Can you give me a good reason why I shouldn't buy this?

You is pussy?

You like having intact hands.

>>32324749
They're expensive and probably not made of the highest quality material, not blow your hand up bad but probably get slop faster than a Ruger or S&W though on the same token no one probably shoots thier S&Ws much because of recoil anyway.

Pretty much if you are going to be using this on a constant basis I would recommend against it but if you just want to shoot it a couple times a year for shiggles go for it.

>>32324749
>Taurus

It's a Taurus, there's your reason. What do I win?

File: pix411877529.jpg (102KB, 640x374px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 640x374px

>>32324749
Because you could buy pic related instead.

>>32324749
>raging bull
sounds like the name of a cuck porn

>>32324749
someone bought one brand new from my shop and had to bring it in a week later to send back to taurus. They're garbage and have a huge recall in effect with a lawsuit as well.

It's a revolver.

>>32324749
Get a Ruger or a Smith but since you showed me tuarus I'm guessing your on a budget ? sooo definitely Ruger

>>32324749
For the money you'd pay for one of those new, you could pick up a used Model 29.

>>32325016
this.

>Brazilian engineering

>>32324749

Because Ruger exists.

Want affordability, and quality? Buy a Ruger.

>>32324749
> give me a reason to not buy a taurus

they are pretty shabby.
poor cylinder lockup
bad triggers
rough action
poor accuracy
bad fit and finish
poor metallurgy (cracking and splitting cylinders, warping barrels etc)
shitty customer service when you (inevitably) have to send it back as defective

tauruses really arent worth the money, even though they are damned cheap.

smith and wesson, ruger, or even chiappa (if you simply must have something chunky and oversized) are better choices

i have owned taurus firearms and they always leave me dissatisfied

>>32325001

holy shit what a cool idea

>>32325015
>>32324749

You should get something that can fire 454 casull. Because then you can use 45 LC and specifically the higher pressure 45 LC which hits like a 44 magnum anyway.

45 LC purrs and it can use heavy ass slugs for its size because of all the case room.

Only other option worth getting in a revolver is a .357 magnum (which would be nice even for SHTF because despite poor loading speed, the ammo is everywhere, so you have a backup gun that will pretty much always work)


>>32325016
This, unless you're going to get speed strips or a speed loader its not all that fun or practical.

Case in point the Colt SAA is probably about the most un-fun revolver there is because you cant even load it straight.

Meanwhile a Webley is as practical as an M1911 because it loads so quick (why nobody made a modernized version... why).

>>32324749
because you might develop good taste someday
:^)

>>32325923
> why no modernized webley top break revolvers?

because top break revolvers are finnicky, and expensive to produce

the lockup mechanism for a top break using modern ammo would be prohibitively bulky and expensive to produce and it's just not worth it for a niche market.

revolvers are a dying breed, and nobody wants to drop fat stacks of cash on design, testing, production marketing and distribution for a new revolver, much less for a throwback design that would only be desirable to old farts and "steampunk" weenies

while old farts DO buy guns, steam-weenies do NOT

>>32325923

even Revolver Ocelot got it wrong about the Colt SAA... you really cant just jam another round into the gun in the heat of combat, because you're gonna have to push out all the rounds that you want to replace first.

the Colt SAA is essentially a muzzle loading black powder pistol, that uses conveniently cased ammunition to keep the ball, powder and primer together. Its literally like a 6 barreled flintlock pistol. But that was pretty good for its time.

> and Cavalry relied on their Swords alot too, the Revolver was a backup or opportunity attack weapon - you see some guy charging you or you see someone fighting your friends with their back turned to you - you cap that guy because you've got a weapon that can do that

Cavalry went away because when everybody got Rifles that can shoot more than once you couldnt rely on riding up over the burm and surprising everybody with saber slashing action.

Knights went away too because the thinner 7.62mm and 7.92mm high powered rounds everybody was using blew right through their plate armor. But like mounted cavalry they were also used to a limited extent in WW1.

>>32325994
I guess thats why the Medusa went away too.

>>32325001

the fact that cuck porn is the first thing that came to your mind when you read that says a lot about you

>T-Mobile
>Taurus
I'm detecting a pattern. Either you love the letter T or have no money.

>>32325994

>revolvers are a dying breed

This ill unfortunately say yes to.

Some people love the pinache of the 500 or 460 smith and wesson but the problem is these guns cost a fuckton (like $1500 before any other expenses)

You could get a custom AR Pistol made for 2 grand probably that shoots 458 Socom or 50 Beowulf even
> and it has a 7 round magazine
> uses common magazines on the market
> is magazine fed
> has slight recoil compensation compared to a revolver anyway due to the internal operation
> customizable as fuck
> unlikely to muzzle flip you in the face because its front heavy
> is slightly more powerful in fact


Only benefit of a revolver is it doesnt cost 500 like a glock, except when it does.

>>32324749
Google images doesn't sell guns, retard

>>32325138
Combined with the fact that a Ruger is stronger, and doesn't have the Clinton lock.

>>32324749
My friend has one of these
Bretty gud desu

>>32326004
t. someone who has never felt the arduous agony of reloading a blackpowder revolver

>>32326004
> Single action revolvers are muzzle loaders

NOPE
not even close

1: they do not load from the muzzle (thats a big one there...)
2: they use cartridges, not loose powder, patch and ball
3: no ramming required

> flintlock
BRB, gotta chap my flints and replace my dogget.

> plate armour'd cavalry disappeared because 7.62 rifles....

no. plate armour was made obsolete by the LONGBOW, long before the advent of even matchlock musketry

>>32326004
That's why you carry 2 or 3 or more pistols. Also 'tactical reloads' are almost never used in fighting. You want to reload you take cover and reload.

>>32326052
> ar pistol

that's not a pistol.
thats a highly inefficient expensive toy for mid-life crisis sufferers

if you want a modern powerful pistol that ISNT a gigantic bulky overly complex autismal tinker toy, get a sig p226 in .357 sig.

that is a pistol gentlemen.

>>32326486
I'll keep my G29 and G40 in 10mm over that, though .357 sig is pretty badass too.

>>32326462
Not to rain on your parade,but actually plate armour was designed to counter the longbow and indeed,some of the early arquebuses.

>>32326126
>READ OWNERS MANUAL BEFORE USE

>>32324749
Nope. .44 mags are tits. If it's heavy enough then the recoil won't be any different than a .357 mag.

>>32326649
Bullshit faggot.

I have the.454 model.

Still have all my digits, they're not made of glocks.

Literally nothing wrong with their revolvers anymore, its one od those exploding glock memes that never die

>>32326632
And that marking makes it either weaker, or less good than a Clinton lock gun?

>>32326771
How is it? I'm dangerously close to buying one in a month. Is the recoil as painful as people say? Feel good to the grip?

>>32324749

I wish I still had one OP, so I cant advise you to not get one.

It was really gentle on the hands compared to my hardwood equipped 29-3, but, and this is my only complaint, you NEED two hands to reload the fucker. You have to disengage latches in front and behind the cylinder to allow it to unlock. Hope your left hand still works if you ever fire your six and need more.

>>32324749
guns are evil

bump

So does this gun go against the "taurus is shit" meme?

>>32325001
or an iconic movie that's been around for over 30 years