.38spc range gun?

John_ said:

Leadslinger doesn't have a clue what catastrophic is concerning a firearm. It might be "catastrophic" for him when he stubs his toe walking around in the dark in his house

cat·a·stroph·ic
ˌkadəˈsträfik/Submit
adjective
1.
involving or causing sudden great damage or suffering.
"a catastrophic earthquake"

Click to expand...

Take it for what it's worth, a post on an internet forum. If you buy Taurus, do so at your own risk.

I do find it comical that you specifically chose that definition to try and belittle me.

If you look at that official definition, as provided in the Meriam Webster Dictionary, you would see that definition 2 fits the description in which it was used: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/catastrophe

You can also refer to the Collins Dictionary to extrapolate the meaning of Catastrophic Failure.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/catastrophic-failure

"Catastrophic failure is sudden and complete failure which cannot be put right."

One could conclude that the term Catastrophic Failure does indeed fit the description of a firearm part breaking, causing it to be rendered useless.

Back to the original topic at hand ...

... my choice would be a Smith & Wesson Model 10 or 15, preferably from the 1980's or earlier. The Model 65/66 is also a good choice in stainless steel. 686 might be a touch large, but the extra weight helps absorb a bit more recoil.

Decent used example Model 10's can sometimes be found for $350 or so.

Mike

PS - FWIW, I've owned four Taurus revolvers, and all have been excellent guns. I don't doubt that catastrophic failures happen, but I have no firsthand knowledge of this happening and I don't deal in Internet rumors.

RaleighReloader said:

PS - FWIW, I've owned four Taurus revolvers, and all have been excellent guns. I don't doubt that catastrophic failures happen, but I have no firsthand knowledge of this happening and I don't deal in Internet rumors.

Click to expand...

I only ask that a potential buyer be wary of what they are buying. A friend has a Raging Bull .454 Casull that has been great for him, but it is also built much better than the smaller framed Taurus revolvers.

The class where the incident took place was taken in early 2015 with Bearco Training in North Covington. You could ask Barrett himself about which firearms he commonly sees have failures in courses, but I don't think he wants to. There are instructors like Aaron Cowan who divulge their findings at classes, and DO get backlash for it, so I don't blame anyone if they don't want to get into online pissing matches and offending potential customers.

If I were in the market for another revolver, I would not hesitate to buy from S&W or even the new Kimber revolvers.

John_ said:

cat·a·stroph·ic
ˌkadəˈsträfik/Submit
adjective
1.
involving or causing sudden great damage or suffering.
"a catastrophic earthquake"

Click to expand...

Having your Taurus revolver lock up or beak its firing pin during a gunfight would qualify for the listed definition.

Having that happen while casually shooting at the range (which is what i guess Taurus owners generally do?) would not qualify.

I guess it just depends what you plan to do with the gun? A toy or a tool? I guess this does amplify the need to vet these items with personal testing.

RaleighReloader said:

PS - FWIW, I've owned four Taurus revolvers, and all have been excellent guns. I don't doubt that catastrophic failures happen, but I have no firsthand knowledge of this happening and I don't deal in Internet rumors.

Click to expand...

I see replies like this quite often and do wonder about my experiences.

I have owned 6 or 8 Taurus revolvers and a handful of their autos.

As mentioned, 2 of the revolvers had machining issues with the frames, and this caused very loose cylinder locks, thus they had timing issues. This is a combo issue for Taurus at the mfg level: inconsistent tooling/machining, coupled with poor QC. I can pick up a revolver and wiggle the cylinder, then hold the hammer back with my thumb while holding the trigger all the way back and check for slack on the cylinder. Wonder why Taurus can't before they package and ship?

2 of the other revolvers were judges, both brand new. Fit on both was sloppy, the end play on the cylinder was considerably more than the large number of Smiths I have handled and owned. Finish was also not as good, but to be expected at the price point.

The Raging Bull in 44 mag was decent, but that is a high dollar gun and just could not measure up to a any of the multiple N frame Smiths I have on hand.

The little K frame-ish model 85 was not too bad, a bit rough around the edges. Had one of the older lightweight snubbies, it was not very accurate even with the softest 38spl.

My first auto was a Taurus 92 clone of a beretta 92. It was ok, but testing revealed it was no where near as accurate as my buddy's Beretta 92, shooting the same ammo. Fast forward 20 yrs and I have shot a bunch of Berettas and they never disappoint. Cant say the same for the Taurus.

Had a Taurus clone of a 3rd gen smith, single stack in 45. Sorta like a 4506, in commander length. Not too bad, build quality seemed good, but yet again not as good as a 3rd gen Smith.

Won't even go into the issues with the various poly framed guns. Would not trust my life to one, that is for sure.

I don't know if the casual user/purchaser of a Taurus product cares or notices these things, but I do. I started out in this hobby just like most, as a newb. And I had budget constraints back then too. However, buying a used Smith over a new Taurus is a no brainier, now, just as it was back then.

I do not doubt that Taurus can produce a well fitted and functioning revolver, and I am sure they are out there. I just feel like the expectations for a Taurus are lower than those for a Smith. "Almost as good", or "Great for the price" don't equate to the guns being high quality items.

jdindadell said:

Having your Taurus revolver lock up or beak its firing pin during a gunfight would qualify for the listed definition.

Having that happen while casually shooting at the range (which is what i guess Taurus owners generally do?) would not qualify.

I guess it just depends what you plan to do with the gun? A toy or a tool? I guess this does amplify the need to vet these items with personal testing.

Click to expand...

We have zero proof of this even occurring. Just BS on a forum. No pics, no links, no nothing. I have owned several Taurus firearms, own one now a 709 Slim 9mm, never had an issue. Taurus offers a lifetime warranty. I'm not a Taurus fanboy by any means, but if ur gonna make claims on a forum, have some proof. I have a serious disdain for unproven BS, and those who spew it, that's all.

I challenge you to find on the world wide web, of a "catastrophic failure" of a factory Taurus handgun attributed to poor quality, assembly, or materials. Post a link. Not someone blowing up a 44 mag with their way over pressure handloads, or shooting a squib and a slug in the barrel followed by another round. Manufacturer attributed catastrophic failure of a Taurus firearm.

Further, I will no longer de-rail the OP's thread. we're way off topic here. The point has been proven here.

John_ said:

We have zero proof of this even occurring. Just BS on a forum. No pics, no links, no nothing. I have owned several Taurus firearms, own one now a 709 Slim 9mm, never had an issue. Taurus offers a lifetime warranty. I'm not a Taurus fanboy by any means, but if ur gonna make claims on a forum, have some proof. I have a serious disdain for unproven BS, and those who spew it, that's all.

I challenge you to find on the world wide web, of a "catastrophic failure" of a factory Taurus handgun attributed to poor quality, assembly, or materials. Post a link. Not someone blowing up a 44 mag with their way over pressure handloads, or shooting a squib and a slug in the barrel followed by another round. Manufacturer attributed catastrophic failure of a Taurus firearm.

Further, I will no longer dis rail the OP's thread. we're way off topic here. The point has been proven here.

Click to expand...

Didn't take long to find a video.



Here is another for your viewing pleasure...



And one more for now...

So I just did some price shopping on gunbroker. Not the best choice for a good price but comparison is valid.

Taurus model 66, NIB for $370

Smith 66, NIB for $660

So a 300 dollar difference, almost twice the cost.

I guess I see why people buy a Taurus?!

I can usually find a used Smith in decent shape for $450 or so. But I have experience doing so, and never need one, so I can wait for a deal.

I guess it all depends where you stand.

jdindadell said:

So I just did some price shopping on gunbroker. Not the best choice for a good price but comparison is valid.

Taurus model 66, NIB for $370

Smith 66, NIB for $660

So a 300 dollar difference, almost twice the cost.

I guess I see why people buy a Taurus?!

I can usually find a used Smith in decent shape for $450 or so. But I have experience doing so, and never need one, so I can wait for a deal.

I guess it all depends where you stand.

Click to expand...

You can find new 442, 642, 637, & 638's for $400 new. With the right size grip, they can be fun to shoot.

Search for S&W or Ruger catastrophic failure. Vids come up fast for those too.

I've personally had mostly good experiences with taurus smith and ruger. I've also seen them all fail at some point in some way. That said, taurus is an inexpensive way to throw 38s down range.

John_ said:

We have zero proof of this even occurring. Just BS on a forum. No pics, no links, no nothing. I have owned several Taurus firearms, own one now a 709 Slim 9mm, never had an issue. Taurus offers a lifetime warranty. I'm not a Taurus fanboy by any means, but if ur gonna make claims on a forum, have some proof. I have a serious disdain for unproven BS, and those who spew it, that's all.

I challenge you to find on the world wide web, of a "catastrophic failure" of a factory Taurus handgun attributed to poor quality, assembly, or materials. Post a link. Not someone blowing up a 44 mag with their way over pressure handloads, or shooting a squib and a slug in the barrel followed by another round. Manufacturer attributed catastrophic failure of a Taurus firearm.

Further, I will no longer dis rail the OP's thread. we're way off topic here. The point has been proven here.

Click to expand...

My 9mm all steel taurus revo (model 85 or whatever the number is) would lock its cylinder on a diverse selection of ammo, until I disassembled it and added a shim to the cylinder lock, to take up space that was caused by incorrect machining of the frame in that area. I did not take a vid for you, but I do know how a revolver works and this "fixed" the issue (proper fix would be to scrap the frame, as the factory should have done before they sold it). A locked cylinder during the use of this gun to save my life in a self defense situation could have ended up with the "catastophic" loss of my life. (yes, the gun would probably be ok, and a quick trip to the factory for a new frame (!) by whoever in my family that was still alive (check my will) would have restored it to tip top Taurus shape!) I will agree that "to the gun" a locked cylinder is not catastrophic, but if we consider the intended use (or lack thereof in the case of a locked cylinder) of the gun , then the immediate results to the operator could be.

I have read and heard quite a bit of anecdotal evidence on the various Taurus issues with their revolvers. Maybe it is just me, but I seem to hear less about Smith revolvers? I have owned a lot more Smith revolvers than Taurus, but have hand many more issues with the smaller sample size of Taurus. This can mean many things, perhaps I am just not lucky?

I can remember seeing vids of a Taurus revo popping the top strap, but have seen those on Smiths as well. I have certainly read and heard of many people having to "make use of" that great Taurus warranty! Not so much with Smith. Maybe there are just a lot more Taurus products out there? I don't know. I am mainly going by my own experience. And the price point, which matters. These guns are made to a price, so workmanship and material usage is how that is done. We as a group expect a premium priced product to be better, no reason not to. However, I expect a gun to work, and if shoddy machining or lackluster QC exists I want no part of that.

What it boils down to is that I do not trust a Taurus product after my experience, and would not even consider buying one for actual gun use (not plinking). And I would not recommend one either, as I feel there are many better options out there.

leadslinger972 said:

You can find new 442, 642, 637, & 638's for $400 new. With the right size grip, they can be fun to shoot.

Click to expand...

Very true, and those could be used as backup or CC guns. Not sure if I would ever use a 66 as a CCW, not when something like a G19 exists, perhaps in a marine environment?

I looked a GB again for a Taurus 85, and they go for around 250 new...

I have a feeling that regardless of the quality or reliability the argument will always be over the price. Maybe not on the surface, but that is why they sell so many. Price sells stuff.

Redd508 said:

Search for S&W or Ruger catastrophic failure. Vids come up fast for those too.

I've personally had mostly good experiences with taurus smith and ruger. I've also seen them all fail at some point in some way. That said, taurus is an inexpensive way to throw 38s down range.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt that you will find S&W or Ruger failures. I do doubt that S&W and Ruger have more failures than Taurus. However, witnessing two fail in the same day is enough for me to never bother with them.

Getting back to the OP, he seems to not care if this revolver meets the expectations of a carry gun, so by all means look at Taurus if it suits your needs.

- - - Updated - - -

jdindadell said:

Very true, and those could be used as backup or CC guns. Not sure if I would ever use a 66 as a CCW, not when something like a G19 exists, perhaps in a marine environment?

I looked a GB again for a Taurus 85, and they go for around 250 new...

I have a feeling that regardless of the quality or reliability the argument will always be over the price. Maybe not on the surface, but that is why they sell so many. Price sells stuff.

Click to expand...

Price is why people still buy Hi Points.

leadslinger972 said:

Price is why people still buy Hi Points.

Click to expand...

I have heard their warranty is very good too. Single stack = no go for me...

jdindadell said:

I have heard their warranty is very good too. Single stack = no go for me...

Click to expand...

I just realized that someone reading my posts may think I am some sort of firearm snob. I do own Mossberg shotguns and have an affinity for the Desert Eagle so I am weird too, just like everyone else.

To the OP, sorry for the thread diversions...

If you just want a range toy, then buy what your desires and budget allow. You can always learn from any firearm, even a faulty one.

Back on the op's topic of a 3-4" range revolver....

Go to your local gunshops and pawnshops to see if they have any of these used guns;
Ruger Security 6, Ruger Speed 6, Ruger GP 100, and as mentioned in other posts, S&W 10, 15, 65, 66, and even the odd Dan Wesson. These should all be sub-$400 guns. Be sure to check the timing & lock-up on any you are interested in. That sub-$400 price may get busted if any repairs need to be done.

Depending on how long a piece has been collecting dust in the showcase, you may be able to negotiate an even lower price on those 3"-4" revolvers (which really aren' "concealable" concealed carry guns for small to averaged-sized folks).

I have an old S&W Model 10 that is buttery smooth and a lot of fun to shoot, a 66 & a 28 (a bit heavier, being a .357), and did have a S&W 686 (also heavier).
I have also had a Ruger SP101 & a GP100. I have smaller hands and the ergonomics of the S&W frames suit me better. I can shoot a Mod 29 .44 mag all day long, but I dislike the Ruger Redhawk .44 grip.

If you can, find friends with these guns and buy them some range time if they will let her try them out for size, fit and fun.

I love shooting .38 through my 686+, that gun is easy shooting and as accurate as I can make it. My bullseye scores jumped 20-30 points when I started using it. Any S&W in good condition should serve you well. I hear good things about Ruger's wheelguns but I don't have any firsthand knowledge.

Don't know why I didn't think of it before, but if you want a .38spl without breaking the bank, look for a used Ruger Security Six.

With 60+ years shooting experience I can recommend Colt, Ruger and S&W revolvers.
I do not have videos of the revolver failures I have seen and do care to join the pissing contest.
Everyone has an opinion and I will leave it at that.

i asked for va cheap range toy, 3-4 inch barrel. lol.

get pm's offering me colt troopers for $800, etc.... lol

i had a taurus m66 a decade ago with a bent crane arm that the previous owner bent.
after repai(free) it was flawless.
just seeing what stuff people like as ive never been a .38 fan.