Is it a really bad manufacturer or just a meme, guys?

>>32973625
They are hit or miss. Revolvers are decent.

>>32973625
some lies good like PT111 G2, revolvers as well, slowly improving since new managment

Some of it is good, some is shit. Like Remington.

>>32973636
There are some cases of pistols firing even with the safety on, so I'm not sure about acquiring one of their handguns.

File: 1425368185548.png (109KB, 446x329px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 446x329px

>>32973625
theyve gotten better over the years, probably one of the best if not the best turn around ive seen from a company as of late. Their revolvers and clones of other guns are pretty good, their originals are meh. Unfortunelty, meh or "hit or miss" might as well mean pot metal in the gun community, which I cant exactly blame them for
I still wouldnt trust my life with one but id buy one to shoot around

>>32973625
They certainly aren't good. No reason to buy one at all when everything they make is made better by other companies.

I've only shot one when I was qualifying for my level 3, the instructor have me his shit gun with bent mags and a decocker, I had to clear it twice during the event. and it sent two casings straight at my forehead. I hated the way it felt in my hands too.
I just didn't like it but my opinion is biased. that's all.

Their PT-92 is pretty dope, I love mine. Also as mentioned, their revolvers seem to be relatively good.

>>32973625
Only buy from Taurus if you're going to commit a Huelocaust

They came under new management not too long ago. New Taurus isn't bad, but don't buy used.

Their 1911 and m9 clones are actually really good though.

>>32975036
They're on the come up, along with Aguila ammo. Mexico's legal gun company is going to change shit so long as they actually peruse staying legal in what is essentially one the most corrupt countries on this side of the globe.

>>32975095

Haven't heard of Aguila, I'll have to look into that.

>>32973625
its getting exactly what you pay for

>>32975036
if memory is right they brought in one of Cots former head honchos

>>32974194
>>32975036
Is there any real evidence to support this? It's not like there have been studies showing failure rates of Taurus guns over time.

>>32973625
I have an m85. Great lil gun. Not as refined as a ruger, but shot many a rounds through it with no issues

As I understand it, their Millennium Pro series was problematic so now a lot of people claim they're guns are.crap that have never owned one.
I think revolvers were their first firearms and I've never heard anything bad from owners. They purchased the Beretta facility in Brazil years ago along with the tooling and kept the employees. Their first 92s were just Berettas with Taurus stamped on them.

>>32974194
I've heard the term "hot or miss" in my store used more often in describing Kimbers than Taurus. Also had more people complain about their Kimbers than Taurus! They still have a loyal following though. It seems like there is just a stigma for some people when it comes to lower priced imports.

>>32975217
im sure somebody somewhere could compile a list of their quality over the years, but its mainly hearsay like >>32975666. Say what you want about glocks, Hks,Sigs or the other big dog brands but I almost never here somebody says theirs is a POS that just didnt work, most gripes are usually preference based. I say almost because every brand will have lemons.
Taurus has always been on the mid tier level of quality with the likes of charter arms. Not as nice as the others, not totally garbage either but you should remain cautious

>>32973667
In the case of the rather infamous liveleak/YouTube video of the cop demonstrating this, some Brazilian police forces had a deal with Taurus to get pistols which had failed QC for a reduced price. Unsurprisingly, they had issues.

I have a PT1911, and its absolutely perfect. It functions smoother than an angelcs twat. My girlfriend liked it enough that she bought one. Hers would both fail to feed and fail to eject. So my anecdote is that quality is still hit or miss.

>>32974881
Amusingly a brand new PT-92 is more expensive than a brand new Beretta 92FS at the Gander Mountain near me.

>>32975763
No, if it was personal preference issues I wouldn't have even mentioned it. I'm talking about feeding problems or the gun having to be man handled to get jams cleared.
I agree that people should do research before buying their guns though. My second handgun was a Taurus I bought several years ago. I never had any problems out of it and it was accurate, but now that I've handled a lot more guns I realize the trigger on it was awful. I will say the triggers on the newer Taurus models seem better though.

>>32973625
I've seen one of their revolvers do an impression of a glock, though that was under a retardardly high load, and to be fair it survived around 40 rounds before giving up.
Amazingly, no one was injured too. Though someone else at my club now has one, and he's putting quite high loads through it... I don't shoot next to him these days, just to be safe.

I've got a PT809 I bought a while ago before I knew much about guns. It's actually fairly decent. The only real issue it has is the occasional failure to fire with cheap ammo in SA, although it has yet to fail to fire on a second trigger pull in DA. It's had probably 2k rounds through it and I've never had a single issue with feeding or ejection, and it's quite accurate to boot. Overall I'd say it's a decent/inexpensive range toy but I probably wouldn't trust my life to it. On the other hand, my dad has an old PT22 and it's a piece of shit. It's next to impossible to get through a whole mag without some kind of problem.

File: 1486878646798.jpg (130KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 960x720px

>>32973625
>>32973636
It costs about 1600 US dollars for a outdated, very malfunction revolver or pistol from Taurus (Taurus is shit and will get you killed, don't buy anything from them) or imbel, and basically that's what we're allowed to buy at the moment here in Brazil.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ads04N7QC4 [Embed]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9_YWNo1f-o [Embed]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv7-wEDwXfQ [Embed]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6eCpV1jONM [Embed]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHXIrpx12TY [Embed]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X021aZcJYzA [Embed]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-oIEEu2Wng [Embed] (revolver, yeah, even revolvers)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IIUHTBnxYE [Embed]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5F_rGLMfUQ [Embed]

and there are many more such cases. If you value your life, do not own taurus

Ah, and CBC here in brazil own taurus and no one know who owns CBC.. seriously if you live in usa you have so many options.. don't choose this one.

>>32973625
Who knows, only like 5 guys on /k/ actually own guns

File: T4-A1-View-Left-1024x424.jpg (40KB, 1024x424px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 1024x424px

>there are people in /k/ that might buy this from them..

File: T4-A2-View-Left-1024x424.jpg (38KB, 1024x424px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 1024x424px

>>32979010

>>32975159
>>32975217

They also bought tooling from Colt and Beretta.

>>32979010
>>32979030

How hard is it to fuck up an AR15?

First gun i bought was a taurus model 66 revolver. So far it has been a very fun gun to get used to .357on. I always use .357 rather than .38 and so far it has been fine. No misfires, no evidence of bad timing. Load it pull the trigger and it will shoot every time. Only gripe i have is that the 66 line has very few after market parts. Other than maybr a set of grips, you are stuck with very bland sights ( had to color the front one because black sights get lost on a black gun) and with out modificstion there are no scope rails you can add( rails look retarded on revolvers anyway imo) the only other issue is that lock up on one if the cylanders is a tiny bit lose (about 3/4 of a mm of movement) still shots fine and is plenty accurate. If you want something to shoot .356 before you upgrade to a more prestigious brand a taurus 66 or even a tracker .357 (ported w/ rail attachment) will serve you well. Say what you will about the brand but taurus seems to versatile line if revolvers options and actually seem to try to modernize the antiquated revolver design.

>>32978626
I definitely need to do some research on their current QC. I thought maybe those videos were several years old, but some of the are dated 2016 & 2017.
I need to see if their are any issues with the PT111 or 709 Slim.

>>32977718
Have you tried different ammo? 22lr pistols can be picky, so a subcompact could be even more so.

>>32980093
>How hard is it to fuck up an AR15?
You'd be surprised.

>>32980361
PT111s are getting better, but mine still failed after 600 rounds (firing pin).

Hit or miss is the name of the Taurus game.

>>32980410
OK, that is good to know.
You have a lot of people that will say they have had no problems out of a gun (any brand) when they've only put 20 rounds through it the whole time they owned