Anyone seen the new 2010 Taurus guns?

[ez bake]

The reports of issues with function, QC, bad customer service, etc... exist for a reason - its not all made-up hype.

I've personally been at the range and seen 10 or more Taurus guns malfunction repeatedly - its not a myth.

That being said, I also owned a 24-7 and never had an issue with it ever (I actually trusted it enough to carried it).

If you get a good one, you'll love it. If you get a bad one, you'll never have a good gun (from what I've read/heard/seen) unless Taurus replaces it for you completely as they don't have a good reputation for actually fixing the issues with their guns.

I've seen that Taurus is trying to clean up their act in the CS department - good, if they improve their QC and manufacturing, they'll have to raise prices and they'll no longer be the darling among the crowd who want a sub $400 factory new gun.

Their cheaper for a reason - just sayin.

 

[guns are dumb]

The reports of issues with function, QC, bad customer service, etc... exist for a reason - its not all made-up hype.

I've personally been at the range and seen 10 or more Taurus guns malfunction repeatedly - its not a myth.

That being said, I also owned a 24-7 and never had an issue with it ever (I actually trusted it enough to carried it).

If you get a good one, you'll love it. If you get a bad one, you'll never have a good gun (from what I've read/heard/seen) unless Taurus replaces it for you completely as they don't have a good reputation for actually fixing the issues with their guns.

I've seen that Taurus is trying to clean up their act in the CS department - good, if they improve their QC and manufacturing, they'll have to raise prices and they'll no longer be the darling among the crowd who want a sub $400 factory new gun.

Their cheaper for a reason - just sayin.

I've never owned one, shot one or known personally anyone who has. However, don't you think people are more apt to complain about something that is faulty than praise something that works like it should?

 

[ez bake]

I've never owned one, shot one or known personally anyone who has. However, don't you think people are more apt to complain about something that is faulty than praise something that works like it should?

Yes - but they probably do that equally for every brand since the interwebz are full of haters of all shapes and sizes. And yet there are more complaints about Taurus than a lot of other reputable brands.

Just seems like you started this thread by defending a gun that by your own words you've never owned/shot/been around as if you were offended that someone would have something bad to say about it.

Some of that bad stuff perpetuated through the interwebz is actually based on real facts (and some of it is just hate for a brand for no reason other than "they heard XYZ").

Being able to read through all of that and tell the real from the fake is pretty paramount to making a good decision in buying something that you plan on trusting with your life.

That being said, I'm not a Taurus hater, but I wouldn't carry one without at least 500 trouble-free rounds through it (this applies to all my carry guns except for possibly J-frame revolvers - and that's not due to my trust, its me being a wuss because those things suck to shoot a lot). Still I made a point of breaking them out once a month or so to ensure that they still functioned properly.

Point is - if a particular gun has been adapted as a police service pistol (or other government agency), used as a backup gun by a whole bunch of folks who put them through the gambit of testing, etc... its basically "battle-proven" and all the flaws come out in the works. A manufacturer like Taurus who doesn't have any contracts with large numbers of folks who use/abuse them has to stand on their brand-name and word-of-mouth (interwebz) advertising.

Again, I'm not bashing them - I'm just saying that they're hit or miss (some models are better than others) and you either love or hate the particular model you buy.

 

[guns are dumb]

Just seems like you started this thread by defending a gun that by your own words you've never owned/shot/been around as if you were offended that someone would have something bad to say about it.

How so? As stated, some of their new guns are really slick. Slick, in Oklahoma lingo, usually means something looks good. Should I change my intro sentence to say "Some of their new guns are really slick:" in order not to mislead anyone with my intentions?

I didn't really look for the release date, not that big of a deal to me. I just thought some here might be interested.

As you can see from the above quote, I don't really care one way or the other.

I've never owned one, shot one or known personally anyone who has. However, don't you think people are more apt to complain about something that is faulty than praise something that works like it should?

As one can see from the above quote, I never said that every rumor about Taurus being a crappy gun is wrong, I simply stated that complaints-to-praise statistics on the internet do not usually represent a random sample.

Here again, I never stated anything about reliability, toughness or anything else by which one judges a gun except for some of the new ones look pretty good. Maybe an interpretation of my words suggests more than what I've written was intended to say.

 

[Glocktogo]

Your definition of looks pretty good and mine are definitely different. To each his own though!

 

[JD8]

I actually like the PT92/101 platform better than Berettas. I bought a 24/7 in .40 from SW recently that was just too cheap to pass up. I've put 250 rounds through it so far and it works... so far.. So I can't fault it. However, I wouldn't touch the PT1911 after what I've seen.

I'm gonna second EZ, they are hit or miss.

 

[ez bake]

How so? As stated, some of their new guns are really slick. Slick, in Oklahoma lingo, usually means something looks good. Should I change my intro sentence to say "Some of their new guns are really slick:" in order not to mislead anyone with my intentions?



As you can see from the above quote, I don't really care one way or the other.



As one can see from the above quote, I never said that every rumor about Taurus being a crappy gun is wrong, I simply stated that complaints-to-praise statistics on the internet do not usually represent a random sample.

Here again, I never stated anything about reliability, toughness or anything else by which one judges a gun except for some of the new ones look pretty good. Maybe an interpretation of my words suggests more than what I've written was intended to say.

I didn't mean to get your panties in a wad - I just meant that this:

Of course, I've heard all the bad stuff perpetuated through the interwebz usually from people that have never owned them,...

... sort of sounds like you are assuming that most of the "bad stuff" that you've heard about these guns has been said by "people that have never owned one" and that sort of sounds like you're defending them.

I was just pointing out that not all of that "bad stuff you've heard on the interwebz" was written by people who have never owned one and that there are a lot of legitimate problems with several different models that Taurus makes.

But by the same token, you yourself have never owned/shot/known anyone who has one, so I guess you're one of those people on the interwebz you were just talking about.


And by the way this:

Of course, I've heard all the bad stuff perpetuated through the interwebz usually from people that have never owned them,...

Does not say this:

As one can see from the above quote, I never said that every rumor about Taurus being a crappy gun is wrong, I simply stated that complaints-to-praise statistics on the internet do not usually represent a random sample.

Like I said - wasn't trying to start anything, its just that when I hear statements like this:

Of course, I've heard all the bad stuff perpetuated through the interwebz usually from people that have never owned them,...

written by folks who also say this:

I've never owned one, shot one or known personally anyone who has.

It just seems like you're perpetuating stuff through the interwebz even though you haven't ever owned that gun that you're talking about. I don't want someone else to talk about you later as if you're "one of those guys" is all.

Sorry for messing up this thread with facts from someone who actually owned one.

 

[guns are dumb]

, EZ, "what we've got here is a failure to communicate."

I actually like the PT92/101 platform better than Berettas....However, I wouldn't touch the PT1911 after what I've seen.

Do you think there is something about the Beretta design that is inherently easier to copy at a lower price than the 1911 platform thereby one of the Taurus pistols being better than the other? Is it simply because the 1911 platform requires near perfect tolerances to run properly and hence, good ones cost $$$$?

 

[marvinvwinkle]

I have two Taurus semi-auto in 45 and 9mm. No problems yet, very accurate out of box, and seems to eat anything. I find that most people that don't like the Taurus have never shot them or have another brand on the brain. All pistols have their detractors. I think you should shoot what you like, because it has to please you.

 

[JD8]

Do you think there is something about the Beretta design that is inherently easier to copy at a lower price than the 1911 platform thereby one of the Taurus pistols being better than the other? Is it simply because the 1911 platform requires near perfect tolerances to run properly and hence, good ones cost $$$$?

Taurus bought old Beretta machinery to produce their own platform. I prefer the frame mounted safety FWIW. They insist on using really cheap small parts in their 1911s and use a hammer lock. Of which I have personally seen fail, so I'll pass.