Which gun for home defense

[chaim]

So, I'm not reawakening my old thread with a number of guns listed that are no longer under consideration (this time) since many people look at the title, maybe the first post, and ignore follow up posts before they post themselves. Sorry for the partial duplicate.

I'm looking for a gun that will primarily serve as my home defense revolver. It may get occasional carry time, sometimes "just because" and if I go with one of the .357mag it will also be my camping/fishing/outdoors gun (though for hiking, kayaking and other times I may want to keep weight down, my lighter new model 3" Colt King Cobra will come with me).

I've dropped the S&W and Ruger options from the list for now since I'll probably be buying a new car between now and mid-summer. If I luck into a great deal on a used one I may go that way, but please no Smith or Ruger suggestions since I can't count on lucking out on a great deal. It does pain me a little since I've long wanted a 3" 686 (though this time I'm looking for a 4"), and the 2.5" and 4" current S&W 66 has my eye as well. But, I do want a 4" gun this time around, and since I'm soon buying a car I need to go cheaper (two guns I had on consignment just sold, so basically my budget is what I got for them and I want some left over for more ammo).

I'm considering a Taurus 65, a Taurus 66 or a Taurus 82.

Logically, I should get the 66. I want .357mag, I would love a 7 shot revolver (I've never had one, and an extra round in a home defense situation would be reassuring), and the slightly larger size doesn't matter much since it will only see occasional carry. Yet, I am posing the question of which would you pick? If you hate Taurus, think about whether you'd go with a 6 shot or 7 shot L-frame vs. a Model 10 (i.e. don't say you'd pick none since you don't like Taurus, think about the advantages and disadvantages of the main differences in these guns).

Since the 66 makes the most logical sense, why am I considering the others:

• Taurus 82: A Taurus 82 was my first gun and I shouldn't have sold it. About 2 years later I bought a Colt Police Positive Special but I didn't like it enough to keep it. I haven't had a medium framed .38spl since, though I have a few small framed revolvers that are dedicated .38s (S&W 442, Taurus 85CH, Taurus 856UL). It is a hair lighter and smaller than the .357mags (same cylinder width, but 1 1/4" shorter in length than the 66 and 65, 0.2" shorter in height than the 66, and an ounce lighter than both). While I'd like a medium framed .357mag, for home defense I'd load with .38+P anyway so the .38 only 82 is only at a disadvantage for woods/camping carry and for at the range fun. For 6 shots (Taurus 82 and 65) vs. 7 shots (Taurus 66), see the Taurus 65 discussion below. It is a good $100 less than the 65, so I could get a very inexpensive gun to serve as my main home defense revolver, and wait until I'm ready to get the S&W K-frame or L-frame to get a 4" .357mag, though I really do want a .357mag that is heavier than my Colt for range comfort and I no longer shoot magnums out of my older 3" K-frame (it has seen a lot of rounds, and I want to keep it as long as I'm still here on this planet).

• Taurus 65: It is the same size and weight in all measurements except for height where it is 0.2" shorter than the 66. No real difference for when I decide to carry. There is only about a $30 difference with a little shopping between the 65 and 66, so when paying $450-550 for a gun, the savings are pretty insignificant. So why am I drawn to the 65? Since it is a defensive gun the fixed sights are an advantage over adjustable sights, but not really enough to pick it over the gun with the extra round. The only thing I can think of is when it really comes down to it, I'm a traditionalist with revolvers. A revolver (with the exception of a J-frame) is supposed to be a six shooter. When looking around but thinking more in theory because the purchase was in the future, I barely even looked at the 65. The S&W K-frames have a slight advantage over the L-frames in that they are lighter and a bit smaller, but Taurus seems to make both the 65 and 66 on the exact same frame so no such advantage. But, now that I'm about ready to "pull the trigger" on the purchase, the 65 is really creeping into my consciousness.

So, am I being silly and I should just pick the 7-shot Taurus 66, or are there actually good reasons to go with the 82 or 65 over the 66?

 

[Tallball]

I have owned three Taurus 65/66 variants and two Model 82's. All of them have been good. As I've gotten older, I don't shoot 357's anymore, so a 3" Model 82 is my nightstand gun. If I wanted adjustable sights instead, I'd have one of the 66's out. For nightstand use fixed sights are better. For plinking or range use or hunting, the adjustable sights are better mostly because they're so much larger.

This Model 82 is LE surplus that I got for around $300 a couple of months back. The trigger is excellent. If you can find some still out there, that would be my recommendation. I can tell that it was maintained. I would frankly not bother to buy any of these revolvers new. I've not managed to wear one out yet. My Old Model 66 is from the early or mid 80's, has been shot plenty, and still works just fine.

The older Model 66 variants were six-shooters. The fanciest one was the Model 689.

My other Model 82 is a "carry piece". It's the slightly lighter model without the underlug. I removed the hammer spur and put boot grips on it. It cost $299 used in basically 99% condition. It's the one in my avatar. The trigger was nice, but I replaced the springs and now it's even better.

All of the 65's, and 66's and 82's that I've handled (except for the very oldest ones) took the same grips, so there are lots of good choices out there for grips. Wolff sells spring kits for them, too.

 

[Pat Riot]

I have very little experience with Taurus revolvers so I can’t say which one I would buy, but just out of curiosity I looked up accessories for the Taurus 66 7-shot and it uses all the same speedloaders and holsters the 686+ does.

 

[tubeshooter]

They all would be fine choices for me, since I am fine with the Taurus brand. Especially their older revolvers.

I also am a traditionalist who has not really warmed up to 7-shot .357 revolvers. But as you say - another shot is comforting and not a bad thing.

As a house gun, the frame size doesn't matter that much. And I like fixed sights in general.


So really it comes down to... do you want that 7th shot? Or not?
They're all decent enough choices to me. No bad answers here.
Best wishes on whatever you decide.

 

[Stevel]

Great post.
IMO "logically" I'd hold off buying a car an extra month and get a Smith or Ruger.

If not that would buy 2 Armscor m206's.

That said, any of the Taurii you mentioned should be fine.

 

[pete950]

Why not take take a look at the Taurus 3 inch 856. They come with a night sight plus it conceals easy if you decide to carry it.

 

[bdickens]

You are way overthinking this.

 

[defjon]

Are used model 10s or 64s really so rare in your neck of the woods?

They're here all over for 450ish...

 

[.38 Special]

I would most likely get the 66 myself, as it is the most versatile. I wouldn't buy a .38 Special (as opposed to a .357) without very specific reason, and "general personal defense" is not one of them. The same is true of fixed sights, except on a last-ditch hideout sort of gun.

 

[Tallball]

I have a "nice" 2-inch S&W Model 10 and a nice 4-inch S&W Model 64, but I don't have a 3-inch S&W k-frame.

I prefer the 3" barrel enough to use one of my two Taurii, rather than go up or down an inch and use a S&W.

I've had enough experience with the Taurus Model 82/65/66 family to have one for SD. It's pretty much just a S&W with a coil mainspring and a transfer bar safety. Apparently, after decades of experience, Taurus is able to make copies of this antique design that are usually functional. Not a huge boast, but in my limited experience they've at least managed to do that.

 

[BoBo522]

Any of them would serve, but my preference would be for the 66. I gifted one to my brother to get him into pistol shooting. He loves it. Accurate and reliable.

 

[chicharrones]

I'm looking for a gun that will primarily serve as my home defense revolver. It may get occasional carry time, sometimes "just because" and if I go with one of the .357mag it will also be my camping/fishing/outdoors gun . . .

I vote for the 66.

The adjustable rear sight and .38/.357 mag versatility would win for me. The 7th shot is a nice bonus.

 

[chaim]

Why not take take a look at the Taurus 3 inch 856. They come with a night sight plus it conceals easy if you decide to carry it.

I'll be picking one up before too long to compliment my 3" Colt King Cobra. However, I have been without a 4" medium framed revolver for over 15 years and it is a huge gap in my collection. I currently have 2 active 3" revolvers (the King Cobra and my S&W 65LS) and one on consignment at a local FFL (a 3" Rossi 461). I'll probably pick up either (both?) a 3" 686 Plus and a 2.5" 66 (new version) in the next year (probably less), and the 856 Defender and/or a 905 Defender will likely be added within the next 6 months. Right now, I "need" to fill the 4" medium framed revolver hole in the collection, and I'd like a more useful .357mag (I don't shoot my old 65LS anymore because it has a ton of rounds and I want to prolong its life, and my Colt is a bit light for much magnum shooting at a time).

 

[Old Hobo]

Can't say I could get enthused by anything made by Taurus. Shot/owned auto/revolver Taurus-land and disappointment was usually the order of the day. I'm a Quality Control nut, yes; however, some things simply must work and they must do so without flaw.

You, me, and everydangbody else are spiritually injured in our heart-of-hearts about the insane firearms prices of today. There is a near-endless discussion in that topic ...

I'd not buy a Taurus for any life-or-death uses; as in, some felon wants to put you in the dirt. That a Taurus "could be" a decent "get-by" weapon just doesn't cut it.

 

[jstert]

i’ve had good luck with older and newer, steel taurus 85 38sp snubbies, and a new taurus 856 snubbie. at $300 with a lifetime warranty a new 856 that is 38+p capable is an attractive buy. i don’t like the shooting dynamics of 357mag, and since i would not practice enough, won’t buy one. east of the mississippi river wouldn’t 38+p be a comfortably sufficient choice for the outdoors?

 

[defjon]

I'd say so. Hardcast and plus p is no slouch.

 

[Diamondback]

i’ve had good luck with older and newer, steel taurus 85 38sp snubbies, and a new taurus 856 snubbie. at $300 with a lifetime warranty a new 856 that is 38+p capable is an attractive buy. i don’t like the shooting dynamics of 357mag, and since i would not practice enough, won’t buy one. east of the mississippi river wouldn’t 38+p be a comfortably sufficient choice for the outdoors?

I just bought both a 3" SS Taurus 856 Defender and a 2" SS 856 UL...they both pass muster. And I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Smith and Colt type.