tuarus gaucho revolver

[jballs918]

well i have been really looking at these they look like alot of fun to shoot. i was just wondering if anyone has one of these i was looking at maybe a 357. should be pretty easy to get the breass for it. any thoughts thanks

jason

[versifier]

Of course they "look like they'd be fun to shoot". The question is, will you still think that a few thousand rounds later? Myself, I don't think so.
If I was looking for another .357 revolver, I'd be looking for something made in the USA like a S&W (of which the Taurus is a poor imitation), a Ruger, a Dan Wesson, a Colt, or a Freedom Arms. Good deals to be had on them used, parts when you need them, no shortage of quality, especially with the older ones. You just need to look around a bit, shops and shows, you'll find a decent one for a fair price. If you really like the Taurus offerings, you are entitled to your opinion, but I think they come out of the wrong end of the bull.

[joed]

Having recently bought a Taurus model 445 to replace a Charter Arms Bulldog I've changed my opinion on Taurus revolvers.

I was never impressed with the action of any Taurus that I handled even though the guns seemed well made. After handling and shooting the 445 I'm convinced Taurus has a decent product. I use this gun for CCW and would bet my life on it, something I wouldn't do with the Charter Arms.

Most of my pistols are S&W or Colt but I can find no fault with this little revolver.

[versifier]

You'll get no arguments from me about the Charter products. As to Taurus, maybe they have changed their ways after so many years of producing paperwieghts, but I gave up on them and their products a long time ago. When I start seeing them on the line in the hands of serious competitors, maybe I'll take another look, but they have never been able to stand up to the volume of practice called for to retain any degree of match shooting proficiency.
This is not to say that they can't handle an occasional trip to the range and discourage the occasional serious threat if called upon to do so (even the Charters can handle that). I enjoy shooting a lot of pistols and revolvers that I would never trust as carry guns. I just like to practice a lot with my carry guns and I prefer the added confidence and sense of security that comes from a well made revolver or pistol made here by fellow Americans. Now, you don't have to live with my conscience, and I wouldn't dream of asking you to. I have seen enough critical parts failures in Taurus revolvers at ranges and in other more serious situations over the years that I flatly refuse to trust my life or those of my children, family, or friends to one of them when given the choice. But they do polish them up real nice....

[HickoryCreek]

You'll be able to find plenty of people that hate taurus cause their junk. I don't happen to be one of them. My first gun was a taurus 44, not the raging bull or anything like that but just the 44. I put thousands of rounds through that gun. It gave no problems whatsoever. The only thing bad about it is, I don't have it anymore :violin: My own stupidity. I also had a colt anaconda 4 inch barrel. Don't have that anymore either. But we won't go there. I think taurus for the most part are excellent guns. Several other manufacturers were listed too such as Ruger, sw, freedom arms. Heck if you got money for FA go for it. Most people choose taurus for the price, and they are fairly reliable. In my beginning days as a reloader. I don't know what the charge was, but I had a 300 grain bullet going over 1700 fps out of both the guns mentioned above. Obviously I put too much in. The only reason I tell you that is they both worked fine afterwards. Not too surprised about the colt, but the taurus held up great also. what was the pressure for that load anyway? [smilie=l:

[lefty_red]

I never had a problem with any of my TAURUSs I had. Still have an old 85 that isn't +p rated but has ate a few each year since 1989. Its still tight and still hits POI at POA.

LEFTY

[Swagerman]

I have a Taurus Tracker in .45 Colt, shot 10 rounds in it and the cylinder binded up on me -- wouldn't open or rotate.

It went back to the warranty station and came back sound as a dollar. No trouble since then...and very accurate revolver, did 4 shots in one inch and a flyer kicked it out to 2.5 inch.

But prefere my old S&W pre war revolvers for most of my shooten.

Jim

[Cherokee]

Friend bought a pair right after they came out - they had to go back for warranty work. But my PT99 ran fine for years.

[versifier]

If they'd been made properly, and inspected properly before they left the factory, they would have WORKED PROPERLY. But they didn't. That they could be made to work after a trip back to the factory is nice, I suppose, but it only underlines the problems of loose tolerances, poorly trained assemblers, and lack of quality control. A brand new product shouldn't need repair before it works, but that is a story told much too often for me by Taurus owners. If it fails at the range, that's one thing. Will I take a chance that it will do it again when someone's life depends on it? No. It's just not worth the risk.
It is a positive thing that a lot of people say good things about a company's customer service, but the flip side of the coin is that when that is the case, those folks only found out about it because they encountered the kind of problems that their guns never should have left the factory with. Any manufacturer will have an occasional problem that slips past an inspector, but over the years at Taurus, that trickle has been a flood, and I won't trust any company with "after the fact" quality control, especially a gun maker.

[HickoryCreek]

From subscribing to Guntests the past few years, I can say that they regularly have to send guns back to the factory to be fixed, before they can test them. One that comes to mind is a bushmaster gun, and they are pretty much the top producer of ar15 guns. I would agree that it is not good to have to send guns back that are brand new, but I think it happens regularly with ALL types of guns, and makers. My brother had a ruger 30 the trigger group just totally disentigrated after about 20 rounds. It happens to everybody. Perhaps more to taurus than others. I just feel that people always want to bash taurus more than the others for some reason. This thread well validates that thought. If you look back through guntests I think you'll find just about evey manufacturer getting stuff sent back, cause it doesn't function.

[versifier]

Hickory,
There's a lot of truth in what you say. I have been a Gun Tests subscriber since their first issue, and I have a lot of respect for them and for their no nonsense approach to evaluation. More than one company has taken a serious look at its QC after a few "Don't Buy" ratings. They all do have problems, and the depressing truth is that those problems are getting more common with all the manufacturers, even the big, trusted American ones.
Taurus isn't the only company with whom I've seen a lot of problems over many years, but it was the one that was asked about. Fact is, I've got a hair across my ass for Baikal, CVA, Charter, and H&R, too, for the same reasons. Cheap prices, cheap products. The new Colt 1911's, according to the stories from custom 'smiths, now spend more time in UPS trucks going back and forth to the factory for fixing little nit**** things that even a cursory inspection should have caught than they do in the hands of the guys who bought and paid for them.
I've gotten so now that about the only new guns I buy anymore are Contender barrels, but even with those I look around for a used one in the right caliber first. There are lots of great deals on good used .38 & .357 revolvers. For less than the price of a brand new Taurus, you can have a broken-in (not broken-down) S&W, Ruger, or Colt. Not a fancy collector's item, but a useful, reliable, shootable revolver. The LEO's change over to pistols in the 80's and 90's has left an enduring flood of well made, relatively inexpensive revolvers on the market. Not as cheap as the flood of WWI&II milsurp rifles, but policesurp and still affordable and reliable, made back in a time when they were all hand fitted by serious craftsmen, not "assemblers". The youngsters all want themselves fancy new 9mm & .40's, and those are the prices that are being driven up. (I like my Glock, too, but it's my old S&W that goes everywhere with me - except to Massachusetts!)

[Bret4207]

The quality issue goes way beyond Taurus and Charter. A lot of Colts, Smiths and Rugers have been sent back to the factory. The days of the high qaulity consumer product are no more. Thats why they had to mount the caskets of the old factory 'smiths on ball bearings!

For a "fun gun" I see nothing wrong with the Taurus products. I think thats what jballs918 was looking for. Beyond that it's finding the individual gun that works for you. My Charter Bulldog 44 has never let me down. Neither has my Star PD 45. Will I sell them before my M-19,28, '17, Colt Officers Model ? Yup.

[StarMetal]

I bought a brand new Colt SAA in 357 mag back in the 80's. Hell it look like some 16 yr computor geek made it in his basement. The breech face had chatter marks on it when it was faced off. It had actual STEPS. I sent it back to Colt, they sent me another pistol. It was alittle better but the top strap was bowed down, which made the barrel point up some. There was a wider barrel cylinder gab at the bottom of the barrel then at the top because of this. I made a little minature jack of sorts and straightened that top strap out and also converted the gun to 45 LC.

Joe

[HickoryCreek]

[QUOTE=versifier]Hickory,
There's a lot of truth in what you say. I have been a Gun Tests subscriber since their first issue, and I have a lot of respect for them and for their no nonsense approach to evaluation. More than one company has taken a serious look at its QC after a few "Don't Buy" ratings. They all do have problems, and the depressing truth is that those problems are getting more common with all the manufacturers, even the big, trusted American ones.
QUOTE]

Wow, since the 1st issue. That's pretty neat, I just let mine expire, cause I'm tired of what seem like the same guns every issue. They're just too many semi auto handguns in there for me. I understand that's what sells, but not my cup of tea. :castmine: So I put my money elsewhere.

[StarMetal]

I wouldn't be too sold on Gun Tests. Even tho they claim they don't get advertising money, they are coming at us in a different manner. Jim Wilson of Shooting Times just tested that Taurus single action and he did run some minor things down about it, but he said hey you're not paying Colt prices for this gun either. He said it's a pretty darn good package and the gun he had shot pretty good. Tpr Bret will agree with me about the Gun Test magazine, as he USE to subscribe to it. They've run down alot of guns that I and my friends have had that performed totally different then they reported. They also seem to get alot, if not all, the lemons too.

Joe

[versifier]

Re: Gun Tests
They print the letters that disagree with them, too, sometimes featured prominently. I don't think they're the be-all and end-all, but they get their guns through the same outlets that we do, and they serve a very useful purpose for us as gun consumers. My dad keeps the subscription and passes them along to me, also archives them for ready reference by all of our friends and shooting buddies - a community resource. My most memorable moment with them came from an issue in which they had two different tests, one was with three big name brand new high priced deer rifles (around a thousand bucks apiece all decked out), the other test was three milsurp Moisin-Nagants. The fanciest, most expensive new rifle, a Browning ABolt with BOSS and their best stock would barely shoot a 4" group with any of the selected premium ammos, and two of the old warhorses did better than MOA with old WWII surplus ammo. The next month's letters section contained a comment I still chuckle over: "If I had paid that much for a rifle that inaccurate, I'd be more than just a little upset. Especially in contrast to rifles who have seen service in two world wars that can still perform as good as when they left the factory. I can pee straighter than that brand new Browning can shoot!" You won't find an evaluation like that (or a letter like that) published in G&A or F&S, or any of the other gun rags.
Re: Fun gun to shoot
I'd still buy me a used S&W M19 or Ruger Security Six. You'd still have cash left over for dies, brass, primers, powder, and maybe a mould, too.

[StarMetal]

Versifier

All I can say is I sure wish I could have that Browning Boss for my own evaluation and barring anything serious bad like bore and groove being drastically bigger then suppose to be, barrel lose, etc I'll gaurantee you it will out shoot a mosin especially if the Browning is scoped and the mosin isn't , which I assume is the way the test was done. I wonder how much time they spent adjusting the boss for the sweet spot too AND how well their shooter/shooters could could a proven less then minute of angle rifle.

Joe

[mag_01]

:lovebooli I have a Tuarus auto in a satin finish after about 4000 rds thru it the lockup broke and i had a competition shoot that weekend--called Turus and told them my problem ---part was in my hand next day No charge---and in plenty of time for the weekend shoot---good company---quick response. Today the price difference between a Tuarus and a Baretta is very close---Turus auto was made on Baretta machinery. :violin:

[StarMetal]

Here's a little something for you Taurus boys. When I had my dealership I had a friend that had machineguns. I use to order him machinegun 9mm and regular handgun 9mm by the 1000 case. He had a Taurus semi and said it was one of the few semi's that held up to the carbine ammo (submachinegun ammo). He said he had a Beretta and it wouldn't, got rid of it and go the Taurus. I've heard that from more then just him.

Joe

[HickoryCreek]

So is there a conspiracy with gun tests cause they get lemons. :-) Wasn't trying to say its the greatest thing ever, Sorry if that came across that way. The good sheriff and everybody else will say a few bad things here and there. But, I have NEVER, never, never seen an article that told me not to buy a gun. On guntests format, I certainly don't think its the best. They shoot the guns a few times and if they function they're the greatest ever, if they don't they're worthless.

Starmetal: What do you mean they're coming at us in a different manner?

[StarMetal]

First let me address the gun rags. Their purpose is not to tell us what to buy or not buy, but rather tell us about a new product, how it shot for them, what they liked or didn't like...but never to tell us what to buy. The gunrags also have other duties I know.

Now what I meant is Gun Tests isn't any innocent gun rag. Don't think for one second that they aren't funded somehow or another besides their subscription income. They are coming off as your buddy approach for one thing. They are fun to read, I'll admit that, but they aren't fooling alot of people. I get their advertisements by mail about every two months and it gets tossed right into the garbage can. You know for the 50 years or more that I've been shooting I really can't recall having a gun that I bought that wouldn't shoot, or the safety didn't work, or was unsafe in all that time. I also haven't had alot of friends that got alot of bad guns either. Had a friend buy a brand new heavy barrel Ruger rifle in 308 that had an exceptionally large groove diameter, but that's about it. Yeah I've had guns that didn't have a good finish on the machine work, or were rough in working the action, flaws in the bedding or wood. Never had one where anything fell off the gun or a part broke. Maybe I've been exceptionally lucky, don't know. You know Gun Tests reminds me in a way of a dirt bike magazine I use to read when I was younger and doing alot of dirt biking. Funny enough the magazine was name Dirt Bike. I remember one issue had some kind of dual purpose street and trail Honda on the front page and it was in a pig pen and they had a caption coming out of the headlight like that was the bikes mouth saying "Oink Oink". In the article they said it was a real pig, but they had advertisements and from Honda too!!! To me that's alot more sincere and honest then Gun Tests with their "We don't get paid by the big gun companies to write good report nor do we get special gone over guns".

Rant done

Joe

[HickoryCreek]

First let me address the gun rags. Their purpose is not to tell us what to buy or not buy, but rather tell us about a new product, how it shot for them, what they liked or didn't like...but never to tell us what to buy.

Joe

They may never tell us what to buy. But, they say this would make an excellent addition to anyone's collection, gun cabinet, etc. etc. Never read this would be a horrible addition.

[StarMetal]

Hickorycreek that is nitpicking and I'm not playing.

Joe

[jballs918]

hey guys befire this completely derails, what i was looking for was a single action i can shot for fun and cheap i thought a tuarus may fit the bill but the ruger are also pretty close to the same price.

[versifier]

Single action? Ruger BH. New or used depending on what's available to you. Double actions are easier to load/unload and to clean due to the swing-out cylinder and aren't that much more expensive used. DA's make better carry guns, too.
Joe, where do they get their operating expenses if it isn't from subscriptions? Do you have actual knowledge of this or are you speculating?

[waksupi]

Jason, before things get totally off the track. Look up the Heritage Rough Rider, in .45 Colt.

[jballs918]

wak

those look very nice and a good price you got any freeback on those if they are any good. pretty reliable or not.

[HickoryCreek]

Hate to bring it up again. Guntests just did a review of the heritage and the taurus gaucho. I don't have the article but in their minds the heritage won. You may take it for what its worth. There is also a gun from cabelas that fits the same bill, that got good reviews last year. It's pretty cheap too, I think under 300.

[versifier]

I'm looking at the article as I type. They tested two 45 Colts, Heritage Rough Rider($379) and Taurus Gaucho($499). The Heritage was more than $100 cheaper, produced higher velocities, and was noticably more accurate. Averages of 5 groups @25yds with four kinds of commercial ammo went as follows:
Win 225 Silvertip HP 2.0 (855fps) vs. 2.5 (738fps)
Rem 225 LSWC 2.3 (890) vs. 2.6 (753)
PMC 250 LFP 1.9 (757) vs. 3.1 (651)
Black Hills 250 RNFP 1.9 (767) vs. 3.3 (669)
They liked the workmanship and finish on the Gaucho better, but it would not shoot even close to point of aim. It shot between 7 - 8" high with all tested loads. The only way to cure this on a fixed sight revolver is to grind off the front sight and weld or solder on a higher one.
Supposedly this would be covered under the warranty, but this is another gun that never should have left the factory. Shooting is supposed to be fun, but having to deal with these issues with a brand new gun is not at all pleasant, and totally unacceptable. I don't need a $500 paperweight. Do you?
I would be happy to scan and email this article to anyone interested, PM me your edress.

[StarMetal]

Versifier

I read that one. My best friend gave me a pile of those Gun Tests. Well I can tell you the Taurus that Jim Wilson had shot pretty much to the sight and he shot a 25 yard group as small as 1 1/2 inches with believe it or not a blackpowder load. He said the grip frame to the frame could have been better and something else about the grips themselves...so he did cut on it some. He said for the money it was a pretty decent gun. Me myself if I wanted a Colt clone I'd buy a Cimerron or that U.S. Revolvers what their name is.

Joe