .... both the M66 and M85 have the cyl notches exactly between chambers ... so none of your ''Smith wall thinning'' effect ..... I expect the effective thickness is not too bad functionally.
Outa interest ... compare these figures ...... just measured quickly ...... +/- a thou or so probably .......
M85 ...... 60 thou (proofed 38 spl)
M66 ...... 65 thou (proofed .357 mag)
M27-2 Smith ........ Max thickness 115 thou .... BUT!! Subtract 60 thou for depth of cyl notch and weakest and thinnest part of the cyl is .... a mere 55 thou ... for an N frame .357 mag!
So in relative terms, the M85 is maybe not so thin!
The ''style'' of teeth differs between M85 (relatively old gun) .... and the M66 (much newer).
I'll reiterate ..... the M66 functionally is sweet as sweet .. Mike Irwin tried once and was quite complementary.
If there are different versions yet (Okiecruffler?) ... any chance of a pic for comparison' sake?
Invisible Swordsman
Member
My only Taurus is a blued model 94 (.22) purchased about three years ago. I followed instructions and checked the ratchet with magnifying glass (kind of necessary anyhow given the small teeth and my aging eyes). Sure enough, not very well finished, but it does not seem to have affected functioning in the limited shooting I've done with it
SavannahSteve
Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23
I have owned four Taurus revolvers. The two stainless steel guns -- new 2-in Model 85 .38-spl and used 3-in Model 431 .44-spl -- were both trouble free; however, the two blue guns -- new 4-in Model 66 seven-shot .357 and used 6-in Model 96 22LR -- both had timing problems that took trips back to the factory. The only one that I still have is the Model 96, which is now working well and is currently my favorite 22 pistol. Part of the repairs for the Model 96 required replacing the whole cylinder/extractor star assembly.
By way of comparison, I have owned four used S&W revolvers (two Model 10 M&P .38-spl, Model 15 .38-spl, and Model 19 .357) and never had a problem with any of them.
By way of comparison, I have owned four used S&W revolvers (two Model 10 M&P .38-spl, Model 15 .38-spl, and Model 19 .357) and never had a problem with any of them.
Okiecruffler
Member
I don't think there are different versions, both of mine seem to be the same, I think that either there was a problem with QC at some point, or there still is a problem and some people are still getting "not so finished" guns. FWIW, my old Rossi M88 Looks much better although much more worn than my 650. I wonder if I could clean it up alittle with some fine grit paper. I can take a pic, but I'm still in the stone age of using film, so it would be a few days.
Biff
Member
Light hammer strikes
Two things can be done:
1. Insert a small flat washer on the hammer strut between the mainspring and the spring seat. (wear safety glasses & use a padded vise to hold the hammer strut)
2. Fabricate a new spring seat out of slightly thicker steel or aluminum. I did this in about 20 minutes with a hacksaw, drillpress and file. I now have 100% reliable ignition on my 606.
Two things can be done:
1. Insert a small flat washer on the hammer strut between the mainspring and the spring seat. (wear safety glasses & use a padded vise to hold the hammer strut)
2. Fabricate a new spring seat out of slightly thicker steel or aluminum. I did this in about 20 minutes with a hacksaw, drillpress and file. I now have 100% reliable ignition on my 606.
Mike Irwin
Member
Taurus revolvers have come light years ahead in quality over the last 20 years.
Tropical Z
Member
The star on my Rossi 972 is even but rough.No better or worse than my S&W 34,Ruger security six or Windicators.I just looked at all of them.
Erich
Member
Ratchet on my 415 Ti (only Taurus I presently own) is surprisingly uniform, although not perfect. Much better than the revos in the photos posted uppage. Three of the five teeth on my 415 Ti have an extra little machining slant/step that the other two do not - I doubt this is due to wear, given how little I've fired this little monster (though I carry it plenty - it just rode along for a 2.5 hour hike up in the Sandias). I wouldn't say it was crude, but it's not as cleanly machined as the ratchets on any of the Colts, Smiths or Rugers that I own.
FWIW (to comment on an off-topic subject that's popping up on this thread), my first gun was an 85 (way back in the mid-80s), and it, too, suffered from light primer strikes. Taurus fixed it, and I traded it away (I was carrying a S&W 2nd Gen. 9mm at the time) for a Mossberg 500 ATP (that I still own).
FWIW (to comment on an off-topic subject that's popping up on this thread), my first gun was an 85 (way back in the mid-80s), and it, too, suffered from light primer strikes. Taurus fixed it, and I traded it away (I was carrying a S&W 2nd Gen. 9mm at the time) for a Mossberg 500 ATP (that I still own).
Hand_Rifle_Guy
Member
Yes, I have been missing of late.
My life stinks. Broke. Lost my Net access. Etc. assorted misery.
Not selling stuff though.
YET.
Anywho, been a gazillion years since we talked about this, and I noticed we've passed 17 THOUSAND members in the meantime.
Whoa!
TFL's old reputation, stand back--we are well-mannered and polite, hear us reasonably discuss in intelligent and well-considered discourse!
New folks means new members who haven't added to my pseudo-survey of Taurus q-a issues around a particular aspect of revolver manufacture, to wit: Ratchet stars.
Dig out those revo's and magnifying glasses, folks. Enough results on this try and I'll forward this directly to Taurus Forjas Customer Service for a look-see. They oughta at least look at it.
I'll be back to check on this when I can at some un-predictable future time. One of these days I'll get solvent.
Thanks for your time and attention, this is a pet-peeve of mine. I can't stand the idea that the guns i admire so much can STILL be produced with what amounts to such a FUNDAMENTAL flaw. Geeze, everyone ELSE can do 'em right in their sleep, so it just can't be THAT hard or expensive. it just needs a little judicious attention and a couple of fires lit under the right behinds.
After all, Sellou & Worthless have YET to repudiate the Klinton sales agreement, providing a holdout card for ol' Josh Sugarman. ('Lessen I'm wrong, but I'm way out of touch these days.)
BTW, what and when in Sam-heck did the Roundtable go? Been writin', me. Got some cool stuff to post but it's less than gun-related. I was hoping for a capive-but-receptive audience for friendly honest review, but I find myself lost. Someone point me at the appropriate info? Shan't dilute if it's no longer given space, but I'd like the history/circumstances of what-all hoppen-ated.
Thanks-a-much.
And wish me luck, re: Solvency. I need it, so as not to have to liquidate the collection.
My life stinks. Broke. Lost my Net access. Etc. assorted misery.
Not selling stuff though.
YET.
Anywho, been a gazillion years since we talked about this, and I noticed we've passed 17 THOUSAND members in the meantime.
Whoa!
TFL's old reputation, stand back--we are well-mannered and polite, hear us reasonably discuss in intelligent and well-considered discourse!
New folks means new members who haven't added to my pseudo-survey of Taurus q-a issues around a particular aspect of revolver manufacture, to wit: Ratchet stars.
Dig out those revo's and magnifying glasses, folks. Enough results on this try and I'll forward this directly to Taurus Forjas Customer Service for a look-see. They oughta at least look at it.
I'll be back to check on this when I can at some un-predictable future time. One of these days I'll get solvent.
Thanks for your time and attention, this is a pet-peeve of mine. I can't stand the idea that the guns i admire so much can STILL be produced with what amounts to such a FUNDAMENTAL flaw. Geeze, everyone ELSE can do 'em right in their sleep, so it just can't be THAT hard or expensive. it just needs a little judicious attention and a couple of fires lit under the right behinds.
After all, Sellou & Worthless have YET to repudiate the Klinton sales agreement, providing a holdout card for ol' Josh Sugarman. ('Lessen I'm wrong, but I'm way out of touch these days.)
BTW, what and when in Sam-heck did the Roundtable go? Been writin', me. Got some cool stuff to post but it's less than gun-related. I was hoping for a capive-but-receptive audience for friendly honest review, but I find myself lost. Someone point me at the appropriate info? Shan't dilute if it's no longer given space, but I'd like the history/circumstances of what-all hoppen-ated.
Thanks-a-much.
And wish me luck, re: Solvency. I need it, so as not to have to liquidate the collection.
BluesBear
member
OK I'll play along
This is Lady45's Taurus 651. Blued steel. Approximately 1000 rounds through it and at least twice that much dry fired.
There are a few tool marks and some wear but it's not too bad. And it shoots great. Accuracy is awsome and there's NO spitting or splash.
This is Lady45's Taurus 651. Blued steel. Approximately 1000 rounds through it and at least twice that much dry fired.
There are a few tool marks and some wear but it's not too bad. And it shoots great. Accuracy is awsome and there's NO spitting or splash.
Attachments
Brian Williams
Moderator Emeritus
I'd play along but since this thread started I have sold both of my Taurii, because my S&W's are better.
MillCreek
Member
I just looked at my new Taurus total titanium 651. Although I only have about two hundred rounds through it so far, my ratchet star teeth look pretty sharp and even. No discernable wear so far.
Taurus is aware of the ratchet teeth problems. Looking backwards, as Mike Irwin said, "Taurus revolvers have come light years ahead in quality over the last 20 years."
Older Taurus revolvers followed the S&W style of ratchet, as can be seen in the picture in P-95Carry's post. They were difficult to machine, and often required hand fitting in each revolver which left them looking even more messed up (and sometimes they were). As each tooth had to be file-fitted each one could be different, but usually the revolvers timed out O.K.
More recently they have changed to a new pattern, as seen in BluesBear's picture. If you compare the two photographs the difference is obvious. The new pattern resulted in stronger teeth and less (or maybe no) hand fitting. The machine work is also cleaner. Tool marks - yes, but not too bad.
Hand_Rifle_Guy, I'm sorry about your problems and I hope things get better, but if you look at the respective pictures you can see the improvement between the different ratchets. Rest assured that Taurus is trying to address its shortcomings. They remain one of the best revolver buys on the market today.
Light hammer strikes are sometimes caused by excessive clearence between the transfer bar and hammer - as well as a too-weak hammer spring. Also check for cylinder end-shake.
Older Taurus revolvers followed the S&W style of ratchet, as can be seen in the picture in P-95Carry's post. They were difficult to machine, and often required hand fitting in each revolver which left them looking even more messed up (and sometimes they were). As each tooth had to be file-fitted each one could be different, but usually the revolvers timed out O.K.
More recently they have changed to a new pattern, as seen in BluesBear's picture. If you compare the two photographs the difference is obvious. The new pattern resulted in stronger teeth and less (or maybe no) hand fitting. The machine work is also cleaner. Tool marks - yes, but not too bad.
Hand_Rifle_Guy, I'm sorry about your problems and I hope things get better, but if you look at the respective pictures you can see the improvement between the different ratchets. Rest assured that Taurus is trying to address its shortcomings. They remain one of the best revolver buys on the market today.
Light hammer strikes are sometimes caused by excessive clearence between the transfer bar and hammer - as well as a too-weak hammer spring. Also check for cylinder end-shake.
Crownvicman
Member
The ratchet on my year old Model 82 does seem a little rough, but it has not seemed to hurt reliability or accuracy. The gun does not seem to lock up as tight as some Smiths or Rugers I have seen, but it does not seem to make much difference on the target.
rockstar.esq
Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2004
- Messages
- 1,475
My .44 Mag has a rough and uneven ratchet. Mine is so bad that the cylinder "freewheels" on one chamber! Needless to say it's going back to Miami for the much needed repair!
Hand_Rifle_Guy
Member
[Cue random future time] *NOW*
Whoa. I made it. For the moment.
Hokay, pardon my whining, please, one and all. My frustrations are not YOUR problem, and in retrospect I sound a little over-the-top, even to ME.
It was a bad day. Sorry folks.
Anyheck, seeing the somwhat muted response to my latest bump on this, plus what material is already here, I will have to say that I think Old Fuff's sum-up of the current situation is the correct one. I don't see a need to abuse a deceased equine if the issue's been SOLVED, after all.
Context 1: I started this thread after I got my .41 Tracker, which RUNS fine, but LOOKS like a ham-fisted blacksmith built the ratchet, which made me go look at the others I owned. I was three-for-three in the it-makes-me-cringe-to-look-at-it class, and the .41 was a LATEST-ISSUE product. Hence my perception of a stubbornly persistent bug-a-boo. (But they all RUN GOOD, mind you.)
Context 2: That was one of the last guns I bought, coming up on three years ago. That qualifies me as way out-of-touch re: the current state of Taurus q-a. I haven't so much as looked at a Taurus gun of more recent manufacture. Truth be told, I haven't darkened the door of a gun dealer or show in at least a year or two, not even to buy ammo.
Rats. (Done whining. Oops.)
So:
Official H_R_G Opinion Change now registered. I'll put 'em at snapping at ol' S&W's rights to the top spot on a dern-near equal basis, which is what I always wanted anyway. I like Taurus' product line a lot. It lines-up nicely with my eclectic tastes.
Now if they'd just sell 'em HERE. And if I could actually afford 'em. (That'll happen at some point. Can't stay poor forever.)
Fixing the STATE's a bit tougher, but we're workin' on it. I shall summon up a bit of optimism to brighten my outlook, is what.
Off I go. Shall plug-in again at an indeterminate future instance.
And if you catch me complaining again, yell at me!
Whoa. I made it. For the moment.
Hokay, pardon my whining, please, one and all. My frustrations are not YOUR problem, and in retrospect I sound a little over-the-top, even to ME.
It was a bad day. Sorry folks.
Anyheck, seeing the somwhat muted response to my latest bump on this, plus what material is already here, I will have to say that I think Old Fuff's sum-up of the current situation is the correct one. I don't see a need to abuse a deceased equine if the issue's been SOLVED, after all.
Context 1: I started this thread after I got my .41 Tracker, which RUNS fine, but LOOKS like a ham-fisted blacksmith built the ratchet, which made me go look at the others I owned. I was three-for-three in the it-makes-me-cringe-to-look-at-it class, and the .41 was a LATEST-ISSUE product. Hence my perception of a stubbornly persistent bug-a-boo. (But they all RUN GOOD, mind you.)
Context 2: That was one of the last guns I bought, coming up on three years ago.
That qualifies me as way out-of-touch re: the current state of Taurus q-a. I haven't so much as looked at a Taurus gun of more recent manufacture. Truth be told, I haven't darkened the door of a gun dealer or show in at least a year or two, not even to buy ammo. Rats. (Done whining. Oops.)
So:
Official H_R_G Opinion Change now registered. I'll put 'em at snapping at ol' S&W's rights to the top spot on a dern-near equal basis, which is what I always wanted anyway. I like Taurus' product line a lot. It lines-up nicely with my eclectic tastes.
Now if they'd just sell 'em HERE. And if I could actually afford 'em. (That'll happen at some point. Can't stay poor forever.)
Fixing the STATE's a bit tougher, but we're workin' on it. I shall summon up a bit of optimism to brighten my outlook, is what.
Off I go. Shall plug-in again at an indeterminate future instance.
And if you catch me complaining again, yell at me!
Do come back and join us more often, if for nothing more then to have an enjoyable conversation.
Concerning your .41 Tracker. While the .41 Magnum is in many ways an excellent cartridge, the Tracker's and other models chambered to use it were relatively slow movers. Consequently later orders were sometimes filled with revolvers that had been made some time earlier. But the company's products are looking better, and I hope the same happens for you.
Concerning your .41 Tracker. While the .41 Magnum is in many ways an excellent cartridge, the Tracker's and other models chambered to use it were relatively slow movers. Consequently later orders were sometimes filled with revolvers that had been made some time earlier. But the company's products are looking better, and I hope the same happens for you.
BluesBear
member
By the way. Lady45's 651, that I photographed above, is a 2005 model.
My 445 is I believe a 2002 vintage. But since I don't have access to it right now I can't inspect it for comparison.
My 445 is I believe a 2002 vintage. But since I don't have access to it right now I can't inspect it for comparison.
I have an old model 66 and the ratchet on it is pretty rough. Got to say though it's had thousands of both .38s and .357s through it and still going. Kind of loose but locks up tight when cocked. Bought a new steel 85 a few years ago and it's one nice little gun. Finish is great and the trigger is perfect both SA and DA. Like most small guns a bit harder to shoot with +P ammo than with something bigger but it does conceal well.
Baker
Baker
- Status
