Current Production Taurus Revolvers?

fiver

Well-Known Member
i think you got a good handle on the real good or merely a working [usually] example of the gun.

my theory is that taurus has some real good gun fitters and a lot of new guys learning the process..
if you get one built by the first guy your fine, if you get one from the second it usually works mostly, but the fit and such just isn't near as good.
 

RBHarter

West Central AR
Out of touch here I had a 66 clone long ago . ........ Now I remember it had all the things you didn't want .......

I shot it a lot 38s and +Ps were awesome even the hopped up 95 gr gold dots were amazing , don't ask it's probably better that way , also it was before I learned the whole cylinders don't always match groove dia pre cast enlightenment days. The first powder kernel into 357 data everything fell apart . In hindsight most likely it was 380/9mm through and through .

As far as reliability it was flawless . Had I known I'd have tried some 9mm 147s in it and probably been very happy.
 

Jeff H

NW Ohio
Thanks, @RBHarter , good input. I wonder what the vintage of that one was. I had a few of the early-nineties 44 Specials, and they were gems, but a bit bulky and heavy for this application. I would never have trodden on the 357 mag pressure levels in one, but that was based on just not knowing what they'd handle over time. I rarely shoot "real" magnums in a revolver any more, but want to stick with the magnum brass because that's what my carbine is and I want whatever cartridges I happen to lay my hands on to work in the revolver, so I've begun drifting away from the 38.

@fiver , I think we're on the same page on that. I believe that, sadly, similar outcomes from Charter are apparent these days, but not for exactly the same reason. The design is solid and proven - I'd say solid enough that Ruger copied it for their DAs (I'm gonna duck now) and solid enough that they still get away with less attention to detail in the execution of that design than in their earlier days. They source American-made parts and assemble the guns with what they get, from what I can tell. SOMETIMES a combination of parts, all within tolerance, doesn't quite "stack up" to a good-shooter. SOMETIMES a combination of parts, all within tolerance "stacks up" to be a little gem. I'm not sure how much more actual fitting they do than choosing from parts segregated by ranges of dimension. THIS is purely a hypothesis, as Ive not been IN the factory and watched what goes on.

I will say that they are one of the easiest companies to deal with that I've ever had to deal with - which has been ONCE, on ONE gun in all these years. I'm still a fan of the company in a big way, but I'm just not seeing what I want from their lineup. The 3", five-shot 357 Charter I have is almost perfect, besides the fact that I had to do a lot of work to it, the front sight leaves much to be desired and the adjustable rear sight is, well, the one thing I've always held against them. They're not great to begin with and are like a pocket full of fish-hooks on a gun like this.
 

Jeff H

NW Ohio
I was raised to say nothing if I had nothing nice to say.
LOL! Yes, Sir, as was I! My maternal grandmother beat that one into my head overtly, while my paternal grandmother simply led by example and dropped the very occasional hint, which kept you quiet for a while as you turned it over in your mind to eventually understand what she was implying.

I learned over time that by sayin' yer not sayin' nutin' says much more than sayin' a whole lot of somethin.'

So, point taken.

Thank you!
 

Petrol & Powder

Well-Known Member
OK, I have nothing to add about NEW Taurus revolvers.

I do have experience with the older Taurus revolvers and I'm going to toss in, despite my feeling that I should just keep my mouth shut.

My experience is that you either get a good one or not, and there's no in between. I am no longer willing to play in the Taurus sandbox because the odds of getting a bad one just isn’t worth the grief.

I have seen several old Taurus model 85 revolvers (snubnose 38 Special) that gave very good service. I've also seen some of the old model 82's (sort of like a S&W model 10 but not an exact copy) that were decent guns.
I've also seen a lot of Taurus revolvers that were total basket cases. Including some I owned.

You can send a Taurus back to be "fixed" but that's no guarantee they will fix it. Plus, it is a PITA to ship a gun back and forth.
 

Jeff H

NW Ohio
@Petrol & Powder , I think you are in tune with what I remember and what others I trust have been sharing. Doesn't seem that has changed much.

I do believe that, for a while, they did OK. That or the 44 Specials from the early nineties (or so) got some special attention.

I was hoping to hear that maybe they'd improved a little, but then with everything flying off the shelves, I don't see any motivation for any of them to try very hard right now.

Seeing some new, fixed-sight, 3" 38s and 357s with decent (and replaceable) front sights got my hopes up a little.
 

Petrol & Powder

Well-Known Member
A friend of mine picked up a Taurus 9mm pistol a few years ago. We went shooting and that thing was terrible. At first I thought, he's just not having a good day. I took a turn and the gun was hitting all over the place. Like 10" groups at 10 yards. I looked it over and found a loose rear sight. Tighten that up but no improvement. I spent a bit more time going over it and it just seemed loose everywhere. It just wouldn't shoot straight. He picked up his Glock 19 and with the same ammo was hitting the target consistently.
That was a few years ago and I had already long ago given up on Taurus at that point. It only served to confirm what I beleived.
 

waco

Springfield, Oregon
My only experience with Taurus revolvers is the 4” Tracker in .357 I bought over 20 years ago. I like it. Nothing bad to say.
Seven shots with a ported barrel.
I take that back. Lol. I bought a 6” .22LR/.22WM revolver a couple years ago. Other than a really crappy trigger it’s a nice if not very heavy handgun.
 

Jeff H

NW Ohio
Thanks, @waco , appreciate the feedback.

Funny you mention the ports, because that is probably what kept me from even looking at Taurus for several years. Once they started putting extra holes in all their barrels, I didn't look at them. I can fix a crappy trigger, but I can't plug all those holes and I didn't want to have to clean them out. It's one of the first things I noticed about these new 3" guns, which got my hopes up.

That may be an unfounded prejudice on my part. I've owned only one ported gun, an OM 45 Colt, and I cut that part of the barrel off to make it a 5.5" before I ever shot it.
 

Mitty38

Well-Known Member
My 2 cents for what it is worth.

Have a 2017 Taurus 66 that has never seen anything but lead. Shoot both 357 and 38 in it. Never been cleaned accept for a rag with a bit of oil ran down the barrel before storage and the outside wiped down.
Has a 6 inch barrel. 7 shot cylinder, Hough groups iron sights, and a melanite finish.
Thing shoots just about anything accurately.
I have used it for range and hunting, but would not be a choice for carry, just because of the weight,length.
Heavy trigger, but crisp. Hough groups pretty much negate recoil with full hot 357 loads. Melonite Finish on an unpolished surface, leaves something to be desired, but has been very durable.
Machined right and spot on where it counts. Cylinders are lined up perfect and are all the same size.
I can shoot .358 to .360 bullets with no leading or appreciable accuracy difference.
I have a SW. Smith and Wesson, it is not. The Taurus is good enough for what It is, and what I paid new for it. If I had not bought a Smith and Wesson and shot them side by side. I would have said it is just as good. But the SW is definitely a touch less clunky for lack of a better phrase.
 
Last edited:

Jeff H

NW Ohio
My 2 cents for what it is worth.

...But the SW is definitely a touch les clunky for lack of a better word.
Great insight, Sir, and thank you.

I get the "touch less clunky" part. Smith definitely has had refined lines for many decades and (some) are beautiful revolvers.

Seems you get a good one or you don't, but then that's been my luck with any brand.
 

Bret4207

At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
Thanks, @RBHarter , good input. I wonder what the vintage of that one was. I had a few of the early-nineties 44 Specials, and they were gems, but a bit bulky and heavy for this application. I would never have trodden on the 357 mag pressure levels in one, but that was based on just not knowing what they'd handle over time. I rarely shoot "real" magnums in a revolver any more, but want to stick with the magnum brass because that's what my carbine is and I want whatever cartridges I happen to lay my hands on to work in the revolver, so I've begun drifting away from the 38.

@fiver , I think we're on the same page on that. I believe that, sadly, similar outcomes from Charter are apparent these days, but not for exactly the same reason. The design is solid and proven - I'd say solid enough that Ruger copied it for their DAs (I'm gonna duck now) and solid enough that they still get away with less attention to detail in the execution of that design than in their earlier days. They source American-made parts and assemble the guns with what they get, from what I can tell. SOMETIMES a combination of parts, all within tolerance, doesn't quite "stack up" to a good-shooter. SOMETIMES a combination of parts, all within tolerance "stacks up" to be a little gem. I'm not sure how much more actual fitting they do than choosing from parts segregated by ranges of dimension. THIS is purely a hypothesis, as Ive not been IN the factory and watched what goes on.

I will say that they are one of the easiest companies to deal with that I've ever had to deal with - which has been ONCE, on ONE gun in all these years. I'm still a fan of the company in a big way, but I'm just not seeing what I want from their lineup. The 3", five-shot 357 Charter I have is almost perfect, besides the fact that I had to do a lot of work to it, the front sight leaves much to be desired and the adjustable rear sight is, well, the one thing I've always held against them. They're not great to begin with and are like a pocket full of fish-hooks on a gun like this.
If Charter could polish up some of the rough edges and do a little better on the overall finish I think they'd sell better and have a better rep. My BD is dead reliable, handy, light, accurate as the guy shooting it can do and I'm not scared of dropping it or it getting wet. But a little upgrade in the finish work would make it a better machine. I suppose I should just do the work myself, but then the finish color won't match. It will never be a Smith or Colt, but that's part of why I like it! If I ever run across another Charter Pathfinder I hope to grab it too! Shoulda. woulda, coulda, part 237,496!
 

Winelover

North Central Arkansas
I'm very happy with recent vintage Bulldog. Everything that matters is up to snuff. Good DAO trigger and cylinder throats are all consistent in size. Albeit on the large size............then so is my early vintage RH. My Marlin get .433 sized bullets and so does the RH and BD.............works for me. Cosmetically, it has some stray tooling marks, However, they also go for half the price of a S&W.

Charter fills a niche, with the Bulldog, that other manufactures ignore..............carryable large bore revolver. Taurus doesn't offer 44 Specials, last time I looked. I've said it before, Ruger needs to offer a LCR in 44 Special.
 

Jeff H

NW Ohio
Man, you two just pushed my "Charter Button" by acknowledging their value, based on EXPERIENCE, rather than popular conjecture.

Charter is my all-time favorite revolver brand and I could write a BOOK about their virtues, though it might not be a very good book.

Anyone who's a fan of the Ruger Security Six line, the Redhawks or the GPs and SPs need to sit down and take a look inside a Charter.Charter came out in '64, Ruger hit the DA scene in, what '73? No one's kidding me based on WB Ruger's reputation and the distinct DNA that he didn't rip off the design from Charter. Granted, he did a marvelous job of it, but at times OVER-did that marvel. Charter was doing in 1964 what most companies are just getting around to within the past ten years. If you see a Stratford or Bridgeport-production Charter - GRAB IT! After that, thisngs were sketchy - hit or miss, but still a solid design, which even the penny-pinchers couldn't ruin completely.

Tip: the early 3" stainless 44 Buldogs has STEEL grip frames, not aluminum. I f you find one, even if it's ragged out, grab it and salvage the grip frame. Their earlier bobbed DA/SA hammer is t he berries - grab any of those you can find.

I was saving for another SP101 (NOT current production) and saw the new" 3" stainless 357 Mag Pug in "high polish" and completely forgot the SP101 and grabbed the Mag Pug. Other than the grotesque, clumsy-looking barrel, it's really a nice-looking gun. I HATE their rubber grips, pachmyer Compacts are too bulky and finding the older, fuller "skinny grips" (the squared-off,checkered ones) has proven fruitless (for under $40). The "adjustable" rear sight (one of their not-so-hot points) were just wrong for that gun, but I overlooked it and am working on a fixed version I can install in its place.

That aside, this is the first Charter I've ever had to return to the factory. The integral front sight, with its amorphous figure, was WAY short - filed down at the factory, for whatever reason. I assume to accommodate the new, boutique "personal defense" ammo? Anyway, the SA trigger was bad - like a two-stage, which was another first for SA triggers on Charters for me. The DA trigger rivals the Rossi 720s (which were the best I've bought, DA trigger wise, and yes, I've owned some "vintage" S&Ws. They replace the barrel to get a whole front sight - still not enough. I'm fixing that.

This gun had a LOT of things just not right, the worst of which was cylinder binding (another first for me with Charter) and I ended up resolving that the the pawl was forcing the cylinder forward, against the breech of the barrel. Shimmed the cylinder and it's golden, but I shouldn'yt have had to do that. Their new means of retaining the cylinder on the crane-barrel is BAD. There wasn't a thing in the world wrong with the original design, but now, they use a split-ring nesting in annular grooves, corresponding to one another on the crane-barrel and inside the cylinder axis bore. How cleaver! Except that if you drop this revolver while the cylinder is open (think hasty reload in a dire situation), the cylinder can be jarred loose! Terrible, terrible design.

This new Mag Pug outshoots my 4" stainless Service Six by about a half inch at 20 yards, ugly barrel and indistinct front sight outline not withstanding. Handy, not overly heavy, fits my hand better than any other than the Rossi 720, which had the BEST rubber grip I've ever used, but I'd be hesitant to buy another of this model even if I could find one. BUT< I've owned a LOT of Ruger SAs and DAs over the years - and have returned more Rugers to the factory than all others combined. My first, only, last NEW S&W (4" 624) would not work right out of the box - cylinder bound up - and was returned with ten listed defects. They fixed a couple and I ended up fixing the rest. I've never returned a H&R or Rossi revolver, and hadn't returned a Charter until this last one.

If Charter brought back the tapered 3" and 4" barrels (full underlug and ejector rod shroud be damned) I'd jump on them in spite of this last one. I'd probably even expand into the 32 Mag in a 4" and own a 22 again - if I could have them with the tapered barrels. The design is SOLID - just ask Ruger.;)

To be fair, significant bits of the Charter design had roots in High Standard revolver design too. Humble origins for for the best, toughest DAs ever made (the Security/Service/Speed Six line), but it works. Ruger just beefed everything up and made them easier to work on, which is great, but how often does one really need to get that far into the guts of a functional DA that it HAS to be that easy? Charters are a PITA to put back together, but do it once to clean and tune a but and you don't need to be "in there" every time you shoot it.

Charter service, based on my one recent experience, is VERY good, by the way. Ruger has been good with one exception (two, actually) but that's another story and I believe they have fixed that.
 

Jeff H

NW Ohio
My apologies for the long post, but believe it or not, I really held back and kept it "short," considering the subject. I'm not saying Charters are "better" than Smiths, Rugers or Colts, but they are my favorite and no one else does what they have - let alone for half the money. I don't get too fussy about how a thing looks compare to how a thing performs and Charters have served my purposes very well.

I've posted this link before, but I'll post it again for anyone who might be interested:

This fella has a lot of good infor on your old Charters and is a super nice guy if you decide to e-mail him and ask any further questions.
 

Jeff H

NW Ohio
OK, I bought one of these. I already had my own personal experience, likes, dislikes, but also took all other input offered under consideration as well. There is virtually no really good information on these out there in terms of reviews, but most reviews, articles or blog posts these days copy/paste the manufacturer's blather and add a bunch of very ambiguous an non-quantifiable "data" such that you only learn that a gun "feels good in the hand," or "is more accurate than I am," (HOW would someone know that unless someone else shot it or it was shot in a Ransom rest, anyway). ANYWAY, eyes wide open, I'm going to mess with this thing, over time, and will share what I learn.

Right out of the box, objectively, it is uninspiring, rouses no nostalgic or romantic stirrings,... But, it's clean, compact, has no useless aesthetic "mall-Ninja" decoration, no LOCK, no PORTS, no plastic, very, very few sharp edges and it (sorry for this) FEELS GREAT IN MY HAND. I am ever so impressed with this ugly, black, sticky rubber Hogue grip and will stick my neck out and say that it is the best feeling, most comfortable and most repeatable grip I've ever had on a handgun. The rubber Rossi grip held that title until I wrapped my grubby mitt around this one, and I hate rubber grips. Of course, Hogue doesn't make THIS grip for Charters. Everything for Charters has too much material covering the back strap of the grip frame for me. This one leaves it exposed.

So far, the DA trigger is, as expected, quite STIFF, but smooth and consistent, with that irritating (to me) "pause" just before it lets go. The SA trigger is SO stiff that it is painful to cock the hammer and feels like about 40# before a very slight feign, and then it lets go. The sights are VERY clean, crisp and easy to pick up, and a spare STEEL, black serrated ramp sight is included in the box. The forcing cone is CAVERNOUS. Yep, it leads to beat the band - so far.

It is a nice example of the format I want and prefer, if not terribly well executed, but the SA trigger probably is the worst thing about it so far. I can fix that. I shot five of four loads (all cast) and it yielded about one-inch groups at ten yards, as I struggled with my bifocals. I popped the side-plate and it was surprisingly CLEAN inside. Not just "hygienically," but no immediately apparent scrap metal inside, no rust, no pasty goo. THIS is highly unusual for me, as I can remember very few guns I've ever bought new, which were not nasty inside - brand new. I'm hinting toward anything but Charter Arms and the LCRX. Pretty much everything else NEEDED to be opened up and hosed out, filed, stoned, etc.

I'm not out to prove this is a turd and I'm not about to try to prop it up and make it look better than it is either. If it does what I want it to, it'll be two thumbs up. Right now, I need it to prove to me that it will shoot well and that it can shoot without being a pain in the neck leading. If I can achieve those two things without a significant expenditure in time, effort or money, it's a win. My expectations were low regarding what I was going to see when I got it out of the box, but I've been impressed so far, so here's hopin' I have NOT yet slugged the bore or throats, but visibly, they look clean and well done.

Oh, I have $404 invested in this thing, all told. If I get a decent working-gun out of this for that, I'll be happy. If I don't, well,... Now, even if this thing turns out to be a gem, I still feel that those who expressed the notion that buying a Taurus is a crap-shoot could very well be right. No promises there. On the same note, if it's a turd, there's nothing saying everyone will get a turd either.

Taurus 605-001 (Copy).jpgTaurus 605-002 (Copy).jpgTaurus 605-003 (Copy).jpg
 
Last edited: