TX22 Slide slide tear down.

[JB111]

The standard Ruger 22/45 MKIV was NIB $309. I believe the Taurus was $299. That was an everyday price at the LGS. The difference in current MSRP between the Ruger & the Taurus is $170. In terms of quality there's no comparsion. I'll bet there's Ruger owners on this website that have over 100,000 rds fired. I'm sorry but the old " but Ruger's break to " doesn't wash with me. I've owned both and in terms of quality, design, shootability and on and on they're not anywhere close.

Sorry to say it to you but Ruger's do break, all the time in fact. There is a forum dedicated to people with problems with their products in fact. I am not disputing the fact that Ruger makes better quality products than Taurus, I believe everyone is in agreement on that. I did not make this thread as a testament to Taurus quality or lack of, or to compare it to other guns by other companies; just thought I would share how one sample of one model was holding up after x amount of rounds. I did not pay 299 for this gun, I paid 250, after tax. So as I said, for what I paid, I am ok with the wear that it has and how it has performed.

 

[triplebike]

You know what, I apologize. If you're satifised with your gun who am I to say otherwise. Thanks for taking the photos and enjoy your newly cleaned TX22.

 

[JB111]

 

[JB111]

 

[JB111]

 

[5-SHOTS]

Acually I'm amazed that seeing those photos why anyone would consider a TX22. The wear shown should be unacceptable to any firearm owner. This is a 22, not a 357 & for it to wear like after 5-10k rounds is a joke. To be satifised with the way that gun is wearing makes no sense to me IMHO.

PS - My TX22 broke its slide after 5000 rds

There's no real or serious wear on that slide considering how soft aluminium alloy is . The end of the last coil of the recoil spring is pressing the aluminium inside its location but that's all. A couple of shiny spots where the slide ends its rear travel but again there's nothing to note.
I'm more concerned about the thin metal in the front part of the slide and I've seen some pics of broken TX-22 slides just in that spot. They absolutely need to beef up that part of the slide and I think they'll do it. Since Taurus replaces the broken slides for free it's ok.
No doubt a Ruger 22/45 it's a more robust and durable design but it is also a different purpouse pistol.

 

[5-SHOTS]

Can you please post a pic of the buffer zone in the front of the frame where the slide impacts the frame?

 

[triplebike]

There's no real or serious wear on that slide considering how soft aluminium alloy is . The end of the last coil of the recoil spring is pressing the aluminium inside its location but that's all. A couple of shiny spots where the slide ends its rear travel but again there's nothing to note.
I'm more concerned about the thin metal in the front part of the slide and I've seen some pics of broken TX-22 slides just in that spot. They absolutely need to beef up that part of the slide and I think they'll do it. Since Taurus replaces the broken slides for free it's ok.
No doubt a Ruger 22/45 it's a more robust and durable design but it is also a different purpouse pistol.

All Taurus had to do was redesign the recoil spring assembly. Thats what causing the front of the slides to break or crack. Theres is an aftermarket assembly (about $40) that solves the problem that Taurus won't. Taurus beefing up by redesiging the slide is laughable.

Thats typicle of Taurus , instead of solving the design problem (which isn't the slide) just replace the slide.

 

[5-SHOTS]

All Taurus had to do was redesign the recoil spring assembly. Thats what causing the front of the slides to break or crack. Theres is an aftermarket assembly (about $40) that solves the problem that Taurus won't. Taurus beefing up by redesiging the slide is laughable.

Thats typicle of Taurus , instead of solving the design problem (which isn't the slide) just replace the slide.

How the factory recoil spring assembly can break the slide? And why an aftermarket recoil spring assembly solves the problem?
Can you please add more details?
I'm only asking to figure out what exactly the problem is since I don't have a TX-22 that I can personally inspect.

 

[triplebike]

In OP original post shows gouge marks on the front of the slide. The Taurus recoil assembly is open ended, the edge of the spring acts as a grinder. Aftermarket uses a closed end recoil assembly which has no sharp edge to cause the gouging, problem sloved. After close to 5000 rds mine was gouged to the point that the slide cracked. The front of the slide that the recoil rides in is very thin and once it starts gouging the problem compounds since the surface is no longer flat.

 

[5-SHOTS]

In OP original post shows gouge marks on the front of the slide. The Taurus recoil assembly is open ended, the edge of the spring acts as a grinder. Aftermarket uses a closed end recoil assembly which has no sharp edge to cause the gouging, problem sloved. After close to 5000 rds mine was gouged to the point that the slide cracked. The front of the slide that the recoil rides in is very thin and once it starts gouging the problem compounds since the surface is no longer flat.

Since my first post I was talking about this possible slide crack which I can't think how the factory recoil spring assembly can cause:

The gouge marks are neglegible and cosmetic for the most part. If Taurus beef up the whole zone under the muzzle hole by one millimeter in the inside direction, reducing the frame buffer zone by that same millimeter and shortening the recoil spring assembly by one millimeter, I don't see how the cracks could ocurr again.
Even simpler is to beef up the parts in the outside direction without changing anything internal, but then Taurus have to lengthen the barrel to match the lengthen of the slide.

Infact I can't see how a TX-22 Competition slide could crack in that area, gouge marks or not.

 

[GooseGestapo]

I recently picked up a TX22. I had several Academy Sports gift cards so I don’t have much in it.
My gripe is that something is machined crooked as it takes running the rear sight all the way to the right and then some to center the shots.
I installed a set of inexpensive fiber optic sights. I had to drill out the rear screw hole off center to get the shots to center. The rear sight now hangs off the risked of the slide. I also had to make a .007” shim to go under the front sight to bring the group down to center.
Accuracy is disappointing too. But part of that is how light the gun is.

 

[actionexpress]

Since my first post I was talking about this possible slide crack which I can't think how the factory recoil spring assembly can cause:View attachment 1163140View attachment 1163141View attachment 1163142View attachment 1163143View attachment 1163144View attachment 1163145

The gouge marks are neglegible and cosmetic for the most part. If Taurus beef up the whole zone under the muzzle hole by one millimeter in the inside direction, reducing the frame buffer zone by that same millimeter and shortening the recoil spring assembly by one millimeter, I don't see how the cracks could ocurr again.
Even simpler is to beef up the parts in the outside direction without changing anything internal, but then Taurus have to lengthen the barrel to match the lengthen of the slide.

Infact I can't see how a TX-22 Competition slide could crack in that area, gouge marks or not.

That's where my slide failed as well, Taurus replaced it. I bought the compact, totally different in design as far as the spring/slide and it's my new favorite .22 auto. I saw Lakeline is selling slides that are optic cut and cut for Glock sights for $150 or so. I ordered one, hopefully will get out to play with it soon.

 

[Bottom Gun]

I shot my neighbor’s TX22 a while back and was impressed by the accuracy and reliability of such an inexpensive pistol. It caused me to re-think my low opinion of Taurus products. I even put a TX22 on my watch list in case a good deal came up. I’ve since changed my mind after seeing this post.

The wear and breakage I see in these photos is simply unacceptable. There is simply no excuse for any of that mess shown in the photos. It’s obviously a poor design coupled with a poor choice of material. Very disappointing.
You can’t justify putting junk like this out now matter how low the price. There should be a recall for these pistols. At very least, these pistols should be marked as “disposable” or “limited use”.

 

[red rick]

I agree with you Bottom Gun , after buying one a couple months ago and having problems with it and seeing the wear at the front of my slide after only firing about 200 rounds , I consider it a disposable pistol that probably won’t last many rounds of use before needing parts . I already bought a new barrel for mine and a new rear sight after 2 disappointing range trips . The third trip was satisfying . I will see how many of those I will have .