Got a new toy last week

[brownman]

A Taurus revolver cannot even hope to compare to a Smith and Wesson. The 686 is superior to any Taurus .357, every damn day of the week.

Why Steve ?

Nice pick up on the Smith OP

[Steve_NEPhila]

Smith and Wesson has been working on what we call the "modern" revolver (they called it the "hand ejector") since about 1900. That gives them 111 years of engineering revisions, trial and error and improvements to make a superior product. To get a bit more modern, Smith and Wesson was the first to use titanium cylinders, scandium alloy frames and to have an 8 shot .357 Magnum.

The factory at Smith and Wesson has multi-generational fitters that pass on their knowledge. Pick up a Smith and Wesson 686 (new in the box) and compare it to a similar Taurus. Check the small details like the fit and finish, the action and shoot them if you can. I do not know of a single professional shooter that shoots a Taurus revolver in competition, and there is a reason why almost all of them use Smith revolvers (occasionally there will be a Ruger).

I will take my forged American steel with over a hundred years of pursuing perfection over a Brazilian made copy of the finest revolver on earth...

[ByblosHex]

That is a lot like pulling up to a stop light in a Kia and looking over at a Mercedes E55 AMG and saying to the driver of the Merc "Good choice, your car is almost identical to mine."

Smith and Wesson has been around since 1852... Taurus copies Smith. Just because you bought it does not make it superior to the others. A Taurus revolver cannot even hope to compare to a Smith and Wesson. The 686 is superior to any Taurus .357, every damn day of the week.

Smith and Wesson has been working on what we call the "modern" revolver (they called it the "hand ejector") since about 1900. That gives them 111 years of engineering revisions, trial and error and improvements to make a superior product. To get a bit more modern, Smith and Wesson was the first to use titanium cylinders, scandium alloy frames and to have an 8 shot .357 Magnum.

The factory at Smith and Wesson has multi-generational fitters that pass on their knowledge. Pick up a Smith and Wesson 686 (new in the box) and compare it to a similar Taurus. Check the small details like the fit and finish, the action and shoot them if you can. I do not know of a single professional shooter that shoots a Taurus revolver in competition, and there is a reason why almost all of them use Smith revolvers (occasionally there will be a Ruger).

I will take my forged American steel with over a hundred years of pursuing perfection over a Brazilian made copy of the finest revolver on earth...

Your fanboyism is laughable. Not only is it willingly blind like many Playstation vs XBox arguments on the internet, but it offers not a single tangible or physical reason to favor one over the other. It's all about the name brand.

I'm not even going to give you the satisfaction of even trying to argue with your empty points. I bought a Taurus because of the fact that, A. The Salesmen at Tanners who I feel are knowledgeable in firearms were the first to tell me there's nothing wrong with a Taurus revolver, the only thing S&W has over them is it's name S&W. When you pay double the price for a S&W what you're really paying for is the name. B. The only bad things I've ever heard about Taurus revolvers were ignorant rants without ever actually giving a reason as to why Taurus was so bad. To the first person who told me I should have got a S&W instead of a Taurus I asked him "Why, exactly?" and all he could say was S&W is better and when I asked him "How?" he could only say .."Just because... it's like comparing a Kia to a Cadillac..." (Funny he used the same comparison you did) and I asked for him to give me an example of how it's like comparing a Kia to a Cadillac, and at that point he had no more answers than "Because I read it somewhere./Someone told me."

The differences between a Kia and Cadillac are numerous, obvious and easily quantified. Yet, you can't even present a single measurable variable to compare. I know cars, and I know guns. I could point out dozens of differences between the quality of Kia's & Cadillacs without even opening the hood. A Taurus and S&W? They're different, sure, but in what way is a S&W superior to a Taurus? I'm stumped. A better comparison would be between a Ford(S&W) and a Honda(Taurus).

You rant about one thing being superior over the other, but if you can't even offer any tangible way that it is superior, why bother? If anyone had ever given me an understandable, quantifiable superiority of a S&W Revolver over a Taurus Revolver I would've got a S&W. Unfortunately for S&W all of the fanboys are just that, fanboys without anything to actually back it up.

Your hyperbole fanboyism hurts your credibility with me in a lot more than just this topic.

For those intersted in information and not just fanboyism, the reason Taurus & S&W Revolvers are so similar in design is S&W had been purchased by "Bangor Punta". In 1970, Bangor Punta also purchased half of Taurus. The two companies became owned by the same person. Though they were always independent companies. After the next seven years, a great amount of tech and engineering was passed between the two. What may surprise fanboys is that more of what was "right" in Porto Alegre was sent to Springfield than was sent from Springfield to Porto Alegre. So, S&W owes much of it's quality in design to Taurus as Taurus owes much to S&W. Of course, this is all factual information and has no room a in a fanboy argument.

As for what professionals think of Taurus, well, they've gotten a few awards than S&W never received. Listed here: http://www.taurususa.com/awards.cfm

2010
THE BEACON AWARDS
The Beacon Council
International Commerce Award
Taurus International MFG, Inc.


2008
7th Annual Irlene Mandrell
Gold Sponsor
Celebrity Shoot
Taurus International
Golden Bullseye HandGUN of the Year
American Rifleman is proud to name the Taurus Judge as its 2008 Golden Bullseye Handgun of the Year
Golden Bullseye Award, NRA
American Rifleman
Handgun of the Year
Taurus Judge


2007
Manufacturer of the Year
Finalist
Taurus International Mfg., Inc.
Presented by SFMA
Golden Bullseye Award, NRA
American Rifleman
Handgun of the Year
Taurus PT 24/7


2005
Golden Bullseye
American Rifleman is proud to name Taurus PT 24/7 as its 2005 Golden Bullseye Handgun of the Year
Gun of the Year
Shooting Gallery, presented to Taurus International Mfg, Miami, Fl , for their Taurus Gaucho
Golden Bullseye Award, NRA
Shooting Illustrated
Handgun of the Year
Taurus PT 1911


2004
Guns & Ammo Editor's Award
Editor's Award for Innovation
Taurus 24/7


2003
Editors Choice Award
Outdoor Life
Awarded to Taurus for Raging Bee
Guns & Ammo
Presented to Taurus in recognition of the Millennium Pro PT 145, being chosen as a nominee for the 2003 Gun of the Year Awards
Shooting Industry Award
Robert G. Morrison, for dedicated service to the firearms industry
Shooting Industry Academy of Excellence 2003 Hall of Fame Inductee
Charter Broadcast Member/Sponsor
Taurus International
American Hunter
American Rifleman Television
Golden Bullseye Award, NRA
Shooting Illustrated
Sporting Handgun of the Year
Taurus Raging Bull in 480 Ruger
Taurus Copper Bullet .45 ACP
Nominee Shooting Industry Academy of Excellence Ammunition of the Year


2002
NSSF/SHOT Business Man of the Year
Robert G. Morrison
Manufacturer of the Year
Taurus, for continued commitment to excellence in manufacturing
SHOT Business Manufacturer of the Year
Click here for more '02 awards details


2001
Shooting Industry Academy of Excellence Manufacturer of the Year
First factory Concealed Hammer on small frame 38 Special and
357 Magnum revolvers
Shooting Industry Academy of Excellence Handgun of the Year
Millennium Guns & Ammo Gun of the Year 454 Raging Bull


2000
Manufacturer of the Year
For exceptional design and manufacture of the Total Titanium line.
First factory Concealed Hammer on small frame 38 Special and 357 Magnum revolvers
Handgun of the Year
Taurus, Model PT-111 Titanium Millennium 9mm


1999
American Firearms Industry
Excellence Award
Total Titanium


1998
Handgun of the Year
Shooting Industry Academy of Excellence Handgun of the Year 454 Raging Bull


1997
American Firearms Industry
Revolver of the Year
454 Raging Bull.

[Python73]

Ooooooh a Taurus hate post meets a hate Taurus hater post! /popcorn

Personally I don't hate on Taurus, and I own (and have owned) several. That said...

I had a PT99 and I have a 92FS. The Beretta is nicer.
I have a PT1911 and I have a SW1911E. The Smith is nicer.

Nicer is a very vague thing. Side by side, you wouldn't have trouble understanding why I say the Smith is nicer than the Taurus. But the Smith cost $300 more, which could have been spent on a second gun. And despite not being chosen as nicer... the Taurus is in my drawer as a reliable self defense gun.

Shoot what you like, like what you shoot.
Own what you like, like what you own.
Thou shalt not hate on another man's wife, dog, or gun.

[Steve_NEPhila]

The naive nature of your post is quite startling. I assumed that just about everyone who picked up a gun rag (magazine) knew that it was all paid advertisement, especially the "industry awards" and other self indulgent marketing facades.

As for the concrete reasons or dimensions that make Smith and Wesson revolvers better, the proof is in the pudding. I challenge you to find Taurus revolvers in state or national level competitors holsters. Taurus revolvers work, sure but they are not great. In a revolver, the double action trigger pull is everything. I know that does not matter for the legion of plinkers that think double action revolvers only work when you thumb the hammer back.

Do not take my word on it, listen to Grant Cunningham:

http://www.grantcunningham.com/blog_...urus_work.html

You can label me a fanboy all you want. However, when I put four round through the same hole shooting double action at 10 meters with factory ammo through my S&W 327, the evidence speaks. Or perhaps the free market capitalism argument works best for a certain type of mind... why is it that S&W outsells Taurus in revolvers if the only advantage is "brand" considering the S&W costs so much more???

There are many haters out there that actively hate because they view certain brands as more expensive than what they can comfortably afford. I shoot around 6-10k rounds of centerfire ammo per year with the vast majority of that being .38 Special. This comes out to around 2500-3000 USD in ammo (centerfire) per year. A one time cost of 1000 or so for a quality Smith and Wesson Performance Center revolver (I just upped the ante to the premium shop inside of the best revolver maker on the planet) is almost insignificant when considering the ammo cost per year of the sport.

I will never convince you, and that is fine by me. Spend some range time with a few Smith and Wesson revolvers (you can shoot mine, I go to CP every weekend) and tell me they are the same, or that the only difference is the brand...

[harold63]

The naive nature of your post is quite startling. I assumed that just about everyone who picked up a gun rag (magazine) knew that it was all paid advertisement, especially the "industry awards" and other self indulgent marketing facades.

As for the concrete reasons or dimensions that make Smith and Wesson revolvers better, the proof is in the pudding. I challenge you to find Taurus revolvers in state or national level competitors holsters. Taurus revolvers work, sure but they are not great. In a revolver, the double action trigger pull is everything. I know that does not matter for the legion of plinkers that think double action revolvers only work when you thumb the hammer back.

Do not take my word on it, listen to Grant Cunningham:

http://www.grantcunningham.com/blog_...urus_work.html

You can label me a fanboy all you want. However, when I put four round through the same hole shooting double action at 10 meters with factory ammo through my S&W 327, the evidence speaks. Or perhaps the free market capitalism argument works best for a certain type of mind... why is it that S&W outsells Taurus in revolvers if the only advantage is "brand" considering the S&W costs so much more???

There are many haters out there that actively hate because they view certain brands as more expensive than what they can comfortably afford. I shoot around 6-10k rounds of centerfire ammo per year with the vast majority of that being .38 Special. This comes out to around 2500-3000 USD in ammo (centerfire) per year. A one time cost of 1000 or so for a quality Smith and Wesson Performance Center revolver (I just upped the ante to the premium shop inside of the best revolver maker on the planet) is almost insignificant when considering the ammo cost per year of the sport.

I will never convince you, and that is fine by me. Spend some range time with a few Smith and Wesson revolvers (you can shoot mine, I go to CP every weekend) and tell me they are the same, or that the only difference is the brand...

Steve, you are really hating, tonight. On a relative side, however, I will have to agree with you, some. Even when S&W was going through its trying stages of a company getting lost and reamerging, as it has done, IMO, the revolvers they produced were very good. People tend to mix politics and guns and then no one knows what is good unless they really keep up with the stuff. That being said (what the f... did i say, BTW?), Taurus never became a revolver powerhouse until it shared ownership with S&W back in the 70's. Most of Taurus' ideas are borrowed or copied from other revolver builders. Then, Taurus and Smith become majority owned by the same owner for 6 or 7 years (however long it was). Never think (generalized statement) S&W did not share things with its newly formed (purchased) friend. If you want to really judge a revolver, one to another, compare the S&W .460 and .500 to the Taurus big bore revolvers. I looked at the big Tauruses and appreciated their prices, and while being the cheap skate I am, I chose the S&W over the Taurus (got the 460 and the .500). When you deal with that much firepower, you want peace of mind, and to me, it was simple choice. Other than a timing issue I had with the .500 (very common with any revolver), I have never had a problem one with a S&W revolver, no matter when it was built. I have a Taurus Tracker .44 that I want to keep, but I have sent it in twice for repairs. I commend Taurus in that they fixed my revolver free of charge both times (minor injury involved), but this gun was new when these problems developed. As I said before, S&W is putting out one beautifully built revolver, and it was not Taurus in the beginning, it was S&W. Heck, even Wyatt Earp loved S&W revolvers.

[nathaniel.seacat]

Can i shoot your smith? I have a 10-8 so i really don't need convinced, but I'm always up to shoot new stuff and was looking for an excuse to go to cp on sat ha.

[harold63]

So, S&W owes much of it's quality in design to Taurus as Taurus owes much to S&W.

I do not recall S&W revolvers being turds when S&W and Taurus became "sisters". Good reading of the text, though.

[harold63]

As for what professionals think of Taurus, well, they've gotten a few awards than S&W never received. Listed here: http://www.taurususa.com/awards.cfm

As another poster commented, it is marketing. How many shooting championships are won by Taurus? I like Taurus, and own a number of them, but I am not an idiot, besides, the quiet champions always are remembered down the line. Just look at S&W.

[ByblosHex]

We are comparing modern (post 1990) Taurus Revolvers to Modern S&W's right? Of course Taurus sucked decades ago, and I don't think anyone disputes that. But, I'm talking about buying and owning guns today, not 30 years ago.

Did anyone ever say that Taurus was better than S&W? Hell no! All I said was that "The SW 686 is apparently almost identical to my Taurus 689 so, Good choice!" Take a look at pictures of both guns, and then look at the word identical in a dictionary and tell me if I'm wrong.

I agree that S&W probably makes the better Revolver and I wouldn't even argue about that, but to compare Kia vs Cadillac to Taurus vs S&W is a gross example of hyperbole and reeks of fanboyism.

As another poster commented, it is marketing. How many shooting championships are won by Taurus? I like Taurus, and own a number of them, but I am not an idiot, besides, the quiet champions always are remembered down the line. Just look at S&W.

What are you even trying to say here, seriously? Did I say that a Taurus is a Champion Shooter's gun? Absolutely not. All I said is that it's almost identical.

You guys really need to grow up and stop picking fights when there's no fight there. Take your XBox vs Playstation arguments elsewhere. It's pretty pathetic when you make up arguments that aren't even there just for the sake of causing an argument.