Taurus Firearm Forum banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I've mentioned it in some other threads, and while the suggestions I've received were useful, they haven't helped solve the problem. So here's some more info, and hopefully one of you will have the answer that makes it reliable! (Thanks in advance!)

Third generation PT145...

Out of the box it wouldn't fire more than 6 or 7 rounds out of ten. I sent it back to Taurus (dang, that's expensive!), and they replaced the captive spring and striker.

That helped... after that it only failed perhaps one out of 40 or 50 rounds.

Not satisfied (it wasn't 100% reliable), I took it apart, but found nothing that would account for the failures. (That was probably a big mistake!!) After reassembly, it was even worse than before sending it back to Taurus! I tried it with a dry and lubed striker and it made no difference.

So here's a photo of three fail-to-fire (top row) primer strikes, and three did-fire empties (that right most one had multiple strikes).



I checked the case lengths of these fail-to-fire rounds. (My book says maximum length should be no more than 0.895" and trim to length is 0.895") I found four rounds to be 0.8895, 0.890, 0.895, 0.892.

Then I got the idea that I might be able to measure the strength of the striker hit by shooting a pencil straight up (all double action hits). I found three commonly different heights that are indicated by the three static photos. I didn't try to count how many of each levels occurred, but all three were frequent.





The next thing I checked was to see how a bullet fit in the removed barrel. Factory load or reload all were similarly headspaced and the case bottom was not quite even with the back edge of the barrel.

When reassembling, I noticed that the recoil spring assembly sits loosely between the slide and barrel mounting points. That would seem to cause the barrel to be loose and not press the barrel back against the bolt face tightly. While slight, there is definitely some looseness.

That's about all I could think of.... how 'bout you? Anyone have anything else I can look at before I consider the hassle of sending this thing back to Taurus?

Once again, thanks in advance!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
625 Posts
Have you had the opportunity to compare your gun to another one. It might give you a better idea of where the problem lies. If you have a local gun forum in Arizona, you might be able to find someone local to you that has a 3rd gen. to compare yours to. Check the spring tension between the two and see if they are similar. If not, perhaps buy a replacement spring instead of sending it to taurus, which may take a while.

From looking at your photos, it looks like the firing pin is working correctly, but the bullet isn't always seating well against the bolt face. It appears you came to the same conclusion. Are these reloads or are they factory loads? If they are reloads it's possible you got a bad batch of primers. If not, and based on the different brands you have tried, I would say you definately have a seating issue.

Todd
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
While that's a thought I had (comparing to another gun), I don't know of anyone else with a reliable model. (A friend has a second generation PT140 that also fails in the same fashion once every 50 rounds or so.)

While the ones in the photo are reloads, I have the same problems with factory loads.

I won't be able to do much about this for a while, but your suggestion about buying a replacement spring is a good idea.

Thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Please post how to remove the striker assembly. I can't figure out how to do it. (Embarrassing, but there it is.)

I and two others here have had similar experiences with PT145's. I'm wondering if burnishing interior channels, seeking out metal burrs, might help.

Meanwhile, it ain't my carry gun.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
785 Posts
Here is how to remove the striker assembly...

http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=81.0

I had some problems with WalMart WWB and with a few other 230 gr. ball. I have gone to 185 gr loads with my PT145... both hollow points and LSWC. I have never had this problem with these loads (reloads). So, you might want to try changing ammo, playing with different brands/loads.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Cimarron said:
I had some problems with WalMart WWB and with a few other 230 gr. ball. I have gone to 185 gr loads with my PT145... both hollow points and LSWC. I have never had this problem with these loads (reloads). So, you might want to try changing ammo, playing with different brands/loads.
I've had problems with reloads (200 grain SWC, 230 grain truncated cone - with different primers), and three different factory loads. I have a hard time believing a failure to fire would be primer or ammo/bullet weight problem.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
32,785 Posts
Smaller guns are more finicky about ammo types than their bigger full size brethren.

Example: Para Ordnance Warthog comes to mind. When it first came out there were a lot of reliability problems and Para could not give them away. Most went into storage.All of this was because of reliability problems having to do with bullet shape,weight, and the fact that hardball of certain types were all that would feed through it. Fast forward almost a decade and the Warthog was reintroduced though it wasn't marketed that way.

Whether these pistols were reworked or not I am not sure of. They are back out and heavily marketed.Reliability does not seem to be the issue anymore.

Being bulky through the grips didn't help sell the pistol.Double stack .45ACP don't you know. Trying to get a solid grip and carrying the pistol CCW were also strikes against an otherwise decent design.

Mass Ayoob,Chuck Karwan, and Clint Smith have documented the troubles of getting small ,compact, or sub compact.45ACP pistols to work well under most conditions.

Engineering the pistols to work has and have been major problems. Physics is one of the main problems. Whether it's the slide mass, recoil springs,firing pins weight and mass,feed ramp angle,or other factors there is only so much that can be done.

Colt ran into troubles with the Officers ACP 1911 for a lot of the same reasons stated above.Took a few years to work the bugs out and make it a reliable pistol. Gunsmiths made a fortune having to tweak compact 1911's and traditional DA/SA semi autos.

So while things have improved somewhat over the years there are still problems finding the right balance for proper fit and function. And there are a few trade offs for going with smaller guns. Parameters for these just are not that forgiving.

The one compact .45ACP pistol that seemed to work with just about any bullet type or shape was ironically the Star PD.

So expect to have to put some effort and experimentation into reliable loads for these smaller pistols regardless of caliber if they are a major one for self defense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
QD, you seem to have mistaken my PT145 problem... ???

It's not that the bullets don't feed. It's that they don't go "bang" when I pull the trigger. Same batches of reloads and factory loads go bang in my other .45s, but not in the PT145. As my pencil photos indicate, the striker is not pushing as hard or the same way every time the trigger is pulled.

I'd be REALLY happy to have a stronger spring if it made the gun shoot every time I pulled the trigger!
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
32,785 Posts
No mistake. It's because of these very things that this develops in these and other pistols. Balancing the parts and types of springs, this includes the strength of those springs, are part of the engineering problems.

I need to clarify this better. What was being said was that there are a lot of factors that go into this and there are compromises on just how and what can be put into a pistol design.

There are trade offs and no free lunch anywhere along the line with this.

With lead free or practically lead free primers being mandated on quite a few types of ammo, trying to find a happy medium and a spring strong enough to get the firing pin to set off these primers is a real chore.

Reduced size guns means that the spring power is going to have to be compromised somewhere along the line. The smaller the pistol the harder it is to come up with parts that can do what full size parts can do.

Sometimes primers are too hard, too soft,or the lead free primers will not give consistent performance.

While the lead free stuff is getting better there is still much room for consistent performance to be established.

This was the intent of the post. Trying to cover all the physics and engineering aspects in one post without trying to get long winded.

When making compact pistols there are a lot of obstacles to overcome. All that can be done for most of these is compromises with some shortcomings we all may need to learn to live with.

Could be why I am a revolver person for the most part. Things are a bit more simpler with the revolvers all the way around despite the sizes. This is subjective and an opinion, but what has been observed. :)
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top