milsurplus on 38+P or 357 question cont.
I guess I take exception to the comments on Taurus. I own a model 85. I love it...
First of all you have to keep in mind this is a personnal protection weapon only. I dont shoot it much as it isn't meant for weekly use. Also a blued gun will show wear if you carry it. Stainless wears well. I personnally think the taurus 85 will deliver 5 shots with deadly force and at a price that warrents a weopon you most likely will not shoot maybe once a year. As for the 38+P or 357 question. I use 38+P as my proction rounds and with a gun of this size a 357 round would be tough on the user. At 10 feet will your victim know the difference? My 2 cents
First of all you have to keep in mind this is a personnal protection weapon only. I dont shoot it much as it isn't meant for weekly use. Also a blued gun will show wear if you carry it. Stainless wears well. I personnally think the taurus 85 will deliver 5 shots with deadly force and at a price that warrents a weopon you most likely will not shoot maybe once a year. As for the 38+P or 357 question. I use 38+P as my proction rounds and with a gun of this size a 357 round would be tough on the user. At 10 feet will your victim know the difference? My 2 cents
0
-
Some (in fact probably MOST) Taurus guns are fine, though I think many objective and experienced observers would agree that Taurus has had variable periods of quality control over the years.
Personally, I'd be OK carrying a Taurus snubnose, if could get one at the right price, and if I tested it thoroughly first to make sure it was OK.
Note that while you may love your Taurus, Taurus wheelguns are effectively Smith and Wesson clones. The same parent company that owned Smith at one time owned Taurus, and they shared designs in the past. Also note that used Smith guns usually cost only a little bit more than new Taurus guns, but retain their value better.
On blued vs. stainless, on a concealed carry/work gun, personally I'd prefer stainless, since its just lower maintenance. (Well, actually I prefer alloy frame as its lower maintenance AND lighter, but that's a separate question).
Blued guns look nice, but in my opinion, appearance is really the only advantage to a blued finish on a gun like this. Bluing wears faster, and it provides significantly less protection against rust or corrosion than other finishes, or stainless steel.
Again, in the specific application of a concealed carry defensive gun, I see a dark color as a DISADVANTAGE, not as an advantage. After the gun is drawn, you're no longer trying to keep it concealed!
In terms of .38+P vs .357, I didn't really want to get into this in the last thread, though I think for a snubnose/pocket gun, .38+P is actually probably the better choice for most people.
Yes, you do give up some power. But .357 from a snubnose in particular has a vicious recoil (reducing speed of followup shots), and offers tremendous muzzle flash (potentially destroying your night vision). If you've ever actually fired a .357 magnum snubnose in the dark (or even indoors during the day!), it makes quite a pronounced fireball.
Meanwhile, the .38 snubnose has a long and distinguished history as a concealment personal protection handgun. Lots of cops still use it in that role today. Again, while there are more powerful small guns out there nowadays (eg anything in 9mm luger, .40SW, or .45ACP, for example), none of them is going to be quite as RELIABLE as the .38 wheelgun, most of them aren't quite as compact or lightweight.0 -
You'll think your Taurus is just fine until you need their customer service. 0 -
I am going with the Smith & Wesson Model 642 .357 Magnum and prefer the extra weight of the slightly heavier magnum revolver and will blacken it and shoot .38+P out of it as well as .357 Magnum.
I have some old Smith & Wesson revolvers and while they are old they are in mint condition and still look better than any brand new Taurus revolver that I have seen. Taurus amongst the reportedly bad quality and craftsmanship complaints do seem to have an in-consistent bluing finish and flaws in the steel as well that I have found along with lock up problems. After extensively reading about and discussing the subject and after examining several brand new Taurus revolvers in comparison with my old Smith & Wesson revolvers and brand new Smith & Wesson revolvers there is NO question which I would rather have as Taurus does not even compare to Smith & Wesson.
Hopefully someday these cheap, junk maker firearms manufacturers out there will be put out of business and all that will remain are the known and respected name brand manufacturers that we have always known or that have proven themselves by making a quality firearm and having outstanding customer service.0 -
Good choice IMHO. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by milsurplus
I am going with the Smith & Wesson Model 642 .357 Magnum and prefer the extra weight of the slightly heavier magnum revolver and will blacken it and shoot .38+P out of it as well as .357 Magnum.
Smith 642 is an excellent choice for concealed carry, and I believe is actually Smiths single most popular pistol.
*BUT* its .38+P only, and alloy frame (NOT all steel). This gun weighs 15oz. . .its a lightweight gun.
There is absolutely no need to blacken this gun. If you want a dark-colored version, instead just find yourself a Smith 442, which is the same exact gun, only with a dark-anodized (instead of silver anodized) finish.
Smith also recently introduced a version of this gun with a 2.5" barrel instead of the old standard 1-7/8" bbl. Of course this gives you a teensy bit more velocity, but the biggest advantage is a longer ejector rod that throws the empty cases clear from the cylinder, instead of only pushing them half-way out. The gun is a little bit longer, obviously, but IMO, its worth a look.
If you want a lightweight .357 (and I don't really think you do. .recoil is absolutely punishing from these guns), you'd be looking at Smith's $700 Scandium alloy frame 340PD. I think these are also available in black anodized finish.
quote:
I have some old Smith & Wesson revolvers and while they are old they are in mint condition and still look better than any brand new Taurus revolver that I have seen. Taurus amongst the reportedly bad quality and craftsmanship complaints do seem to have an in-consistent bluing finish and flaws in the steel as well that I have found along with lock up problems. After extensively reading about and discussing the subject and after examining several brand new Taurus revolvers in comparison with my old Smith & Wesson revolvers and brand new Smith & Wesson revolvers there is NO question which I would rather have as Taurus does not even compare to Smith & Wesson.
I'm not going to get into bashing Taurus anymore here, but I would add that the newer production Smiths aren't quite the same as the older ones.
The current guns have crush-fit barrels (not screw-in), MIM internal parts, and aren't hand-fitted like back in the glory days. All of these things are basically to make the guns cheaper to manufacture. You can debate whether they make the guns better or worse, but my take is that for 95% of shooters, you're never going to notice any difference.0 -
Wish that they had a blued steel Smith & Wesson model 640 .357 magnum and Kahr MK40 .40 cal. Since they do not I will just have to 'blacken' the S&W 640 .357 mag, no problem as I am going to do the same to the Kahr MK40 .40 cal as well, To each their own. I personally just cant do the light material frames and just have to have the blued or blackened steel as I like the heavier weight for the recoil. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
6 comments