Taurus Firearm Forum banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This might be a long one (I'm recovering form knee surgery, so I've got little else to do), so bear with me. Taurus makes many great firearms, and Taurus makes many average firearms at great prices. I'm wondering whether or not there is an area of firearms that Taurus shouldn't venture into. I'm not saying that Taurus couldn't manufacture everything under the sun, but should they stay out certain areas? I am looking at this through the lenses of reputation, profit, and market/distribution. I will then apply these to the two guns that started my thinker ticking: bolt action rifles, and "Blackhawk" like revolvers.

The first thing to tackle is Taurus' reputation. Most of us know better, but there is a large portion of the firearms community who view Taurus as a substandard knock off of S&W. This keeps a lot of shooters away from Taurus, and hurts sales. This is how it was explained to me, and I'm quoting from memory, so it might not be verbatim, but the idea is there. Don't bother trying to disprove or refute the next passage. The guy who said this doesn't read internet forums, so your rage will go unnoticed. This is just what I was told when I asked about Taurus guns.

"There are a few things that you need to consider when you look at Taurus. Taurus makes a lot of good guns, but they also make a lot of lemons. The quality control is hit or miss. If you get a good one, it will be as good as the Smith or Beretta it was copied off of, but you really have to check them out. Yes, they have a good warranty, but if you have to send your gun away, then you don't have your gun, so what good is that? You'll never trust it again. A lot of gunsmiths won't want to work on them, because of the poor quality control. The don't want you upset at them if they can't fix your broken gun. There are three categories that Taurus guns fall into. Copied revolvers, copied semi-auto's, and their own designs. The copied revolvers and semi-auto's work well enough if you get a good one, but the guns they designed on their own are best avoided. The resale values are also pretty poor, so if you do get one and don't like it, you'll sell it at a loss."

I've heard pretty much the same thing from a lot of shooters. Most of it is complete BS, but a lot of shooters believe this.

The second thing I am looking at is profit. In order for any firearm manufacturer to pay for the research, design, tooling and support for any new design, they need to be relatively confident about their bottom line. Taurus sets the bar pretty high for the pricing of new firearms, but in my opinion Taurus mostly focuses on competing with other handgun companies that have significantly higher prices. This makes me curious as to how well they would compete against other economy priced firearms. Taurus will always undersell H&K, Sig, and S&W, but would they be able to stay competitive with the very reasonably priced rifles made by Marlin and Savage?

Regarding market and distribution, Taurus has an excellent network of distributors. However, in many instances, due to the longevity of certain designs and firearms, excellent distribution may not make much of a difference.

The first design that I'm thinking of is bolt action rifles. There are many excellent examples of WWI Mausers, Enfields and Springfields that are taking game to this day. Savage, Remington, Winchester and Marlin are all producing excellent hunting and target rifles. They've got decades and in some instances, a century's worth of good reputations. Were Taurus to break into the bolt-gun market, how well do you think they would fare? New Savage's with scopes can be had for $279.
Mossberg recently introduced a lever-action .30-30. It is an excellent gun, but a lot of shooters are passing it by. Is this due to everyone and their brother owning a .30-30 Marlin or Winchester? May be.

The other design that I'm thinking of is "the" Ruger revolver, the Blackhawk. This along with the Super-Blackhawk are basically the standard for high-pressure shooting that doesn't require a very, very large revolver. Yes, there are other, more expensive firearms that fit the bill (Freedom Arms comes to mind, and they are the only high dollar handgun I think is worth their asking price), but for the "everyman" and the market that Taurus would enter into, the Blackhawk is about it. This is an instance where I think that Taurus' reputation would certainly harm sales. With as many people that think of Taurus as a sub standard company regarding quality control, I think that many shooters wouldn't want to risk the perceived QC issues stacked on top of 'Ruger-only' loads.

So to sum up, I think Taurus would be better served staying away from areas where they couldn't use their advantages, and would face an uphill fight against a century of success. I certainly think that Taurus could make the guns, but I think that they wouldn't sell enough of them to make it worthwhile. Taurus' strength is selling affordable handguns, and they're darn good at it.
 

·
Moderator in Memorium 1940-2014
Joined
·
13,540 Posts
Taurus did kind of have a "blackhawk-type" fling: a SAA revolver called the Gaucho.
I've read that it was over-engineered to hold up even when idiots insisted on fanning it (something you should not do with a Ruger) but apparently it failed to capture a large enough segment of the market.

As to other "should nots": Since I'll likely never own a 1911, for all I care Taurus could reduce the number of 1911 models - since the only differences seem to be what kind of bling they carry.

(Dodging brickbats from 1911-lovers now.)

With so many highly respected names producing hunting rifles and evil black rifles at so many price points, I'd think that would be a tough market to crack unless you could offer something not seen before - maybe a product of the kind of out-of-the-box/off-the-wall thinking that goes on at KelTec.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I remember the Gaucho's, I wonder why they were discontinued. Fanning is fun when the hammer can handle it and you're shooting wax bullets. From what I remember they weren't up to the Ruger loads because they were using the Colt SAA sized frame. Made 'em great for CAS, but that market is flooded too with all of the Italian SAA clones.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,521 Posts
I think Taurus would do well to streamline their product line.

Pick a striker fired plastic platform and produce a compact, full size and long slide version. ie 9mm 3.5" barrel 12-15 rounds...4.5" 15-17 rounds....5-5.5" 17 round+. Have the ability for long slide/full size magazine (more than likely same size magazine) work in the compact. 24/7c (replaces the milpro's, not enough difference to warrant two product lines IMHO) 24/7 and 24/7 OSS

Hammer fired plastic and or steel framed, with the above available.
809c 809 809long slide...........pt92c pt92 (I know they make some of these)

1911, officer and government

limit the revolver line to a shrouded hammer, hammerless and exposed hammer in each caliber, frame size, barrel length and blued or stainless. There are quite a few revolvers that are really out there.

Contract a holster maker to produce holsters at a decent price for the firearms provided. OWB/IWB leather/kydex. Make their magazines more plentiful

I know you asked for firearms they shouldn't produce, but I think it's easier to name pistols they should make.

The reason I strayed from taurus firearms is the lack of aftermarket support. I can walk into any gun store and find mags and more than likely a holster for my glocks. Can't do that in 1 out of 10 gun stores with Taurus guns.

I think instead of trying to reinvent the wheel they need to focus on 3-5 product lines for auto's and 3-5 calibers for revolvers. Focus on making those 6-10 product lines and caliber offerings the best possible. Make it easy for aftermarket support. Don't change things every 3-5 years. Consistency is the mark of a true champion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I agree entirely that Taurus's product line could use a tweak. One of my first auto's was a Taurus 22, and finding anything that was designed for it was difficult. So I traded it in on a Ruger Mk II and I couldn't walk past a table at a gun show and not find a magazine, holster, etc. When I looked at the new 2012 Taurus calendar, my first thought was "how long will this be around" when looking at certain guns. The guns will likely be great, but will they sell enough of them to make it worthwhile to support them? Something similar and heartbreaking has happened over at S&W. Someone's gun needs a fix, a tune-up or some customizing, and S&W sees a bug or a fix that needs to happen to the gun. Well, if the gun is no longer being produced, and the problem with the gun warrants replacement...what do you think happens? I would lose my mind if I sent a 624 44 Special in and had it replaced with a lock and MIM 44 Magnum!
So what happens when someone buys the new Taurus and Taurus decides not to keep up production? You should be okay for a few years, but once the parts dry up, the lifetime warranty is fairly useless (for the specific gun you carried, fell in love with, and named your children after). This is why I very rarely buy new models of guns. I want to see if they have any staying power.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,348 Posts
This is a great thread Six! Interestingly enough, another member just posted that Taurus has purchased Heritage Firearms, a signle action manufacturer. It looks like Taurus is back in the SA game once again. I personally believe that perhaps Taurus finds it a good fit with the Rossi rifles (Model 92, etc.).

I am mixed about the reduction of the Taurus line. Being an all in one manufacturer, Taurus is able to do things that others can't. Bob Morrison has said that Taurus can start with a clean design and begin producing new models almost immediately because of the streamlined nature of the way Taurus does things. Most of the time I think this is a good thing. But I will have to admit, sometimes they do come out with some weird stuff, and it seems like the get rid of things they shouldn't.

BTW, I would love it if Taurus would give us a superior bolt action .30-06 in the $300 range! :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,657 Posts
Assuming that by "Taurus" you mean to include Rossi, as has already been pointed out, they'd have a hard time competing with firms like Savage, Marlin, Winchester, etc. To do something similar with comparable quality at what would almost certainly be the same price point would be an exercise in futility. Same for M4geries. I think Rossi should stick with niche long guns. Look at the Savage 30G (Stevens Favorite) falling/pivoting block, for example. l2gkMBmZP_9NGhbi7qR.png Stevens used to offer it in 22LR and 22 Magnum, but Savage only offers it in 22LR. I'd like to see something similar offered in 22 Mag, 22 Hornet, .223, and maybe .357 Magnum. Oops, I strayed over the line from "don't" to "do." :p

As for handguns, I agree Taurus is spreading itself thin and would be better served (and serve buyers better) by slimming down their catalog and devoting more resources to offering world-beating support in and out of warranty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ranch Dog

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,955 Posts
I don't think we need any more "Duck-Foot" pistols.
They are currently banned at our indoor range....:D

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,379 Posts
I respectfully disagree on the revolvers. This is from being a revolver shooter for 50 plus years. I have watched Ruger and Smith build some junk over the years and own more than a few of both. Have also owned Freedom Arms, Dan Wesson , and a long list of others and custom guns. Taurus builds revolvers double action revolvers that are as strong and accurate as the majority. Where Rugers Redhawk is probably the bench mark of revolver strength it is not without faults. Ruger guns have had frames drilled out of line, barrels screwed into frames tight enough to make a choke at the threads. Undersized cylinder throats, chamber/ barrel alignment problems etc.,yet for the most part the problems are not talked about a lot. The average shooter is clueless about a lot of the gun industry problems over the years. The Taurus problems have been shouted from the internet and gunshops proverbial roof tops often by people that have never owned, shot, or even held one. I'm one of those anal old guys that looks down barrels, checks mechanical and alignment issues and measures throats and things. Taurus has gotten a bad rap. Their single actions were mechanically above the same model Rugers. Own and shoot both, Taurus groups put Rugers to shame with cowboy loads. Build the frames and cylinders of same quality materials and their production guns would out shoot blackhawks. I have a Smith performance center 44 mag custom hunting handgun. It wears a 4 X Leupold and has killed deer at over 100 yards one shot several times. Gun cost a chunk it should shoot. I have Taurus Trackers in 44 mag that out shoot it. Quality control on Taurus part would make them head and shoulders above the others. After owning and shooting Raging series guns I am sold on their ability to build above quality guns.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
19,679 Posts
I join others who feel that perhaps Taurus produces too many of certain lines of guns. Sometimes the only difference is in a grip pattern or some type of bling which could have been managed by aftermarket parts. Agree that they should contract the number of models in certain lines and absolutely look into expanding some of the lines. Of which, at the top of my list would be a midsize and compact 1911 (so called Commander and Officer models). These models seem to be selling like hotcakes and Taurus is missing a golden opportunity which is being met by low cost mfrs like RIA and others. I believe they could make a helluva dent in the market as you really have to shell out the $$$ if you want to go higher than the $450 or so avg cost from the other currently available low cost mfrs.

Don't own any Taurus/Rossi long arms so cannot comment there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
811 Posts
The problem with Taurus is they tried to make alot and not concentrate on a few well made and marketable pistols. The best companies ever were known for certain guns ie the python, 101, chief special, 1911, ect. Taurus should have stuck with the pt series and the 24/7 and made them the best that money could buy. only after that should they have expanded "slowly" into other things.
In otherwords..get the reputation first. And expand on that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,657 Posts
And sorry daytonaredeye, but I just can't let this one go:

Sigmund Freud - Wikiquote.

  • A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.
    • This is not a statement that appears in any translation of any of Freud's works. It is a paraphrase of a statement from the essay "Guns, Murders, and the Constitution" (February 1990) by Don B. Kates, Jr. where Kates summarizes his views of passages in Dreams in Folklore (1958) by Freud and David E. Oppenheim, while disputing statements by Emmanuel Tanay in "Neurotic Attachment to Guns" in a 1976 edition of The Fifty Minute Hour: A Collection of True Psychoanalytic Tales (1955) by Robert Mitchell Lindner:
Dr. Tanay is perhaps unaware of — in any event, he does not cite — other passages more relevant to his argument. In these other passages Freud associates retarded sexual and emotional development not with gun ownership, but with fear and loathing of weapons. The probative importance that ought to be attached to the views of Freud is, of course, a matter of opinion. The point here is only that those views provide no support for the penis theory of gun ownership. Due to misreading of this essay and its citations, this paraphrase of an opinion about Freud's ideas has been wrongly attributed to Freud himself, and specifically to his 10th Lecture "Symbolism in Dreams" in General Introduction to Psychoanalysis on some internet forum pages: alt.quotations, uk.politics.guns, talk.politics.guns, can.talk.guns , etc.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
19,679 Posts
And sorry daytonaredeye, but I just can't let this one go:

Sigmund Freud - Wikiquote.
Dammit Jim, er . . ., whichfinger, I'm a gun loving, concealed carrying doctor - NOT a psychiatrist.

Seriously, this is the second time in less than a week where someone has questioned me on this; some underlying subconscious fears of this quote? Dunno. I actually researched the first two quotes in more than one bible to assure that they were, indeed, correct, but apparently wrongly assumed that the others were OK. While I did study Freud a little (everyone going thru med school does in psych 101) I am not a scholar on his works. Seems Dr Tanay should have been attributed to the quote but where would the fun be in that? For the record, though, Freud is considered the father of modern psychoanalysis and dream interpretation (as noted in whichfinger's post above).

I am going to edit my sig so that my TA brethren will rest a little better.

Was thinking something along the lines of equating gun-grabbing libs to the whack-a-mole critters and the UNDENIABLE REPRODUCIBLE STATISTIC of the inverse relationship between gun ownership and crime rates as the whacking stick but will think that one out. Make sure it is stated correctly, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whichfinger

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,014 Posts

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,657 Posts
Dammit Jim, er . . ., whichfinger, I'm a gun loving, concealed carrying doctor - NOT a psychiatrist.

Seriously, this is the second time in less than a week where someone has questioned me on this; some underlying subconscious fears of this quote? Dunno.
No disrespect intended; glad you have sense of humor. ;) The only fear I have of misquotes is the way they go viral in nanoseconds. "I read it on the interwebs, so it must be true." :r_c:
It's a major peeve of mine. In fact, I feel a rant coming on, but I'll save it for another day when I'm feeling even crabbier. :icon_cussing::D

Was thinking something along the lines of equating gun-grabbing libs to the whack-a-mole critters and the UNDENIABLE REPRODUCIBLE STATISTIC of the inverse relationship between gun ownership and crime rates as the whacking stick but will think that one out. Make sure it is stated correctly, etc.
Also, it's okay to quote yourself. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,348 Posts
.....muzzle loaders...:icon_ poke:

Well, they sort of do, or at least they used to with their Rossi traditional break action design. However, I just checked the Rossi rifle page and under the muzzleloader section nothing is showing. I guess it's another Taurus/Rossi firearm that you had better get while you can.......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34,137 Posts
Here is a bit of perspective that y'all might want to consider in this conversation. Taurus, like Smith and Wesson, and Colt, and Browning, and Glock, or any other large firearms manufacturer, makes guns for sale to the general shooting public, but that is not their main source of revenue or what keeps them in business as a manufacturer. These companies are all major producers of Military weapons and weapons for Law Enforcement. Those types of contracts are what keeps these companies in business. The fact is none of them would be able to operate for very long without those contracts. So, what we see from all of them in the retail market is a secondary effort compared to their R & D and production for their government contracts.

Taurus is a very large international company that manufacturers weapons for many nations around the globe. There is always going to be a limit to what a company can produce, created by their plant size and their production ability. That is always going to impact what they make for retail sales, and as such it often seems to skew the types of products offered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheOldRedneck

·
Moderator in Memorium 1940-2014
Joined
·
13,540 Posts
So what are you saying, BS?
That the .22 and .25 calibers with rosewood grips and gold bling are in the market because somewere, some law enforcement agency wants them?
Well, maybe in San Francisco - though I think I heard their duty issue was the PT738 in pink...
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top