Taurus vs S&W
I was told that Taurus bought machinery from S&W a long time ago so some of the older Taurus guns are basically Smiths with a different logo.
Is this true? And if so, which models?
I ask because my Taurus Model 60 (or is it 66, I don't remember and I'm in bed right now) looks just like a S&W Model 27.
Is this true? And if so, which models?
I ask because my Taurus Model 60 (or is it 66, I don't remember and I'm in bed right now) looks just like a S&W Model 27.
0
-
I don't think its true that Taurus is (or ever was) building anything on Smith machinery.
Taurus Brazil *did* get an early start on BERETTA machinery which it purchased from Beretta in 1980. That's why all the Taurus early auto designs are clones of existing Beretta pistols. The original Taurus auto lineup was literally built on Beretta machinery (and for all I know, might still be).
The exchange between Smith and Taurus occurred in the 1970s, when Smith's parent company, Bangor Punta, bought a controlling interest in Taurus.
After buying out Taurus, Bangor Punta directed Smith to transfer gun designs and manufacturing technology over to Taurus, though not, as far as I know, actual hardware. This exchange stopped in the late 1970s when Bangor Punta sold off its interest in Taurus.
Anyway, this is why the Taurus revolvers are mechanically similar to Smiths. . .Taurus legally copied Smith designs.
That said, Smith isn't building revolvers the same way today as it did in the 1970s. Back then, guns were still assembled by hand and tuned by gunsmiths. Now Smiths guns are built differently (ie no more pinned barrels, etc), and they make extensive use of MIM parts.
So I don't think its possible to do a direct comparison. I also don't think there has ever been a point in time when Taurus quality exceeded Smiths, though arguably there might have been a time when it came close.
From my perspective, the biggest issue with Taurus revolvers isn't their intrinsic design, its quality control. Even though nominally the Taurus guns are internally similar to Smiths, historically Taurus has turned out a lot of guns that probably wouldn't have left the Smith factories. We're talking guns with bad fitting, timing, poor parts quality, etc.0 -
I have mostly Smiths and one Taurus revolver (a 20 oz 41 Mag - yes, ouch!) and while externally they appear similar they are internally different, even with the recent changes to the Smith action. Taurus uses a transfer bar action with no trigger rebound, Smith has tended to use a combination hammer block and trigger rebound with a hammer mounted firing pin. Although they've dropped the hammer mounted pin Smith still uses (on nearly all model) the hammer block and trigger rebound.
Quality issues aside, I like the lack of a trigger rebound unit in Taurus as it allows the trigger rebound spring to use all its energy to reset the trigger. In the Smith not only must it reset the trigger it must overcome pressure from the mainspring to reset the rebound unit & hammer. Of course the Smith doesn't use a transfer bar so the rebound is required - I wouldn't be surprised if some years down the road Smith comes out with a transfer bar revolver. As mentioned, the issue with Taurus isn't the design (Ruger and others use transfer bar) it's the execution.
Sorry, wandered a bit .... [8)]0 -
Just because tools used were from S&W don't mean much if quality ain't there. I was thinking about what beantownshootah was saying about S&W buying Taurus. I reckon S&W bought them to sell their old gear and horse traded some old blue print just to get them to 1960's. Only to sell Taurus down river with suger plums dancing in their brains. 0 -
Just to clarify, I was not trying to imply that the quality was equal. I was only wondering about design and tooling. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by dfletcher
I have mostly Smiths and one Taurus revolver (a 20 oz 41 Mag - yes, ouch!) and while externally they appear similar they are internally different, even with the recent changes to the Smith action. Taurus uses a transfer bar action with no trigger rebound, Smith has tended to use a combination hammer block and trigger rebound with a hammer mounted firing pin. Although they've dropped the hammer mounted pin Smith still uses (on nearly all model) the hammer block and trigger rebound.
Quality issues aside, I like the lack of a trigger rebound unit in Taurus as it allows the trigger rebound spring to use all its energy to reset the trigger. In the Smith not only must it reset the trigger it must overcome pressure from the mainspring to reset the rebound unit & hammer. Of course the Smith doesn't use a transfer bar so the rebound is required - I wouldn't be surprised if some years down the road Smith comes out with a transfer bar revolver. As mentioned, the issue with Taurus isn't the design (Ruger and others use transfer bar) it's the execution.
Sorry, wandered a bit .... [8)]
Well, Okay, then! That's an accurate engineering tidbit, if truth be known. Now..
..has anyone ever had a trigger not return at the same speed that your finger was moving forward? Has a trigger ever failed to return to battery? None of my Smif's have any return problem.
Could that happen? Yes. But then the gun is damaged. It won't happen in a normally operating 'Smif.
Now, the rebound engineering..I went to S&W, to their service window in the factory, and asked for a light trigger return spring. The lady gave me one, saying it's the lighest spring that will still allow reliable return to the trigger.
So, light Wolff (non S&W approved) springs, perhaps? A non-approved part throws the reliability equation out the window. All bets are off.
Joe0 -
quote:Originally posted by calrugerfan
I ask because my Taurus Model 60 (or is it 66, I don't remember and I'm in bed right now) looks just like a S&W Model 27.
Just because two items look similar is no indication they're the same.
Notice how much even geniune S&W revolvers vary in quality from one time period to the next. The devil is in the details and when you're talking revolvers there are a ton of them.
A good DA/SA revolver isn't just a gun, it's a machine.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Txs
quote:Originally posted by calrugerfan
I ask because my Taurus Model 60 (or is it 66, I don't remember and I'm in bed right now) looks just like a S&W Model 27.
Just because two items look similar is no indication they're the same.
Notice how much even geniune S&W revolvers vary in quality from one time period to the next. The devil is in the details and when you're talking revolvers there are a ton of them.
A good DA/SA revolver isn't just a gun, it's a machine.
I understand that. However, when two guns LOOK identical AND somebody tells me that they bought machinery from S&W, the ideal that the insides are identical becomes a real possibility.
Unfortunately, I don't have a Smith to take apart and compare.0 -
quote:Originally posted by calrugerfan
quote:Originally posted by Txs
quote:Originally posted by calrugerfan
I ask because my Taurus Model 60 (or is it 66, I don't remember and I'm in bed right now) looks just like a S&W Model 27.
Just because two items look similar is no indication they're the same.
Notice how much even geniune S&W revolvers vary in quality from one time period to the next. The devil is in the details and when you're talking revolvers there are a ton of them.
A good DA/SA revolver isn't just a gun, it's a machine.
I understand that. However, when two guns LOOK identical AND somebody tells me that they bought machinery from S&W, the ideal that the insides are identical becomes a real possibility.
Unfortunately, I don't have a Smith to take apart and compare.
If you did have an S&W to compare to your Taurus, you would probably off the Taurus. They make a great economic gun to look at, but DO NOT trust your life on them.
Best0 -
quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
quote:Originally posted by calrugerfan
quote:Originally posted by Txs
quote:Originally posted by calrugerfan
I ask because my Taurus Model 60 (or is it 66, I don't remember and I'm in bed right now) looks just like a S&W Model 27.
Just because two items look similar is no indication they're the same.
Notice how much even geniune S&W revolvers vary in quality from one time period to the next. The devil is in the details and when you're talking revolvers there are a ton of them.
A good DA/SA revolver isn't just a gun, it's a machine.
I understand that. However, when two guns LOOK identical AND somebody tells me that they bought machinery from S&W, the ideal that the insides are identical becomes a real possibility.
Unfortunately, I don't have a Smith to take apart and compare.
If you did have an S&W to compare to your Taurus, you would probably off the Taurus. They make a great economic gun to look at, but DO NOT trust your life on them.
Best
I have a SA 1911 as a personal defense gun. The Taurus is just a plinker. And since it's a revolver, I think it's a little less prone to issues than their semi-autos.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
9 comments