You can continue to irrationally defend the Taurus, but you'd do more good by pointing out the drawbacks to the company, because we're not buying in.
I am really not an idiot, despite behaving like one every now and then. I have M&P for action shooting and I carry P99. I've had a few Glocks - but brick slide was never my thing.
I own Taurus PT1911 and PT92.
I like 1911s and it's military heritage, but GI 1911 bites the crap out of me, and I've never heard anything bad about PT1911 - belts and whistles for under $500 and it's a keeper.
I like 92FS and it's military heritage, but 92FS slide safety literally pisses me off, and I've never heard anything bad about PT92 - 1911 type safety was a keeper.
I've had a few revolvers as well, and I have not had any trouble from any of them. I've never owned Taurus polymer-framed gun, but shot 709 with no issues.
So that's my experience with Taurus.
It does not seem irrational from my point of view, to say that a new Taurus is a better buy than a "well used" Glock, especially if consumer needs/wants any of the features that Taurus has (safety, decocker, sights, grips, etc). I googled "IPDA Taurus 24/7" - and there were positive range reports, not "my **** blew-up" as I was expecting.
Would I personally buy Taurus 24/7 - no. Would I buy another Glock - no. All I want to know is why Taurus is so bad - should I sell mine? upgrade them? fix them? But, no - all I hear is how great the Glock is; and, yes, it irritates me since I really don't think that Glock is that great ... 30 years ago - okay, now ... meh. Taurus keeps updating their line-up every year, Glock added finger grooves
As I said, times change.P.S. IPDA is a sport ... fun, evolving, growing ... still just an effing sport with scores and penalties and all the other crap that comes with 'sport'. It is not an end-all like you guys make it sound.
It's a better measure of peformance and design than googling something. Just sayin.
Anyone around here seen or used a Taurus polymer pistol in a TDSA or USSA course? I did ~1500 rounds through each of my classes. Just curious on how they hold up over hard use for a couple of days. Saw 95% glocks in the classes I took, maybe a few Sigs and a few 1911s? Seems that if people get serious about shooting they generally prefer Glocks or 1911s..... by my experiences anyways.
i already stated my observations of taurus in hard use classes ,never seen one finish a class. Idpa is just a sport,but people who compete typically shoot lots of rounds and tauri just don't hold up.It's a better measure of peformance and design than googling something. Just sayin.
Anyone around here seen or used a Taurus polymer pistol in a TDSA or USSA course? I did ~1500 rounds through each of my classes. Just curious on how they hold up over hard use for a couple of days.
btw, i'm refering to polymer framed strikerfired and thier revolvers, i have no experience with the pt1911 or pt92.
also i don't shoot Idpa nor do i own a glock at his time,but the choice is clear for a serious defensive pistol glock over taurus every time new or used.
There is no way to measure this in any sort of scientific way... but in my opinion, the acid test is: Am I willing to run the pistol I wore to a class or IDPA match... shoot it for a 20 stage match (or 4 day school) , reload it with duty ammo and count on it to fire a life-saving shot on the way home?
If your current hangun gives you that kind of warm and fuzzy feeling..... I have owned a couple of high quality duty grade pistols that would not pass the test of confidence... great for range use.... but not of the "stake your life on" standard.
Many of us own pistols that inspire that kind of confidence and we carry a bug anyway.
If your current hangun gives you that kind of warm and fuzzy feeling..... I have owned a couple of high quality duty grade pistols that would not pass the test of confidence... great for range use.... but not of the "stake your life on" standard.
Many of us own pistols that inspire that kind of confidence and we carry a bug anyway.
I would bet that roughly 75% of the people on this forum don't know who you are talking about
I don't own any Taurus products, but some are pretty interesting. The finish on Taurus guns seems to be on par with the more costly competition. And, that is a bit of a concern. If the finish is similar, it would stand to reason that Taurus cuts corners with parts.
Just my opinion. YMMV.
Just my opinion. YMMV.
The finish on most polymer -Striker fired- late model-high tech pistols today is among the cheapest of the manufacturing operations... Plastic gets "finished " in the mold. Stanless steel parts get a buff and most dont get a bright finish so that pretty quick and easy.
Most of the other modern metal finishes are not very labor intensive on a large scale. Hot Salt blue a carbon steel gun the way SW, Winchester and Colt used to... the metal polishing alone takes a long time... and the bluing is a several step operation with carding and buffing as part of the work.
My only gripe about M&P's Glock etc is you pay $500 for a gun that costs about $80 to make. The rest of the wholesale cost is spread to liability, R&D ADVERTISING AND MARKETING and shipping -the margins on a polymer gun are a lot more lucrative than they are in fitted, finished steel and wood guns.
When Glock got started they did two thing that started a craze... cut a REAL GOOD deal to as many high profile Police agencies as they could... and got their guns featured in a lot of film and TV. LE sales were at a loss or break even and Glock made up the losses plus a lot more on retail volume.
Most of the other modern metal finishes are not very labor intensive on a large scale. Hot Salt blue a carbon steel gun the way SW, Winchester and Colt used to... the metal polishing alone takes a long time... and the bluing is a several step operation with carding and buffing as part of the work.
My only gripe about M&P's Glock etc is you pay $500 for a gun that costs about $80 to make. The rest of the wholesale cost is spread to liability, R&D ADVERTISING AND MARKETING and shipping -the margins on a polymer gun are a lot more lucrative than they are in fitted, finished steel and wood guns.
When Glock got started they did two thing that started a craze... cut a REAL GOOD deal to as many high profile Police agencies as they could... and got their guns featured in a lot of film and TV. LE sales were at a loss or break even and Glock made up the losses plus a lot more on retail volume.
And MS Jessie will probably be running a Taurus 1911 that has been totally reworked with high end aftermarket parts and world class gunsmithing. The few Taurus 1911's that have been used in upper level action sports ... by some reports, were STI pistols with Taurus rollmarks on the slide.
A hand built open gun (regardless of maker) has little to do with what's in a Gun mag advertisment or on the shelf at Fred's Gun and Pawn.
I speak from experience, I've owned both Glocks and Taurus. Guess which guns I still have.... Glock. The two Taurus guns I had were a snuby 357 mag (developed a loose cylinder after less than 200 rounds) and the Taurus 309 Slim 9mm, I could not find any ammo that it would cycle. Strike 1 and 2, Taurus wont get a strike 3. If you have a Taurus and like it... Congratulations!! As for me I'm done with them. My two cents.
Thanks
Thanks
