# Taurus vs Smith & Wesson Revolvers



## eurocopter

I am looking to purchase a 357 Mag Revolver soon and I am looking a the 627 SS4 and 66 SS4 in Taurus,against a Smith & Wesson 686.
Apart from price is there a real quality difference or is it just price?
I will be shooting .38 specials and .357 magnums through it with medium amount ot use say 1500 rounds a year maximum.
If you listen to the old guys around our pistol club the Smith & Wesson is the only way to go but some of these guys have blinkers on. I can understand that in the early years Tuarus made cheaper looking guns but they seem to have got their act together and have soom of the best looking revolvers around.
I am just looking for some honest advice as I feel some of the people will only own a Smith & Wesson because they dont like change just like the 1911 crowd.
What do you guys think.


----------



## Snowman

Hello friend. A search of this forum will turn up lots of stuff on this subject. Few will dispute that the Smith is a better revolver. Is the difference worth the price? That is up to you. If it were me, I'd save up and get the S&W.


----------



## Baldy

Well speaking for the oldmen with blinkers I can tell you that your grandkids will be shooting that S&W 686. I have had several Taurus over the years and traded them off as the quality is not there. The few people I know that have had problems with them it took forever to get fixed. Save the bucks if you wish but remember quality cost a little more. Good luck.


----------



## eurocopter

Thanks guys.
I will spend the extra money and get a Smith and Wesson.


----------



## drummin man 627

Certain models of Taurus' guns seem to be problematic. The pistols with striker actions have had various wierd things happen. (light strikes, recoil srings coming out,etc). They seem to have corrected most of those problems with the third generation guns. 
I just went to Taurusarmed.net and ran a Search for "627 problems". All reports are glowing. No one had any complaints. That model seems to be one of the good ones.
If there are problems with the Taurus products, you'll find them there.
I'm as happy as a pig in the mud with my PT92, and am trying to locate a PT908 for CCW. That's how much I trust that series.


----------



## Guest

With your choices I would buy the Smith. I think it will hold up better to full power loads than the Taurus. If you shoot mostly 38 then pick any of them. I think you are leaving out what I consider to be the most rugged double action revolvers made and those are Rugers.


----------



## carthusian

*Taurus vs. Smith ...*

I have a 686 4" stainless as well as a GP 100, both with Hogue grips. Before you decide, I would check out the Ruger GP 100 - built like a bank vault and less expensive than the Smiff. I would personally never buy a Taurus. You could probably find a used 686 or GP 100 at a reasonable price, although I bought mine new. I use my Ruger with 135 gr GDHP +P for HD and practice with reloads. Absolutely love it.


----------



## Pointblank

I just picked up this 3-inch Taurus 431 in .44 Special (no longer made). 
It's lightly used and the action isn't bad. 
If Smith made something like this I'd buy it. 
Gotta love those big bullets.


----------



## Randall Donahoo

I have a Taurus revolver in 357 mag and an auto in .45. Both are accurate and very reliable. That's my experience. I also have a Ruger revolver in 357 and a S&W auto in .45. Recently traded a S&W 66 on a new Glock 20. I like them all. I'd rely on any of them, though the big Glock 20 and the compact PT145 Mil Pro would be favored in an emergency just because they hold more rounds at the ready than the others.


----------



## .357mag1

my 66 has yet to give me a problem since I bought it new 3 months ago.

If I had to chose all over again I'd pick the taurus again, hell of a deal and I couldn't ask for it to be more accurate. I'm sure the 686 is worth its price but I just didn't have that kind of money to spend


----------

