I always hear people talk shit about Taurus semi-autos (understandably)

Truth be told, people on /k/ don't know dick about shit (much less guns,) so take anything anyone says with a grain of salt. That being said, Taurus revolvers (and most of their semi-autos,) are pretty good for the money. The triggers on the revolvers aren't fantastic, but they're not bad either. If you're just getting into revolvers, you'll eventually appreciate better revolvers more. In short, go for it.

>>33022541
They are pieces of shit, ive handled and shot the tracker before and its a piece of shit. The GP100 isnt even that expensiv.e

>>33022541
OP, I've got a GP100 and you really can't go wrong with any variation of the gun, they're fun to shoot and are built like complete tanks, the triggers vary from a little nicer than the Trackers to blowing the Trackers away.

>>33022541
THE HOLES DON'T LINE UP.

Taurus revolvers are on par with their clone of the 92FS--not quite as good as the real thing, but far better than the majority of their other guns. As with the 92FS, this is due to a previous corporate partnership.

Back in the 1970s, Smith and Wesson was owned by the Bangor Punta group that also owned Taurus. During the period in which both were part of the same holding company, people from Smith and Wesson were sent to Taurus to help them up their revolver game. This was presumably done with the intent of developing Taurus as a budget brand alternative to S&W, which, by and large, seems to have succeeded.

The primary differences you will see when comparing a Taurus with a higher tier revolver (ie S&W, Ruger, Colt, etc) is that the Taurus will have a worse fit and finish, sloppier lockup, and massive depreciation on the secondary market. It will most likely work without many problems if you intend to use it for once-a-month recreational shooting, but it is highly unlikely to be the kind of gun that will last you a lifetime, unlike one made by the aforementioned higher tier manufacturers.

A useful video if you want to see an unbiased side-by-side comparison: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mIft3nwhgs

Would I recommend buying a Taurus over a GP100? Absolutely not. The GP100 is a far better gun overall. It has the strongest lockup and most durable frame of any production revolver currently being made, is backed by great customer service, and is even very competitively priced.

>>33023129
What are your thoughts on the tauruses that mimic other guns, the 1911 and 92fs for example? I've only heard good things and my experience of Taurus is pretty reasonable. I had one of the 1968 (86?) Taurus revolvers when they were shit. I had issues with it, sent it back, and they couldn't fix it because it was so old so they sent me a brand new .38, the one with the full underlug.

>>33023662
I can't speak to the quality of their 1911s as I have never tried one. The PT92 is basically a monkey model 92FS; it's function is fine, but it's conspicuously cheaper when compared alongside the real deal.

You see the same trend in their revolvers. Their revolvers are much cheaper than a comparable Smith and Wesson or Ruger not simply because of fuddlore or because Taurus has a (deservedly) bad reputation overall, but because their revolvers, while generally functional, simply aren't made as well. I can't think of a single area in which any Taurus revolver I've inspected or fired beats a Smith and Wesson or Ruger, except price. Price isn't the same thing as value though. Tauruses might have a lower price, but their value is nowhere near what you get with a Ruger.

All that being said, Taurus DOES probably deserve to be called a decent company when it comes to revolvers. I would much, much sooner buy a Taurus revolver than I would one made by Charter Arms, Armscor, Kimber, Alfa, Rohm, or any of the other spotty companies out there. I'm glad yours has served you well.

>>33022541
>Trigger locks breaks mid cylinder rotation up while shooting.
>can't get warranty work done b/c can't ship loaded guns.

>>33022541
I've shot nice Taurus guns (Rossi 357)

But for the money I'd rather have a Ruger.

From what I've seen Taurus fit and finish isn't always great which means their QC is wanting. I've never personally seen a Taurus fail though.

>>33022541

For the most part they are functionally effective range toys but still poorly built firearms.

I own quite a few taurus revolvers and I use them for testing handloads or other plinky things, I abuse them and have only had a couple malfunctions nothing catastrophic because I do take care of them

But compared to others there just is no grounds for comparison

The people I've known and customers that own Taurus like them, but some posted links to videos made in Brazil of Taurus guns that were garbage.
Maybe the guns that come to the US have stricter QC, I couldn't tell you.

No reason to buy one over a ruger in their price range.

All revolvers over long periods of use are subject to timing issues, taurus guns especially so. Unless things have changed taurus used to be bad about not letting smiths get spare parts so nearly all repairs had to be sent in.

There is a very small contingent of loyal taurus fans on the Internet that will insist that because their taurus hasn't broken yet from the annual 200 rounds of 38 they put through it that they are "just as good" as other brands.