# Taurus VS Glock



## T-55A5

I am looking at buying a compact handgun to carry

My 1911 is to heavy to carry around for a period of time so I need something lighter

I'm looking at the glock 30 and taurus millennium pro series PT145

I know the glock is a reliable gun and need to know if the taurus can match it even through it is built in brazil 

Billy


----------



## Couch Potato

Get the Glock.


----------



## recoilguy

The Glock is built in Austria so how does where its made make a differance?


----------



## T-55A5

recoilguy said:


> The Glock is built in Austria so how does where its made make a differance?


A friend bought a Rock Island .45 1911 which is made in the Phillippines and cost only $350.00...a country known for cheap & low cost products

He found out it is not as reliable as a US made 1911.....jaming after every 5th round, he used different mags and ammo and nothing changed

Most products from Austria and europe are known for reliably, including guns

Just woundering if the gun from Brazil is like the 1911 from the Phillippines or the Glock from Austria

Billy


----------



## Bisley

Glock, hands down, but don't expect it to be that much lighter than a 1911 with a fully loaded magazine.


----------



## Overkill0084

T-55A5 said:


> A friend bought a Rock Island .45 1911 which is made in the Phillippines and cost only $350.00...a country known for cheap & low cost products
> 
> He found out it is not as reliable as a US made 1911.....jaming after every 5th round, he used different mags and ammo and nothing changed
> 
> Most products from Austria and europe are known for reliably, including guns
> 
> Just woundering if the gun from Brazil is like the 1911 from the Phillippines or the Glock from Austria
> 
> Billy


Where something is made is not necessarily a reflection of the reliability you can expect.
XDs are made in Croatia (The other Europe). They are good guns. The Rock Island guns are, for the most part, pretty good. Your friend had a bad one, or there are other issues to be addressed. 
Taurus seems to have more than their fair share of quality issues. This doesn't mean that all Brazilian made products are poo. Springfield sources many of their 1911 frames from there.
I don't buy into the whole "Euro Superiority" thing. Just because there are some very good European products out there, doesn't mean that all European products are in fact superior. Much of the added cost can be attributed to the Euro Zone labor costs, not inherant superiority.
Of the two, get the Glock. But ake a look at the S&W M&P.


----------



## childs2486

Billy,

I own a taurus and a glock. In terms of reliability, glock beats taurus by a country mile. Taurus's are good for sporting and target uses, but don't trust your life to one.


----------



## T-55A5

Overkill0084 said:


> Where something is made is not necessarily a reflection of the reliability you can expect.
> XDs are made in Croatia (The other Europe). They are good guns. The Rock Island guns are, for the most part, pretty good. Your friend had a bad one, or there are other issues to be addressed.
> Taurus seems to have more than their fair share of quality issues. This doesn't mean that all Brazilian made products are poo. Springfield sources many of their 1911 frames from there.
> I don't buy into the whole "Euro Superiority" thing. Just because there are some very good European products out there, doesn't mean that all European products are in fact superior. Much of the added cost can be attributed to the Euro Zone labor costs, not inherant superiority.
> Of the two, get the Glock. But ake a look at the S&W M&P.


The S&W M&P compact only fires the 9mm and .40...I want something that fires .45

Billy


----------



## zebramochaman

No contest IMO. Go with the Glock.


----------



## cougartex

zebramochaman said:


> No contest IMO. Go with the Glock.


Yes, get the Glock.


----------



## bayhawk2

Money could come into play?The Taurus
Millinium Pro series of pistols are pretty good.
No real concerns.I have a Pro PT-111 9mm,
and love it.No jams ever.The price I suspect would
be a couple hundred dollars cheaper than the Glock?
Glocks in my opinion are ugly,but very reliable.
I would pick the Glock,simply because it is
battle proven.


----------



## Overkill0084

T-55A5 said:


> The S&W M&P compact only fires the 9mm and .40...I want something that fires .45
> 
> Billy


M&P45 .45ACP - Smith & Wesson

Product: Smith & Wesson M&P45c - Compact Size, Manual Thumb Safety

You may wish to double check that assertion.


----------



## freddex

*philippine made rock island*



Overkill0084 said:


> Where something is made is not necessarily a reflection of the reliability you can expect.
> XDs are made in Croatia (The other Europe). They are good guns. The Rock Island guns are, for the most part, pretty good. Your friend had a bad one, or there are other issues to be addressed.
> Taurus seems to have more than their fair share of quality issues. This doesn't mean that all Brazilian made products are poo. Springfield sources many of their 1911 frames from there.
> I don't buy into the whole "Euro Superiority" thing. Just because there are some very good European products out there, doesn't mean that all European products are in fact superior. Much of the added cost can be attributed to the Euro Zone labor costs, not inherant superiority.
> Of the two, get the Glock. But ake a look at the S&W M&P.


Just because the 1911 made in the Philippines jammed does not mean that it was because it was Philippine made. This is again simple stereotyping. I have seen many 1911 made by Armscor in the Philippines outperform many of the foreign made guns during shooting competitions. In fact most members of the shooting community I met in the Philippines prefer the locally made 1911s because they are reliable. They just gobble any bullet.

As for the Taurus PT 140 I bought it because it was small and powerful. I started having serious doubts about its reliability. So I keep on firing it every weekend waiting for it to fail just to confirm the proverbial taurus bashing in the internet. It did not. It keep on firing without any hitch. The longer I punished it with all kinds of ammunitions the better it gets. I quess about 1000 rounds passed already in this diminutive monster. I have no doubt it will fire when I to draw it in the most unlikely event.


----------



## Shipwreck

Watermelon vs a Glock...

Ice cube versus a glock...

apple sauce versus a glock...

THESE are all more realistic comparisons than Taurus vs Glock :smt082:smt082:smt082


----------



## ozzy

Kimber Vs Glock........

Yup more realistic!


----------



## ozzy

freddex said:


> Just because the 1911 made in the Philippines jammed does not mean that it was because it was Philippine made. This is again simple stereotyping. I have seen many 1911 made by Armscor in the Philippines outperform many of the foreign made guns during shooting competitions. In fact most members of the shooting community I met in the Philippines prefer the locally made 1911s because they are reliable. They just gobble any bullet.
> 
> As for the Taurus PT 140 I bought it because it was small and powerful. I started having serious doubts about its reliability. So I keep on firing it every weekend waiting for it to fail just to confirm the proverbial taurus bashing in the internet. It did not. It keep on firing without any hitch. The longer I punished it with all kinds of ammunitions the better it gets. I quess about 1000 rounds passed already in this diminutive monster. I have no doubt it will fire when I to draw it in the most unlikely event.


I love my PT140 as well. The SOB goes bang,bang,bang.................................."


----------



## nated

I own a PT145 and use it as my CCW. Ive put well over 400 through it and never had a single jam or any other malfunction. ive had problems with a glock jamming. Put honestly its what you are comfortable with carrying


----------



## SMann

Some people buy a Taurus and never have a problem, too many others buy one and it never works right. Firearms and gambling don't mix. Buy the Glock.


----------



## ozzy

I have a PT140 and it goes bang everytime. Glock's are for the in crowd.


----------



## tkroenlein

Glock. If you're still not sure, then get the Glock.


----------



## T-55A5

With all the input I have received.... 75-80% going towards the Glock....... I have desided to go with the Glock

Half of those had both guns and the Glock was a better gun for self-defence

Billy


----------



## ozzy

T-55A5 said:


> With all the input I have received.... 75-80% going towards the Glock....... I have desided to go with the Glock
> 
> Half of those had both guns and the Glock was a better gun for self-defence
> 
> Billy


What 1911 do you have by the way?


----------



## Lee Hunter

I'm a satisfied Taurus semiautomatic pistol owner. My wife and I have never experienced reliability issues with our 24/7 DAO and DA/SA PT99 pistols. And my experience with their CS associates has been positive. 

I've never owned a Glock, even though I once considered purchasing a G34. But since I reload and shoot both jacketed and cast bullets, I would need to buy an aftermarket barrel for it. Unsupported chambers make me nervous, and polygonal rifling nixes the use of cast bullets.


----------



## T-55A5

ozzy said:


> What 1911 do you have by the way?


Para 1911 GI Expert

Billy


----------



## T-55A5

I took my Glock to the gun range to test fire and while I was getting set up to go into the range I noticed a PT145 that could be rented

They had just received it and it had only 30 rounds through it , so I rented the gun to compare

I fired the Glock first and noticed after the first two rounds it has one fouth to one third less kick then my 1911 and I put all ten rounds in an area of five inchs..It fired smooth and good

Then came the Taurus....like the Glock, ten round mag....after the first two rounds I can say it kicks more then the Glock, but just under my 1911

The next five rounds were bad... jam, jam, stove pipe, jam, stove pipe...the last three went out clean

It's a new gun so I fired it again and this volly was worst....clean, jam, jam, clean, jam, stove pipe, jam, clean, jam,clean

I used the last 20 rounds in my Glock with one jam coming on the 19th round

Paying the extra $200 for the Glock was a good idea

I told the lady at the counter what the Taurus did and the first person that fired it said the same thing and different ammo was used

The Glock is a better gun

Billy


----------



## RICK54

How many here really own a glock or a taurus ?I know of one taurus basher here who always joins in every chance to bash the taurus brand I do believe the glocks fit and finish are better but everyone might not want to put that much money out that does not make the other brands junk.


----------



## Shipwreck

RICK54 said:


> I know of one taurus basher here who always joins in every chance to bash the taurus brand.


Yes, that would probably be me...

Go read the Taurus Quality thread - I have links to tons of stories. And, I;ve been collecting more since I posted that.

Sorry - but I say get a Ruger P95 or a Stoeger Cougar, if that is all you can afford. Those guns are much better quality than Taurus. I have owned both of them too. I can get a blue P95 for under $300, and a stainless one for $310-$320. Cheapest gun I'd buy to defend my life.


----------



## Prin_C

I have used both guns and would prefer a glock over a taurus. Get the glock, Its battle tested.


----------



## RICK54

Not worth a reply a am finished here!


----------



## Bisley

I guess a die-hard Taurus fan would consider me a "Taurus Basher," too, although I have nothing against them as a practice gun, or for anything else that does not involve self-defense. 

It is purely a matter of playing the percentages. The overall odds have always been overwhelmingly in favor of a person never having to use a gun for self defense, but the fact remains that a person who has made the decision to carry a lethal weapon has some reason to believe that doing so might save him or his loved ones from suffering at the hands of some evil or misguided assailant. That is a grave decision, when you think about it, and requires a huge commitment to quality, in both training and equipment selection. 

That person is basically saying that he is willing to take a another life, in defense of something he holds very dear, like his own life or someone else's. So, when he has finally arrived at that decision - to prepare himself for that single moment in his life, when he may live or die, based on his equipment and personal ability...why would he even consider using a product that has been crafted by a company who is well documented to not have that same level of commitment? 

Taurus has been rolling defective equipment off the assembly line for years, not because they necessarily have poor designs, or because they use cheaper parts (almost every manufacturer has increased their use of plastic and MIM parts), but because they let the 'borderline' quality guns go into the marketplace. The manufacturers who have better reputations have them because they cull the borderline items and run them back through the process until they meet minimum standards. A few slip by, but not enough to ruin their reputations - that actually takes quite a few mistakes to do. 

Taurus's answer to that has been, for many years, to simply say 'send it back and we will fix it.' That's a good thing, when they actually do it, but it doesn't help the guy much, who bought a gun for that single moment in his life when he needed to believe his gun was going to save his life, or someone else's. It's all about confidence, and when there is documented evidence of poor quality control, over a period of decades, a prudent person will have doubts, and that is a bad thing when a person is under severe stress.

If you can't understand and accept the above argument, maybe you should re-think your own level of commitment to using lethal force in defense of the things you hold dear.


----------



## RICK54

If you don't know your gun shoot it a lot make sure you don't see any problems after many rounds maybe you should not be carrying, any new gun untested can misfire if you don't like taurus does not make you a basher its just some take it a little over board.


----------



## devildogandboy

yeah, i would definitely go with the glock. i have the taurus pt145 and an glock 33 and the quality and overall performance of the glock is much better. the glock costs more but you will be alot happier with it.


----------



## denner

I don't believe Taurus is anywhere near Glock at this point, at least not in their duty pistols. Look at Glock assessories, inexpensive factory mags, reputation. However, you might find a Taurus that works, fits you well and you can shoot it well. You might not like the feel of a Glock and possibly won't shoot it as well? But, I doubt it. Really, it's unfair to make comparisons between these two at this point, besides, Glocks can go for $200 to $300 more depending on what model you choose. Taurus vs. Ruger would be a closer comparison and this is coming from a biased Beretta guy.


----------



## JeffWard

Skip both... Get a S&W M&P45 Compact.

You get Glock-reliability, in an American made gun, and you keep $50-100 in your pocket for ammo.

Jeff


----------



## T-55A5

I have already bought the Glock....when I took it to the gun range to shoot I noticed they had a Taurus for rent

I rented it and did a side by side test and the Glock won by a long shot

Billy


----------



## denner

:smt1099


----------



## Kaboshltd

*just time to say this*



Shipwreck said:


> Watermelon vs a Glock...
> 
> Ice cube versus a glock...
> 
> apple sauce versus a glock...
> 
> THESE are all more realistic comparisons than Taurus vs Glock :smt082:smt082:smt082


if everything is compared to the Glock. It is plain to see that it is the Glock that should be owned.


----------



## Kaboshltd

I own both and hands down the Glock is the better of the two.


----------



## berettatoter

I have heard, on a steady basis, that Taurus owners either love or hate the quality of their pistols. On the other hand, I have never really heard of a Glock owner complaining about the quality of their Glocks.:watching:


----------



## Cat

This will help you to know all about Mr Glock.A man that made a pistol a master peace. 
http://www.gunknowledge.com/Documents/Glock/Glock_Unofficial_UGUM.pdf

:smt033


----------



## Packard

For CCW I would prefer a Glock 36; fire-power wise is gives up some compared to the 1911, but it is flatter and easier to carry than either the 1911 or the Glock 30.

The Glock 30 has a reputation as being very accurate. I've not shot one. The Glock 30 seems closer in size to the Glock 23 than to the baby Glocks.


----------



## jakeleinen1

shipwreck said:


> watermelon vs a glock...
> 
> Ice cube versus a glock...
> 
> Apple sauce versus a glock...
> 
> These are all more realistic comparisons than taurus vs glock :smt082:smt082:smt082


cosign


----------



## berettatoter

Packard said:


> For CCW I would prefer a Glock 36; fire-power wise is gives up some compared to the 1911, but it is flatter and easier to carry than either the 1911 or the Glock 30.
> 
> The Glock 30 has a reputation as being very accurate. I've not shot one. The Glock 30 seems closer in size to the Glock 23 than to the baby Glocks.


They are accurate, or I can just shoot that .45 better than a 1911. My sister's husband has one and I was able to shoot that gun much better than I could any of the 1911's we had in the Marines.


----------



## recoilguy

denner said:


> Taurus vs. Ruger would be a closer comparison and this is coming from a biased Beretta guy.


How does a Biased Berreta guy have any credibility saying anything about a Taurus or a Ruger? Not a jab just really curious about the basis for the comparison. These kind of statements really interest me on these forums.

RCG


----------



## berettatoter

recoilguy said:


> How does a Biased Berreta guy have any credibility saying anything about a Taurus or a Ruger? Not a jab just really curious about the basis for the comparison. These kind of statements really interest me on these forums.
> 
> RCG


Maybe he is like me. I have owned a lot of different handguns in the past, but sold most of them off to take care of some unexpected financial business at home. Ever since all of that went down, three years ago, I have concentrated on owning the brand that I liked best. In my case that would be a Beretta. I had owned a PT-111(2nd generation), a PT-22, a Model 85 in .38 Special, and a PT-92. Unfortunately, I had to sell seventeen handguns all together. Not trying to pick a fight here, just trying to see this from all points of view, thats all.


----------



## recoilguy

I'm not trying to start a fight either but the way I read it and truthfully the way I still read it is 

I am a Berreta guy.... Glocks are way better then Taurus as a matter of fact they are way better then Ruger too.

I was just asking for a point of reference to lend credibility to the statement. I realize there are always a bunch of maybe's. If your senerio is the case then maybe there is a credibility to the implication that Taurus and Ruger are both inferior quality handguns, I was just curious. I like there to be experiance or facts that opinions are based upon not just points of view. I could be wrong just saying what I read.


----------



## jonmerritt

I like my Tauruses, I like my Glocks, I have had more jambs from breaking in a Glock than from the Taurus. I have had to do some work to taurus and Glock to get them to work they way I want. I trust my life to either one, I never trust a firearm out of the box. Taurus and Glock are completely differant animals. But hey, I'll take my Taurus to the range, you bring your glock, I will embarass you. Hell I'll bring a HiPoint!


----------



## DWARREN123

I have never owned a Taurus but have handled a few and not been impressed. I have owned a few Glocks and own two now, I would always pick the Glocks first. 
Just my opinion. :mrgreen:


----------



## ronmail65

A few comments / opinions after reading through this thread...

- First, to the Op, I agree with the sentiment expressed by others that you can't judge quality simply based on the country of manufacture. While it might be a good general indicator for some products / industries, I would recommend not adopting a basic "country = quality rating" mentality. Parts, assembly, labor, national/industry standards, etc... all happen in a global economic melting pot today. Even if you have that mentality, it's hard to exercise it with accuracy. BUT, to the extent that it's clear and the products are good, I would recommend supporting the economy of the country in which you live because it's good business!

- Second, I have no direct experience with Taurus. I don't want to propagate gossip, but generally speaking most of what I read about Taurus reliability is less than positive. That's just my experience - I recommend doing your own research.

- Third, I do have direct experience with Glock and based on what I've read and personally experienced -- a very reliable firearm, reputed as one of the most reliable on the market.

- Fourth, to the Op,... just curious... by what means of deduction did your research lead you to a Glock vs Taurus decision point? It seems like an an unusual place to find one-self. What features, requirements were you trying to satisfy and how many other guns did you consider?


----------



## kerrycork

Taurus, Good or Bad I have 4 Taurus revolvers none of which ever gave me a problem over the years I have used them and I mean a lot. On the other hand I had 2 Taurus autos that were nothing but trouble. In this thread you can find the exact opposite of my problem. Why I don't know,. I did swap my Taurus 9mm for a glock 19 and get no more keyhole bullets on the target. The Taurus drove me nuts would not shoot anything.


----------



## lp04

Billy, I believe the reason the new pt145 jammed is because the shipping grease was not cleaned out before shooting. Taurus ships their guns with alot of grease in them to prevent corrosion when traveling over seas. If that stuff is not cleaned out before firing, it will cause problems like you described.

I personally have 3 taurus hand guns and I see ALOT of people bash them, most of it was because of Taurus' spotty quality control from 15 yrs ago and the reputation has followed them today. Honestly, Taurus makes great firearms.

I have the following.
24/7 Pro DS in .40 S&W, 2400 rounds through it. 0 failures
PT740 Slim, 1200 rounds, 0 failures
m44 6.5" 44 mag, 2100 rounds, cylinder locked up once because the primer on a reload wasnt seated well.

Lets face it, There is no reason to really bash any brand besides the ring of fire brands.

Here is a video of a taurus 809 with 1000 rounds being put through it, the uploader reported it had no failures
Taurus PT 809 E 9mm Test and Review - YouTube


----------



## stanger1944

Glocks are indeed great guns but IMO are bricks. A polymer gun should be more light weight than an alloy gun. I am not familiar with the Taurus Semis, but based on my experiences with my 38 snubby, I have strongly considered one as my next purchase.


----------



## EMTDrexler

I got rid of my glock 19 for the pt709, Tho the Guns practically break down the same way, I had several issues with the Glock, tho my buddy has one and swears by it. I think it comes down to luck tho with anything these days.


----------



## barstoolguru

someone tell me he's not comparing a glock to a taurus please. I have a taurus and they are ok but my glock23 and 26 are my #1 guns that goes with me everywhere


----------



## SteveC

Never had a problem with my PT145 but my Glock 19 is my gun. Everything else is a toy.


----------



## denner

recoilguy said:


> I'm not trying to start a fight either but the way I read it and truthfully the way I still read it is
> 
> I am a Berreta guy.... Glocks are way better then Taurus as a matter of fact they are way better then Ruger too.
> 
> I was just asking for a point of reference to lend credibility to the statement. I realize there are always a bunch of maybe's. If your senerio is the case then maybe there is a credibility to the implication that Taurus and Ruger are both inferior quality handguns, I was just curious. I like there to be experiance or facts that opinions are based upon not just points of view. I could be wrong just saying what I read.


Well read this:

The credability of my statement is I've owned ruger's, they are getting better especially SR9's and their new .45, lcp, lcr, and I feel are on par w/ any of them. I've never owned a Taurus(a poor mans Beretta), many are on par w/ any of them, but some w/ problems. The one Ruger pistol I owned way back was a jam-o-matic, suffice to say, I was not impressed, the other, a Ruger mini-14 which is the worst firearm i've ever owned, reliable, but the most inaccurate rifle I've ever shot, how Ruger could sell that pos is beyond me, a $600.00 wall support, safe to say I'll never buy a Ruger firearm again. Taurus nor Ruger in my opinion can equal Glock's reputation, if reputation means anything to you? About every law enforcement agency has or has had Glocks not so many Taurus's nor Rugers, would you agree with that one and what does that tell you? Glock sells about 65% of the market share of handguns in the United States as well as supplying national armed forces, security agencies, and law enforcement agencies in 48 other countries, does that tell you anything? Look to see which firearm is mostly used in competition matches, IDPA, IPSC....etc, is it Glock, Taurus or Ruger and when you find the answer, does that tell you anything? Likewise, no military that I'm aware of has adopted Taurus or Ruger for it's military sidearm, Brazil maybe, and does that tell you anything? That may mean nothing to you, but it should and is my reasoning of a better comparison would be between Taurus and Ruger. Perhaps Ruger and Taurus pistols exceed or perhaps are on par w/ Glock, but if you judge them by adoption w/ law enforcement, militaries around the world and for competition matches, neither hold a candle to Glock at this point and does that tell you anything? If you see facts differently that's fine as well. Like I said, I'm a Beretta guy, never owned a Glock, but common perception and reading and the fact that all or most law enforcement officers I've seen in the past 15 to 20 years have had Glock's strapped to their side helps form my credability of at least which pistol manufacturer has more credentials, or as the word you like "credability".


----------



## wayno

That is kind of a way out there comparison.....Glock of course.


----------



## coastie

Glock builds/assmbles in Georgia. Read the book : "Glock" for an insight to marketing.
Taurus has factory in Florida, I believe.
Sold in the U. S. and made here also.
Thanks, Paul
check the book from your library, surprising stuff.


----------



## RogerH

Just think of the song TO BE HAPPY FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE NEVER TRUST A PRETTY GUN WITH YOUR LIFE
So from my personal point of view have a ughly gun to protect you.


bayhawk2 said:


> Money could come into play?The Taurus
> Millinium Pro series of pistols are pretty good.
> No real concerns.I have a Pro PT-111 9mm,
> and love it.No jams ever.The price I suspect would
> be a couple hundred dollars cheaper than the Glock?
> Glocks in my opinion are ugly,but very reliable.
> I would pick the Glock,simply because it is
> battle proven.


----------



## ronmail65

Deciding between a Taurus vs Glock for self defense.... kind of like deciding between a Yugo hatchback vs a Toyota Landcruiser to cross a desert


----------



## Happytrails

If cost is no object this is a no brainier. I own 3 glocks and have never experienced a single failure of any kind over a combined 12,000 rounds or so. In fairness I can't say much about Taurus because I'm buying my first one as I write this solely based on price. I'm hopeful to add it to my stable but if there are issues that create doubt as to reliability, it will be gone fast.



T-55A5 said:


> I am looking at buying a compact handgun to carry
> 
> My 1911 is to heavy to carry around for a period of time so I need something lighter
> 
> I'm looking at the glock 30 and taurus millennium pro series PT145
> 
> I know the glock is a reliable gun and need to know if the taurus can match it even through it is built in brazil
> 
> Billy


----------



## Goldwing

The man who pays for quality only has to cry once. I would wait until I could afford a gun that I didn't have to defend on the handgun forum with lame lines like "well, not everybodys 

Taurus has to go back to the factory!". The fact that Taurus refuses to support any gunsmithing on their guns outside of their own people is telling. Is there any other gun maker 

that does that? Defend them if you must. I am not a hater. I just think that there are a vast majority of gun makers that do things right as a matter of course, why not reward the good 

manufacturers instead of the ones that obviously don't consistantly make quality guns?

GW


----------



## Bisley

I predict that some day I will buy a Taurus. Things just seem to work out that way, when a person thinks he knows a lot about a subject. Something always happens that humbles such a person. When I do own one, I will shoot it at the range until it breaks, or I decide that it isn't going to. If I do break it, I will disassemble it completely and fix everything that I suspect of being sub-standard and then repeat the process.

Only then will I trust it to work when I need it to work. Meanwhile, I will use something that I already trust to work, when needed. Whether or not this is a rational attitude does not matter. Taurus opened the door for me to have such an attitude by letting too many sub-standard examples of their products get out there on the market, so now I have to overcome prejudices against their product that they are responsible for.


----------



## RK3369

childs2486 said:


> Billy,
> 
> I own a taurus and a glock. In terms of reliability, glock beats taurus by a country mile. Taurus's are good for sporting and target uses, but don't trust your life to one.


agree 100%. I own three Taurus' but don't carry any of them. They are only range guns.


----------



## RK3369

Bisley said:


> I predict that some day I will buy a Taurus. Things just seem to work out that way, when a person thinks he knows a lot about a subject. Something always happens that humbles such a person. When I do own one, I will shoot it at the range until it breaks, or I decide that it isn't going to. If I do break it, I will disassemble it completely and fix everything that I suspect of being sub-standard and then repeat the process.


good luck getting any parts. Taurus won't sell them to the public or to gunsmiths. You have to return it for service which is a big turn off for me.


----------



## RK3369

goldwing said:


> The man who pays for quality only has to cry once. I would wait until I could afford a gun that I didn't have to defend on the handgun forum with lame lines like "well, not everybodys
> 
> Taurus has to go back to the factory!". The fact that Taurus refuses to support any gunsmithing on their guns outside of their own people sounds is telling. Is there any other gun maker
> 
> that does that? Defend them if you must. I am not a hater. I just think that there are a vast majority of gun makers that do things right as a matter of course, why not reward the good
> 
> manufacturers instead of the ones that obviously don't consistantly make quality guns?
> 
> GW


absolutely 100% correct. Last I knew (6 months ago) Taurus will not sell any parts to the public, nor to gunsmiths. You must send it back for "free" repairs. I have purchased 2 SCCY semis and they are a low cost gun, both have had mechanical problems and broken parts, guess what?? Call SCCY, parts are in the mail that day. I even told them I needed a new barrel on one of the two and after discussing with their service guy, he sent me a new barrel also. They are a low end gun but at least they are standing behind their product and making it as easy as possible for you to fix problems, unlike Taurus. like I said, I own three Taurus' but don't carry any of them for self defense. They are strictly range toys.


----------



## Bisley

RK3369 said:


> good luck getting any parts. Taurus won't sell them to the public or to gunsmiths. You have to return it for service which is a big turn off for me.


OK, I won't buy one, then. At least I tried. :mrgreen:


----------



## RK3369

Bisley said:


> OK, I won't buy one, then. At least I tried. :mrgreen:


I'm not saying don't buy one, just don't pay more for it than you are willing to loose if it breaks. If you have a local ffl that will send it back for you, fine, you'll probably get it fixed for nothing, but in my case, I couldn't find an ffl who would ship out for me, so I was going to have to pay FedEx overnight which was $80 on a used gun that I paid $160 for to begin with. Didn't seem worth it to me, because it was only a 22. Maybe it if was a 380 or a 9mil I would have gone through with it, but I didn't want to invest another $80 in a used 22 peashooter. It would have meant I would have had $240 into a used PT22. You could just about buy a new one for that. Their policy of not selling parts is what soured me on them. As far as I know, they haven't changed it much since then. And BTW, I think the guys that post on the Taurusarmed site who talk about how great Taurus' are, I think they work for Taurus. Just a hunch.


----------



## Bisley

I get it. It would have to be a really good deal on something that appeared to be functioning properly. I have shot a couple of Taurus semi-autos, mainly because their owners insisted. Both worked OK, and were quite accurate, despite having weird feeling triggers.


----------



## PT111Pro

I can say that I own a PT111Pro and a PT92. I must say I never had any hickup with them. I don't remember how old the PT111Pro is and how many rounds I shot down the range out of this gun. I truly believe it must be more than 10 000. I really trust that gun fully, it made bang whatever I feed her.

But you really have only 90 days warranty on a Taurus gun. Let say you have a problem with a recoil spring. That thing cost normally 20-25 Dollars. 
If that happen to a Taurus gun and your 90 days are over you pay shipping the gun back and for that will cost U 40-60 Dollar. Sure they gave you Spring and replacement for free. But a Smith would ship even after a year for free and it could be done by a gunsmith nearby so you have the gun back on the same day.
I like Taurus products. I never had an issue with it but many over the years with Smith, Walter, Beretta.
But a 90 day warranty on a product seem like coming out of the 1970ties. Sorry. 
Just saying.


----------



## pic

Happytrails said:


> If cost is no object this is a no brainier. I own 3 glocks and have never experienced a single failure of any kind over a combined 12,000 rounds or so. In fairness I can't say much about Taurus because I'm buying my first one as I write this solely based on price. I'm hopeful to add it to my stable but if there are issues that create doubt as to reliability, it will be gone fast.


The price gets em hooked all the time, I did the same thing, read all about it , but as soon as I Started manipulating the action,,,,oh boy, it's best to definitely hold and feel the action , look at it , listen to it.

Or bring someone who knows the difference in craftsmanship, it's not easy to differentiate at times. 
Good luck with the new piece.


----------



## kjcman

Forget the Glock, take the Cannoli...I mean Taurus.


----------



## GCBHM

There is no comparison. The choice is clear. Glock.


----------



## PT111Pro

Why is the choice clear? I mean Glock is just a Glock is not written with a d regardless if some believe it or not.
Gloks and Glock system is not liked by many people around the word. Gangsta style guns without a safety is not everyone choice.


----------



## Goldwing

PT111Pro said:


> Why is the choice clear? I mean Glock is just a Glock is not written with a d regardless if some believe it or not.
> Gloks and Glock system is not liked by many people around the word. Gangsta style guns without a safety is not everyone choice.


RUFKM? You can spell "Gangsta" just fine but you misspell Glock? What the hell is Glock with a d? Glod? Dlock? Gangsta style guns without a safety? Oh you must mean the ones that most gun mfg. are trying to copy. And you carry a POS Taurus! What a joke.

GW


----------



## PT111Pro

:watching:


----------



## shootbrownelk

ronmail65 said:


> Deciding between a Taurus vs Glock for self defense.... kind of like deciding between a Yugo hatchback vs a Toyota Landcruiser to cross a desert


 You beat me to it ronmail, I was going to say comparing a Taurus to a Glock would be like comparing a Yugo (screw yourself) to a KIA (killed in action) who cares? You don't want to admit owning either one.


----------



## PT111Pro

What the heck is a RUFKM? Can I eat that?

It is very sad this snobist behavior, looking down on people that wearing a Taurus. I didn't think that I find me such snobbish here under the colonists. The British even have, because of a severe break out of liberalism, to go into the illegality and they are by the way very happy if they can lay hand on a Taurus. They often can't barely effort a Zastava and are very happy to gain a old M57 out of the Tito Yugoslavia production or a old GDR Makarov 9X18.

Comparing a Zastava Yugo or Fičo to a Toyota Highlander is prove for the quality of the comparison. It could be that the comperer has no Ideas about cars, than is it an excuse. Or he knows cars and made on purpose a non qualified statement. Comparing a Fičo (btw the only Vehicle that a liberal politicians allowed the Zastava Workers to build to privlidge their regime obeying followers back in Yugoslavia) to a Toyota Highlander is like comparing a row boat to a Cessna 172D and than complaining that the row boat can't fly as far the Cessna can. 

I haven't read any real issue that had anyone written that can work as a complain against the Taurus product. Not a single one so far. What I read is, that the aunt of someones friends teacher had known someone that had a neighbor that had a problem with a Taurus. Or someone complains that s/he had a unidentified product problem. A so called UPP. When I worked with BMW Munich that how we called issues that came from customers that couldn't say why they complained but had a problem. A UPP. Now a UFO is something different but the same way provable. 

My father had a left over refrigerator from the US Army, when they gave the apartment back that they had rented for a officer. My dad put that thing in the break room in our warehouse, so the employees could have a fridge to put their lunch and drinks in it. 
It was a Whirlpool appliance and it was heavy, compared what you could put in it, that thing was just huge. The door heavy and the machine always noisy. At least knew everyone in the warehouse when someone was on the fridge. I believe to remember that there was not a single week that not the service mechanic from whirlpool was called to fix that ..m machine. The Whirlpool eat more electricity than the rest of the warehouse and the offices in the second floor combined.
After 6 months my dad had enough and kicked the Whirlpool to the junkyard and replaced the fridge with a SAGEM appliance. A very cheap fridge from France but I'll think we had never a problem with that appliance and my dad had this fridge still when he retired in the lake cabin. 

I bought me a Pontiac coupe. I worked my ass of to get this car and it was just an another american piece of junk. The dash board plastic broke open, the rubber seats was so thin the springs came out and that thing had not even 30 000 miles on it. Yes I come of a generation that was so silly and had to work (I mean real labor) for stuff, even when daddy had money. My dad had money not me. 

So should I say I have prove enough that american engineers are not able to construct any appliances or vehicles? Is a Whirlpool refrigerator out of the early 1950 and a Pontiac vehicle out of the late 1960 compatible with a GE or GM product from 2015? Remember they get now engineered and build in China (some are only assembled in the US) and not in the US anymore. 

But I agree. Comparing a Taurus with a Glock is unfair to Glock. 

So far I have not read any constructive complaint against Taurus besides hearsay or I had a Taurus and that was bad. You may had one issue with a particular gun. But does that speak for a entire manufacturer line?
If someone here has a problem with S&W, Glock, Walther than we have to understand and so on and on. But when someone tells he has a Problem with Taurus that the hell breaks loose.

Tell me what is wrong with Taurus. What would you change? Is there a issue with the material? With the parts or how it is engineered? Give me one thing about a Taurus that I can take and research. I have taken many Taurus guns apart and as a mechanical engineer I couldn't find wrong engineering or wrong material o tolerances. They are in line with the other manufacturers of the budget price line like Glock, S&W, ....

I have many guns from many manufacturers (I'll think too many). The prices that I have paid for a single hand firearm goes from 130.00 USD up and over 1,400.00 USDollar. So don't tell me Taurus is not reliable. Tell me why you think a Taurus product is not reliable. What exactly is it. Negative advertising from Taurus competitors? There is a lot of them around. Manufacturers spend a lot on advertising, pro for the own product and at least 1/3 more to make the competitor look bad. That is how it works. So tell me what is it with Taurus? The tolerances, engineering, material or a mix of it. So let me know so I can go out there and measure, test and than let Taurus know what we found. 

I'll have 3 Taurus guns. I carry often my PT111Pro. I'll trust my life on it and have absolutely no second thoughts about it. No - I am wearing a hand-firearm not since yesterday. I know many they carry Taurus and trust, had never a problem with that gun. One of my neighbos,r only one example, carries a PT 740 his wife a 709. They never had any issue.
I had issues, big and small, with my S&W, Walther, Sig, Beretta, Styr, FN, even with a 1,200.00 USD HK and with Taurus too.


----------



## Bisley

Let's suppose that Smith and Wesson lets 1% of their guns get out the factory door that will fail in a catastrophic way and that Taurus lets 5% of theirs get out on the street that will break in similar fashion.

When you get on the Internet to research which gun you want to buy to defend your life with, is it reasonable to assume that you will see five times more negative comments on Taurus than on Smith and Wesson? Probably, I think.

So, does that mean that all Taurus guns are crap and all S&Ws are OK? No.

It only means that you have a 1% probability of failure with the S&W and a 5% probability with the Taurus. If you earn a good living and can afford to pay $100 or $200 more for the S&W, should you? Most people would say yes, I think. On the other hand, you may have several guns already, so you just decide to buy a Taurus because you like the look and feel of it, and you resolve to see for yourself about the quality. Both of these scenarios are reasonable to me. In fact, the Taurus may work so well that you actually like it better than your more expensive guns. That is also a reasonable outcome. On the other hand, maybe you don't want to take the chance, at all, on losing your investment, should the Taurus actually break. So, you just go with the S&W, because the odds favor it more than the Taurus. This is also reasonable, in my opinion.

The next question is does the Taurus actually break (in a catastrophic way) more often than the S&W? Since neither company is likely to honestly reveal how many of their products fail catastrophically, how do you find out? You surf the Internet and weigh the volume and reliability of each as carefully as you can - not scientific, really, but probably representative enough to let you determine a trend. From there, it is simply about whether or not you trust that trend, and you form an opinion based on that, until you get harder evidence, one way or the other.

In my case, I have heard testimony from gunsmiths, gun store clerks, and individuals that suggest the Internet trend is valid, so I have formed an opinion. Even if I owned several Taurus guns that worked OK, I would just believe that I was not part of that unlucky 5% (or whatever the real number is).


----------



## desertman

Bisley:


> Let's suppose that Smith and Wesson lets 1% of their guns get out the factory door that will fail in a catastrophic way and that Taurus lets 5% of theirs get out on the street that will break in similar fashion.


Great job! You presented a well reasoned argument. None of which has anything to do with being a Taurus "hater" or "gun snob". It is what it is. If I wanted to go out and buy a Taurus, I would, but because of their well documented problems I would never even consider one, or recommend them to others. From what I understand is that Taurus will not sell parts to individuals or gunsmiths to fix their problem guns if in fact a part breaks. The guns must be returned to the factory for repairs. Who the hell wants to deal with that? Especially from a manufacturer with a questionable reputation. I certainly would not want my life to depend on a product of inferior quality. I'd never know when or if the damn thing will break.



> In my case, I have heard testimony from gunsmiths, gun store clerks, and individuals that suggest the Internet trend is valid, so I have formed an opinion. Even if I owned several Taurus guns that worked OK, I would just believe that I was not part of that unlucky 5% (or whatever the real number is).


Same here.


----------



## PT111Pro

Hummm
I didn't say Glock is a bad gun or not worth to buy. I just want to clear that up.

But when I follow you model, sure the manufacturers will not tell you how many % of their guns coming back because of issues, than is it so, that as more money you spend as less problems you will have with the product? You mean if you pay $ 20 000 more for a Jaguar than for a Ford Taurus SEL you will have less trouble with the Jaguar than with the Ford and that even when Jaguar is build on the Ford Taurus platform? You think because you pay $ 10 000 - $ 15 000 more for an Audi than for a Volkswagen you had bought the more reliable vehicle? The Audi and Volkswagen are identical to the screw rolling from the same assembly line but have a different design. 

The little pay more has in the most of the cases nothing to do with better quality, but a lot with showing off in front of friends or on campus. They buy a BMW not because they have a single idea about cars or engineering a vehicle or the quality of the vehicle. It has something to do with a show off what daddy's wallet or Grandma savings can afford to by, often is it even a combined family effort. 
I know when we designed the BMW 3 series (I am proud I had the opportunity to be a part of the group E30/2) and when that thing was build is was not better than a Opel, or a Ford Taunus, in some areas even worse, but the BMW was twice that expensive and had the name. Many bought it because of the name regardless you could have Opel Ascona or A Ford Taunus in the same size better equipped and much more reliable than the 3er BMW. 

The extra money is only spend for the Uuuhhh and Aaahhh on the range, the campus to show off what someone bought. The satisfaction of the hungry eyes of ignorant that don't know the first thing about the product but can be easily impressed by a big Brandname. The little goosebumps of satisfaction staying for 10-15 seconds to stay at least once in the middle of interest. It don't last and so I understand that some people are not happy that others don't care about this 15 second attention and pay 20-50% less for a product. BTW it is why the Car-dealers make so much money. The people show up and buy often not what they need and want, they show up with the eyes of the neighbors and this 5 second Uuuhhh and Aaahhhhh from the neighborhood. Just imagine what kind of cars would be on the road when people would look for reliability and personal needs of their cars. 

I don't believe that there is a lot a difference between Glock, S&W, Bersa, Taurus and all this other budged guns. To build this guns cost about 40-45 USD. All the other is opinion and advertising. If it would be true that a product becomes cheaper when the labor is cheaper in S-america or Asia, than a Chevy Impala LTZ shouldn't cost more than 5000 Dollar. 
The difference between them is opinion and the show off on campus or shooting range. That's it.

Buyng a Gun has something to do with emotions. That is so and many will be willing to pay any price for this 15 sec goosebumps.


----------



## desertman

PT111Pro:
When you're talking cars you're talking thousands of dollars. Guns a hundred dollars or so. You can't compare the two. You seem to think that this is a "my gun is better than yours" type of thing which it isn't. I doubt that too many people show up at a range to show off their new Glock Gen4 G30, there are probably dozens of others there using the same pistol. Glocks are a dime a dozen. Maybe if they show up at a range with a $100,000 rare custom engraved gold inlayed pistol with diamond encrusted grips. No doubt you love Taurus products, no ones telling you not to buy them. It's your money. It's just that you refuse to accept the fact that so many have had problems with them and continue to do so. Regardless of price some guns have far fewer issues than others. That really is the bottom line. Unfortunately, Taurus is not one of them.


----------



## Bisley

PT111Pro said:


> The difference between them is opinion and the show off on campus or shooting range. That's it.


Not in the circles I travel in.

I know knowledgeable gun guys who own Taurus guns and like them, but they all acknowledge that Taurus has too many quality control issues, and they are careful to point that out when recommending self-defense weapons to new shooters.


----------



## GCBHM

PT111Pro said:


> Why is the choice clear? I mean Glock is just a Glock is not written with a d regardless if some believe it or not.
> Gloks and Glock system is not liked by many people around the word. Gangsta style guns without a safety is not everyone choice.


If you have to ask that question, you're not very gun educated. It really is as simple as that.


----------



## VAMarine

This thread is from 2011. 4 years of bickering is enough.


----------

