Never had one, never recall having shooting one. Never heard much good about them but like the looks of the 44 mag/4 inch ported.

Has Taurus quality improved?

my personal experience is they go bang when you pull the trigger, but the fit and finish isn't quite as good as Smith or Ruger. And the trigger may feel a bit worse than a good Smith.

Quite honestly I think the older ones from pre-1988 are better than the newer ones.

They don't seem to hold their value as well either in the used market.

Is Smith or Ruger out of the question due to cost --- I've not kept track, but maybe Smith / Ruger doesn't have the exact .44 you are looking for??? In other words, why Taurus?

I have seen a few that were really sweet pistols (all older), and more than a few complete dogs, down to not functioning brand new out of the box. Definitely falls into the "physically inspect before buying" category.

I've owned a number of Taurus revolvers, and some pistols. I had two Taurus revolvers fail. One I bought used and put half a pallet of surplus .38 thru it when it seized up. I sent it to Taurus and they gave me a coupon for a free gun of my choice, saying it was worn out and could not be repaired. I had a 357 fail from the start, and Taurus replaced that one as well. I have 10 or 12 of their revolvers now, and I do not hesitate to carry them. If you like it, buy it. Don't fall for the anti-Taurus hype.

I've owned three, model 85, 444 and raging bull. No problems with them. I have read of frequent problems with taurus revolvers online. I guess it's hit or miss.

I’ve had two, an 85 and the 4” ported barrel .44 mag tracker. I will say that the Tracker feels better in my hand than any other .44mag. The grip actually does a pretty good job absorbing the recoil too. They aren’t Ruger and they aren’t Smith but they don’t cost as much as a Ruger or Smith either. They went bang every time I pulled the trigger and I never had any complaints. They were just range toys though. I put enough rounds through the 85 that I’d ha e trusted my life to it, I just always had better options.

Nope, nope, I'm gonna sit here and suck my thumb until they come out with the Raging Judge 28 - which, in the era of the arm brace and the Shockwave, they no longer have an excuse to not do. (Yeah, I know, but from the reports that came out at the time it was first considered, it wasn't the ATF that told them they couldn't do it.)

A co worker had an 85 that he ran +P through for several years, despite it not being rated for +P.
It eventually detonated in spectacular fashion. That was fun!
I bagged the remains up and shipped them to Taurus. A week or so later, a brand new 85 arrived at the PD. No questions asked.
I bought one, based on this experience. Carried it as a BUG for quite a while before selling it.

I had a Taurus .357 (late 80s) that was a great gun.

The new product that's been coming into the shop lately has been rather unremarkable. Seem usable but nothing special. The Taurus 66s that we got in last year felt better built to me. Either that or my memory's failing. I recall the triggers were better than what we got in this past summer. The triggers and general action of the Model 85s are even worse. The handful of Judges sold well but they still don't compare quality-wise to the S&W Governor. Usable but otherwise nothing special unless spending as little of your money as possible is the ultimate goal in your revolver purchase. Same can be said about the Raging Bulls; plain and simple they're not at the same level of build quality as a Redhawk or 629. But one WILL save a not insubstantial sum of moola over the Smith or the Ruger.

I've had a few Taurus revolvers in the past; they were fine, no problems. Presently I think the only one in the safe is a Taurus 85; a small snubbie chief-special size .38. Not much to go wrong, low pressure round, straight forward. I haven't shot it a lot, but don't anticipate any issues. It was dirt cheap at Palmetto, and couldn't pass it up.

A good Taurus can be alright. I have a couple I bought second hand, very cheap. The problem is the apparent lack of quality control. We got one in new at the shop that wouldn’t advance the cylinder when the hammer was cocked. I don’t know how something like that gets theough any kind of cursory inspection.

My Dad owns a couple; a .327 and a .44

To me they are the Kel-Tec of revolvers.

They aren't the nicest finished pistols but they do the job.

quote:

Originally posted by soggy_spinout:
The new product that's been coming into the shop lately has been rather unremarkable. Seem usable but nothing special. The Taurus 66s that we got in last year felt better built to me. Either that or my memory's failing. I recall the triggers were better than what we got in this past summer. The triggers and general action of the Model 85s are even worse. The handful of Judges sold well but they still don't compare quality-wise to the S&W Governor. Usable but otherwise nothing special unless spending as little of your money as possible is the ultimate goal in your revolver purchase. Same can be said about the Raging Bulls; plain and simple they're not at the same level of build quality as a Redhawk or 629. But one WILL save a not insubstantial sum of moola over the Smith or the Ruger.

ditto,

the only Taurus revolver I have had to send back for repair was a poly protector,

the rest I have bought and sold (mostly used) have been fine,

the new Rossi J frames are decent too (made by Taurus)

I have sold a couple 357's and 44's , no issues,

but have not shot any

I've had a 6" model 44 (6 shot .44 mag) and a 2" 605 (5 shot .357 snubby). The .44 had a tendency to short stroke and the design of the barrel porting cased the shooter to experience excessive blast pressure to the face. For years I thought this was just the nature of porting, until I shot my buddy's ported S&W that directs the blast up and out to the sides, eliminating the pressure experienced by the shooter altogether. So there's the right way to do porting, and the way Taurus does it.

The 605 was a nice feeling little gun. It had timing problems and was shaving bullets, so I sent it back to Taurus, on my dime. They had it for about a month, and then shipped it back signature required without any notification that it was enroute. Of course I was at work when it arrived, so I had to drive an hour and a half to the FedEx Depot to pick it up. I ended up selling that one, as I'd lost faith in it (although I did shoot it after I got it back, and it appeared to be fixed)...and J Frames aren't that much more expensive.

I won't go down the Taurus road again.

I have owned my three(3) Taurus revolvers(all big bore-ported guns)for a number of years. They are regular range guns, and one was my CCW for a fair amount of time. I have zero complaints about my Taurus revolvers. Now Ruger......don't get me started!!

I've owned a Taurus 85 for years and have had no problems with it.

I had a medium-frame Taurus .357. It was decent. Not as well finished or refined as a Smith or a Colt, but a very serviceable piece.

I have seen more failures/misfires with Taurus revolvers and pistols in classes on my range than all the other brands combined. I had one security company that bought Taurus revolvers for their security officers and every one of them had problems. Fortunately they got rid of them and replaced them with Glock 17's. Friends that bought Gauchos for cowboy action had nothing but trouble with them. I have seen so many failures with them I am at a point that I don't want a Taurus in my classes. You might get one that works, then again you might not. They are OK for range plinking, but why in the world would you trust your life to one? They have one thing going for them, that is that they are cheap, but their quality control is horrible.

Now ask me about SCCY....