Why does S&W get all the credit???

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

drf

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
275
Location
Michigan
I've got a Taurus Model 85 UL and it has been a great little snubnose revolver and its all I hear about on this site is Smith and Wesson....
What gives? Why doesn't the Taurus get the credit they deserve, especially when they are priced cheaper than the Smiths and are a great little side arm.......drf
 
Why do people continue to dredge up this particular grudge war, apparently without looking at the MILLIONS of similar threads that have already come and gone???

:banghead:

stellarpod
 
I also have a plain model 85 that I bobbed the hammer on and I carry it a lot. It has always been 100% reliable.

I have or do own a S&W 36,37 and 60 and they were also great guns. The S&W's, especially my 2 36"s and one 37 that were bought new in the early 70's, do have a deeper richer blue look and maybe a little better finished. I would have no problem recommending the 85 to anyone that wanted a small easy to carry .38.
 
It's kinda hard to give Taurus a lot of credit...

considering that their revolver line originated as a spin-off of existing S&W models. ;)
 
Mostly because of Brand Recognition.


Much like Kleenex gets all the credit when it comes to facial tissue.
 
Technically and historically, Colt should get all of the credit, in snubbies anyway. :neener:
 
It is pretty simple, a long history and quality have given S&W the regard they have today. Taurus is just a baby in the US firearm market, and their guns weren't always as well made as they are now, especially the revolvers.
 
well, lots of people just stick with the big brand, whether or not its any better. I like smith's, but I've never had a problem with a Taurus either. But alof of people won't even consider one because they are foreign made and they must be "junk". I think they were probably helped by the Smith "sellout" deal, and alot of people who wouldn't try one in the past triend them out and found they weren't half bad.

One of my pistols that I have personally owned the longest is a taurus 85. Very accurate for a snubbie, always goes boom and the old wooden grips they used to come with are some of the most comfortable you could ever find. At the same time, if you're in the gunshop and see some used old revolver, you're going to be tempted to buy a smith or colt, right, because they are a classic and should still be good, and hold their value better...just the way it is I guess.
 
S&W is a better gun. Remove the sideplate on a Taurus and a S&W and you'll see the difference. Superior engineering in the S&W. Taurus is OK, but given between the two, I'd go S&W.
 
well, that's just silly that smith's are better designed--as I recall, Taurus' were made on smith equipment, licensed in brazil. Taurus had a history once upon a time of making clones of other great designs. Some have thought the taurus pt92 superior to the beretta--they never had the slide breakage problems beretta did and had a preferable safety
 
The original Beretta M92 did have the safety on the frame. Taurus bought the equipment that made that model to then start making their own.
 
S&W all the way.

There's just something about those old blued S&W revolvers that make a man lust over them. Those curves and the way they feel in your hand. Truly Lustworthy. (If my president can make up words, so can I.)
 
Hold your 85 in one hand and a 642 in the other and pull the triggers. Look at the way they are made. I did it at a gun store one day and convinced me to always spend the extra money. As usual, YMMV.

Greg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top