Smith vs. Taurus comparison

[kubelkampf]

Found an old Model 10 Smith at a gun show yesterday. A 10-8, made in 1986. 3" heavy barrel, round butt. I've been wanting one of these for a long time. The bore and forcing cone are in excellent condition....appears to have been fired not too much. The exterior shows a little holster wear and a few scratches here and there, but overall is not bad at all. Obviously a police issue weapon. It passes all of the typical function tests with flying colours, so I will take it to the range this afternoon.

Something occurred to me last night and this morning, while cleaning the M10 and familiarizing myself with it. You know, despite all of the hype by some, there really isn't a great deal of difference (that I can perceive, anyway) between this gun and my Taurus 851 as regards quality of construction or operation. I have been enjoying my 851 very much and have now put 1500 rounds through it, in the few months I've had it. It has proved itself accurate and very reliable. It always has handled well - good ergonomics and all that. In some ways, particularly ease of handling, I think the 851 superior to the M10. Of course, the 851 is a small frame gun and the M10 a medium frame, but I actually think the 851 sights are easier to use. The trigger on the M10 is definitely lighter (MUCH lighter) than the 851.....but no smoother. Perhaps it is just that I am so used to the Taurus - it certainly doesn't give me any trouble at this point. The Smith (trigger) almost feels too light. We shall see how well I shoot both, in a side by side comparison.

Most of the Smith snobs seem to almost worship the older Smiths, as if they are FAR, FAR better than others.....and certainly than "mere" Tauruses. I have to say, with my limited experience, I just don't see it. Don't get me wrong, I like both - and I have been waiting to find the Smith for some time (so I don't plan on ever getting rid of it)....but I just don't see any reason for such snobbery, especially now.

Anyway, I'm off to the range, to give 'em a spin.

[whodog]

Well, how did it go????

[guesser]

This is an example of my experiences and frustrations with a Taurus vs. S&W match up.
I have a 1992 Taurus SS Model 441, 6", 44 Special. I also have a S&W Model 624. It is a Lew Horton distributed gun from 1985, beautiful gun, 3", RB, TS, TT, 44 Special. I've had the 441 for 8 years, I developed good loads using my cast bullets, I like the gun, it is reliable, accurate and looks good. I got the S&W 624, tried all my successful loads in it, nothing works well. I don't like jacketed bullets in hand guns but I knuckled under and loaded several weights and styles, nothing works well in the S&W. I bought two boxes of factory ammo, Federal and Remington, didn't work for sour owl s--t. This is not my first contest with S&W stainless guns, I've lost every battle I've had with a S&W stainless, 357, 38, 44. I have Taurus and Charter Arms stainless and they work for me. The S&W 624 cost almost 4 times what I paid for the Taurus 441. I'm aggravated and frustrated, my blued steel S&W guns all do everything the way I want them to. I really want to like S&W stainless, but it won't let me. WWAAAAA!, mommy make them stop, please!!!!!

[MOONDAWG]

I've owned/used S&W revolvers better than half a centry.

They're well made and with much use or the benefit of a good gunsmith have the best trigger pulls extant.

I also own my fair share of Taurus revolvers & semiautos.

Taurus has a line of handgun selections second to none, but they are victims of there own success.

Their biggest detractors are "gun snobs" and "uninformed, untrained" novices that go off half cocked and blame the gun for many issues thatboil down to pilot error.

[TheOldRedneck]

Sir, you are not alone in your observations or feelings. Like many here in the past 60 generation I have owned more than a few Smiths, Colts, Rugers, custom guns, Freedom Arms, etc. Have been shooting handguns from the time I was a kid. Worked hard at being good at it. Learned to reload and do a lot of my own work when time permited. Traded off a hell of a collection of 44's when Clinton was in office. Yes, dumb move on my part. Watched Smith go from being a quality company to a company that built some real junk. They are going in the other direction and building some quality guns that said I have a Taurus Tracker in 44 mag that out shoots a Smith Performance Center 44 mag. Now go figure on that one. The Smith cost many times more than the Tracker. The Smitth is on loan to a guy that loves it. Hope he kills a deer with it and I can get some of my money back. Sure would not break my heart to sell it and he loves the 50 yard accuracy he gets. My problem with it is the Tracker shoots better from 100 yards than the Smith at 50 yards. Both wear a 4 x scope, and the cheaper Tracker is a game killing machine. I have hunted with handguns for years, Tracker is a dream to carry and shoot. Off my soap box. Guesser, usually if you can't find a lead/cast load a revolver will shoot the jacketed bullets ain't no better.

[bubblehead]

well as always



postem when ya can

[Lobo_79]

I've owned/used S&W revolvers better than half a centry.

They're well made and with much use or the benefit of a good gunsmith have the best trigger pulls extant....

Their biggest detractors are "gun snobs" and "uninformed, untrained" novices that go off half cocked and blame the gun for many issues thatboil down to pilot error.

Ditto for me too on the half century thing. Sometimes I think I was born a revolver guy. I agree with your assessment about the best trigger pulls. I own a S&W PC Model 627 that is the crown jewel of my revolver collection. For what I paid for the 627 I'd expect it to have a great trigger pull. For years I subscribed to the Smith & Wesson forum but I got so tired of listening to the constant whining about integrated locks, and how the legacy models were so much better than the new models. Admittedly there may be some truth to some these arguments. Over the last 3 years the only guns I've had to send back to the factory for repairs have been two of my S&W revolvers. My Taurus M85 has been extremely reliable whereas my S&W M637 has not, and my S&W M617 had to go back for a hammer push off problem.

I'm always interested in objective reviews of any gun or the OEM's customer service department. There has been no shortage of people bad mouthing the Taurus product line and their quality assurance department. The problem is there also seems to be a number of those who don't actually have first hand experience with the product who are just willing to parrot what they've read on other boards. So my search goes on for objective evidence...LOL. But I've shot a lot of Taurus revolvers and semi-autos lately, thanks to my shooting partners, and I've been impressed enough to come to this board to investigate further the real differences between S&W and Taurus revolvers. So far I've had to look past the third decimal place to see anything real.

[stallard]

I own both,
A Taurus Raging Bull SS 6" in .44 and a S&W Model 29 6" Blued 44mag.
I hunt with the Taurus and with it's weight,ported barrel and rubber grip its recoil is very manageable, even with full house 300grain loads. The stainless steel is perfect for hunting and I have not found a load it does not shoot well.

My M29 does get shot more but only with light loads as the recoil hurts with just factory 240grain loads. Some of that is the wood grips (Rubber on blued looks ugly to me and I refuse to shoot a ugly gun!) but it is also the lack of ports and lighter weight. But with my 185grain loads recoil is very light and it is very accurate.

I love them both but if forced to choose a favorite it would be the Smith and here's why. I prefer the look of blued guns and S&W does a great job of bluing a revolver. To me the blued Taurus looks more like a shiny black paint job. The other thing is I am a sucker for a great trigger. The RB had a nice factory trigger and a spring kit and some polishing helped but too light and I had light strike issues and the double action was never super smooth. On the M29 I installed a Spring kit and it is unbelievable. SA is just over 2lbs with no creep, DA is under 5lbs and never had a light strike.

So too me they each serve a purpose and I love them both, I say why choose when you can have them both!!!

[Qwiks draw]

Is it possible that those S&W will do well with lead bullets? Some seem to like lead and others are jacketed bullet hogs only.

Slugging the chambers might be in order,too. Or trying various sized bullets in the chamber to see if that makes a difference.

The Taurus 441s and 431s I have,all 7, seem to like the lead rounds the best, but do well with jacketed rounds as well. Just that the lead rounds are a smidge more accurate than the jacketed fodder.

[Qwiks draw]

I've seen some S&W 10s that were real good shooters and others that were not. Some of the trouble seemed to be what shape the gun was in or how well the gun was kept up.

Some of the model 10s looked like scrap yard material and shot well and others looked good on the outside, but the bores were pitted, rough, or shot out. Maybe a combo of the three.

Most of the S&W 10s I've had the pleasure to shoot or come across were in very good condition.