I'm a little leery of taking gun magazine reviews at full face value. Manufacturers send out guns to be tried out by magazines and bloggers who will review them... do you think they don't cherry pick the nicest example of their product they can? If there's an issue noted by the reviewer, of COURSE the company will take care of it, that reviewer has a voice that is being heard by a lot more people than the usual joes like you or me. There's also the issue of the gun reviewer not wanting to sour a relationship with a manufacturer, who might stop sending them guns to review. Ever notice how certain gun magazines never seem to have a bad review on anything? I think the individual reviews you find on websites, and in forums like this one, are a lot more likely to reflect truth.
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I knew I shouldn't have messed with the Bull...
- Thread Starter CLT65
- Start date
I'm a little leery of taking gun magazine reviews at full face value. Manufacturers send out guns to be tried out by magazines and bloggers who will review them... do you think they don't cherry pick the nicest example of their product they can? If there's an issue noted by the reviewer, of COURSE the company will take care of it, that reviewer has a voice that is being heard by a lot more people than the usual joes like you or me. There's also the issue of the gun reviewer not wanting to sour a relationship with a manufacturer, who might stop sending them guns to review. Ever notice how certain gun magazines never seem to have a bad review on anything? I think the individual reviews you find on websites, and in forums like this one, are a lot more likely to reflect truth.
- Messages
- 4,916
- Reactions
- 12,963
- Thread Starter
- #82
I called Taurus again just to clarify what they told me before. It seems they are having some kind of issue with phone orders right now (I don't understand, but that's what they said), so they can't send me a warranty barrel. I could purchase one from their website, but to get one under warranty, I'll need to try again in a couple weeks.
I could send it in for warranty work on their dime since I've only had it a week; apparently they'll send a shipping label for the first 90 days or something like that.
I did a cursory search online for reviews before I bought it, and they all looked great, but now that I dig a little deeper I see lots of people who have had barrel problems. Apparently they subcontract their barrels for this model, and have had nothing but problems.
I'll wait for a new barrel and go from there. If it shoots good then I'll be happy enough with it. Not happy enough to buy another Taurus, but I have to admit I went into this knowing the risk, so I really can't complain too much.
I could send it in for warranty work on their dime since I've only had it a week; apparently they'll send a shipping label for the first 90 days or something like that.
I did a cursory search online for reviews before I bought it, and they all looked great, but now that I dig a little deeper I see lots of people who have had barrel problems. Apparently they subcontract their barrels for this model, and have had nothing but problems.
I'll wait for a new barrel and go from there. If it shoots good then I'll be happy enough with it. Not happy enough to buy another Taurus, but I have to admit I went into this knowing the risk, so I really can't complain too much.
- Messages
- 18,744
- Reactions
- 45,457
GUN TEST does not accept firearms for their reviews, they buy of the shelf like every other Tom, Dick and Harry. Nor do they accept advertising from manufacturers. While I do not always agree with their opinions or criteria or "head-to-head" comparisons they are probably some of the most objective reviews you'll find from a gun mag.
Well, I'm VERY leery of taking the various gun rag reviews at face value too. Somewhere I have a list of gun rags (Outdoor Life, Field & Stream, G&A, Shooting Times, Guns, Gun World, etc, etc, etc,) all admitting they lied, mislead, refused to tell the truth, refuse/d to report on some item(s).
Mike Ventrino is very open about how he refuses to report on anything he doesn't like, doesn't care for, doesn't meet his standards, doesn't feel like reviewing. When asked, he always states "carefully read what I DO review and what I DON'T review to figure out what is good and bad!" "In over 2000 articles" (his claim for printed articles in one of the current mags) he has mentioned Lee bullet moulds ONCE, and that was very, very early in his career, and not once in the next 45 years. Other writers also say, "look at what I review and DON'T review" as well. Well since each writer generally gets one article a month, that is 12/10/8/6/4 (depending on what rag it is. Outdoor Life/F&S went from 12 issues a year, to 10, to 9, 8, now four issues) articles a year, and that leaves a LOT of guns not being reviewed, good and bad!
The list of guns the various rags admit they lied about/under reported/mislead about, is a who's who of gun makers too, the Ruger O/Us with "inletting done by fifth graders" and the "M-77 stocks that break when fired around 100 times with any full sized cartridge, but especially magnum loads, but how many average shooters will shoot their big game rifle 100 times in their life...", Marlin bolt guns, "if you read my review of Marlin's last bolt gun, you will note that I said it was an excellent gun and I highly recommended it, but if you read closely you will note I did not give it my highest rating...", the list goes on.
Let's not leave out the guns returned to the factory for repair/replacement and that is barely mentioned in the article, in passing, at the end. MANY, MANY, MANY times I've reread an article because it sounded off the first time only to finally re-read one line that mentioned "being sent back due to problems", and that was it! "It was sent back" and nothing else mentioned, the gun was fantastic, wonderful, recommended, blah, blah, blah.
Actually, one writer back in the 1930s actually DID say the companies DID cherry-pick the guns sent to him to review: "It seems that the companies would cherry-pick the rifles and other guns being sent to reviewers, and judging from what I get, they do. The companies have a team of astrologers, a group using divining rods, a wee-gee board, and others to pick out the worst guns in the factory to send to me, or at least that's the way it seems when I get the guns and have to send them back as nonworking!"
GUN TESTS (and the now-defunct GUN TEST mag that was both hysterically funny and 100% honest! They did not sugar coat anything, it worked or it was junk, if they returned it for repair, that was CLEARLY stated they did, AND they reported on what came back, with no BS! LOVED that mag!) actually buys their guns through various retail outlets or wholesalers and reviews what they get. Of course, their guns vary considerably from what I see too, they only get Kimbers that work, if I got an out of the box Kimber 1911 that worked 100% (or at ALL for that matter), the shock might kill me. They like to review $1750, $2750, $3750 and up, rifles, shotguns, and handguns, (the letters to the ed are full of "why not review 'real world' guns/priced stuff?" and the reply is they like playing with high priced/quality stuff instead of the stuff that real people can afford, which to be fair, they do review) while I generally am looking at $300-$700-$1000 rifles, shotguns and pistols. They return a gun to get fixed and it gets fixed, I return a gun to Ruger, Henry, Jennings, etc., and am lucky it doesn't come back in worse shape (Ruger and Henry ALWAYS! HORRIBLE service!) then it went in.
Ever notice that ALL the gun rags print the reviews of the same gun the same month? If you get a clear shot of the serial number in a couple of rags, often it IS the same gun! The factory doesn't want to send out a dozen new guns to be reviewed and then sold as used, besides, the more guns out there being reviewed, the greater chance someone might (WILL) get a lemon and report that! By accident of course, but possible. The American RIFLEMAN used to print honest, fair, factual reviews, now they print the same old BS as everyone else. OK, not as suck-uppish as most, not like they used to!
Remember when John Taffin got a NIB POS S&W and sent it back to S&W FIVE TIMES and they only screwed it up (typically) worse?! He told S&W he was a big-time gun writer, fix it or else! They laughed at him and told him to stick it! He wrote it all up and S&W told him "Yeah? F- YOU! Print and be damned!" So GUNS/American Handgunner did! S&W had the sheets and threatened to pull all their ads out of the rags! "Go ahead, then we will print HONEST reviews of all your guns!" S&W backed down. If you doubt me, go read it for yourself, it's all there just as I said.
The upshot of all this is Taurus isn't as bad as a lot of stuff out there, and a lot of the snob guns are nowhere as good as the stupid claim they are.
Mike Ventrino is very open about how he refuses to report on anything he doesn't like, doesn't care for, doesn't meet his standards, doesn't feel like reviewing. When asked, he always states "carefully read what I DO review and what I DON'T review to figure out what is good and bad!" "In over 2000 articles" (his claim for printed articles in one of the current mags) he has mentioned Lee bullet moulds ONCE, and that was very, very early in his career, and not once in the next 45 years. Other writers also say, "look at what I review and DON'T review" as well. Well since each writer generally gets one article a month, that is 12/10/8/6/4 (depending on what rag it is. Outdoor Life/F&S went from 12 issues a year, to 10, to 9, 8, now four issues) articles a year, and that leaves a LOT of guns not being reviewed, good and bad!
The list of guns the various rags admit they lied about/under reported/mislead about, is a who's who of gun makers too, the Ruger O/Us with "inletting done by fifth graders" and the "M-77 stocks that break when fired around 100 times with any full sized cartridge, but especially magnum loads, but how many average shooters will shoot their big game rifle 100 times in their life...", Marlin bolt guns, "if you read my review of Marlin's last bolt gun, you will note that I said it was an excellent gun and I highly recommended it, but if you read closely you will note I did not give it my highest rating...", the list goes on.
Let's not leave out the guns returned to the factory for repair/replacement and that is barely mentioned in the article, in passing, at the end. MANY, MANY, MANY times I've reread an article because it sounded off the first time only to finally re-read one line that mentioned "being sent back due to problems", and that was it! "It was sent back" and nothing else mentioned, the gun was fantastic, wonderful, recommended, blah, blah, blah.
Actually, one writer back in the 1930s actually DID say the companies DID cherry-pick the guns sent to him to review: "It seems that the companies would cherry-pick the rifles and other guns being sent to reviewers, and judging from what I get, they do. The companies have a team of astrologers, a group using divining rods, a wee-gee board, and others to pick out the worst guns in the factory to send to me, or at least that's the way it seems when I get the guns and have to send them back as nonworking!"
GUN TESTS (and the now-defunct GUN TEST mag that was both hysterically funny and 100% honest! They did not sugar coat anything, it worked or it was junk, if they returned it for repair, that was CLEARLY stated they did, AND they reported on what came back, with no BS! LOVED that mag!) actually buys their guns through various retail outlets or wholesalers and reviews what they get. Of course, their guns vary considerably from what I see too, they only get Kimbers that work, if I got an out of the box Kimber 1911 that worked 100% (or at ALL for that matter), the shock might kill me. They like to review $1750, $2750, $3750 and up, rifles, shotguns, and handguns, (the letters to the ed are full of "why not review 'real world' guns/priced stuff?" and the reply is they like playing with high priced/quality stuff instead of the stuff that real people can afford, which to be fair, they do review) while I generally am looking at $300-$700-$1000 rifles, shotguns and pistols. They return a gun to get fixed and it gets fixed, I return a gun to Ruger, Henry, Jennings, etc., and am lucky it doesn't come back in worse shape (Ruger and Henry ALWAYS! HORRIBLE service!) then it went in.
Ever notice that ALL the gun rags print the reviews of the same gun the same month? If you get a clear shot of the serial number in a couple of rags, often it IS the same gun! The factory doesn't want to send out a dozen new guns to be reviewed and then sold as used, besides, the more guns out there being reviewed, the greater chance someone might (WILL) get a lemon and report that! By accident of course, but possible. The American RIFLEMAN used to print honest, fair, factual reviews, now they print the same old BS as everyone else. OK, not as suck-uppish as most, not like they used to!
Remember when John Taffin got a NIB POS S&W and sent it back to S&W FIVE TIMES and they only screwed it up (typically) worse?! He told S&W he was a big-time gun writer, fix it or else! They laughed at him and told him to stick it! He wrote it all up and S&W told him "Yeah? F- YOU! Print and be damned!" So GUNS/American Handgunner did! S&W had the sheets and threatened to pull all their ads out of the rags! "Go ahead, then we will print HONEST reviews of all your guns!" S&W backed down. If you doubt me, go read it for yourself, it's all there just as I said.
The upshot of all this is Taurus isn't as bad as a lot of stuff out there, and a lot of the snob guns are nowhere as good as the stupid claim they are.
- Messages
- 3,277
- Reactions
- 3,941
I was able to get out to the range for another short session with the TX-22. I started off a 20yds with the gun resting on my ammo can. I shot 32rds total (two full mags).
The grouping was all over the place. One round even missed the target completely and went through the right stick! I was holding dead center on the target and was going at a fairly slow pace, so yeah....
I noticed the rear sight has some slight play (I can rock it sided to side). I tried to snug it down, but the screw was extremely tight already and would not get any tighter. I even tried to loosen it a bit and it won't budge. The screw is vary small flat head. At least they could have went with an Allen or Torx. I'll try heating it up with my soldering iron, just to make sure it's not lock tighted on. I already bent the tip on the bit I used and I could see the screw head starting to give way.
I moved up to 5yds so I could see were the shore were landing better and saw that I had several rounds key holing. I knew that already from the previous range session, but not that close and I neglected to get photos...
Also, I'm 99.9% sure my "thumbs forward" were causing the stove pipes. Being a lefty, my thumbs are in close proximity to the ejection port. Not a good spot for reliable ejection of the spent rounds. That combined with both of my thumb's ever so slightly dragging on the slide was not helping matters.
I shot one handed with my thumb locked down, no issues. I shot support hand (both single and two handed), no issues. Shoot two handed like normal stove pipes returned.
I will most likely contact customer service after the holidays and proceed from there.
Not looking to have to pay to send it back. If they sent a new barrel out, that would suffice.
My gut tells me the replacement barrel will not fair any bette though. The rear sight can be replaced with an aftermarket aluminum version or I can pickup a mounting plate for the rear sight cut and run a small RDS on it.
At this point, with all the extras I have bought, I'm into it as much as what it costs me to buy it. Two FO front sights, extractor, RSA, extra mags and a couple of +5 and a couple of +9 extended base pads kits, I'm right at $250.
The TX-22 has the potential to be a great gun and maybe it is. Not this particular one though. Why o why did I mess with the bull?
The grouping was all over the place. One round even missed the target completely and went through the right stick! I was holding dead center on the target and was going at a fairly slow pace, so yeah....
I noticed the rear sight has some slight play (I can rock it sided to side). I tried to snug it down, but the screw was extremely tight already and would not get any tighter. I even tried to loosen it a bit and it won't budge. The screw is vary small flat head. At least they could have went with an Allen or Torx. I'll try heating it up with my soldering iron, just to make sure it's not lock tighted on. I already bent the tip on the bit I used and I could see the screw head starting to give way.
I moved up to 5yds so I could see were the shore were landing better and saw that I had several rounds key holing. I knew that already from the previous range session, but not that close and I neglected to get photos...
Also, I'm 99.9% sure my "thumbs forward" were causing the stove pipes. Being a lefty, my thumbs are in close proximity to the ejection port. Not a good spot for reliable ejection of the spent rounds. That combined with both of my thumb's ever so slightly dragging on the slide was not helping matters.
I shot one handed with my thumb locked down, no issues. I shot support hand (both single and two handed), no issues. Shoot two handed like normal stove pipes returned.
I will most likely contact customer service after the holidays and proceed from there.
Not looking to have to pay to send it back. If they sent a new barrel out, that would suffice.
My gut tells me the replacement barrel will not fair any bette though. The rear sight can be replaced with an aftermarket aluminum version or I can pickup a mounting plate for the rear sight cut and run a small RDS on it.
At this point, with all the extras I have bought, I'm into it as much as what it costs me to buy it. Two FO front sights, extractor, RSA, extra mags and a couple of +5 and a couple of +9 extended base pads kits, I'm right at $250.
The TX-22 has the potential to be a great gun and maybe it is. Not this particular one though. Why o why did I mess with the bull?
Last Edited:
- Messages
- 4,916
- Reactions
- 12,963
- Thread Starter
- #86
Sorry to hear that yours has the same trouble as mine. I am hopeful that another barrel will fix it though. We know there are good ones out there, and I'm pretty sure that Taurus is aware of the problem.
Customer service was pretty quick to suggest a new barrel. I debated a little whether to send it in or have them send me a barrel, and she said that she felt confident a barrel would fix the problem. I have a feeling that there are a LOT of TX22s out there with the same trouble.
She did say that they test fire each gun at the factory, at 15 yards. Apparently whoever test fires them doesn't know how to look for keyholes. Then again it could be like Heritage; there's a video online of the Rough Rider revolver assembly line. Each worker on the line does their job as quickly as humanly possible. There's just no way you could pay any attention to detail at that speed. Then it showed the test firing: the guy had a rack of guns without cylinders. He would put rounds into a cylinder, slap the gun together, and fan six rounds into a barrel as fast as he could, without slowing down to really even look at the gun. Maybe that's the only way that bean counters are able to get a revolver on the market for $120 retail.
Customer service was pretty quick to suggest a new barrel. I debated a little whether to send it in or have them send me a barrel, and she said that she felt confident a barrel would fix the problem. I have a feeling that there are a LOT of TX22s out there with the same trouble.
She did say that they test fire each gun at the factory, at 15 yards. Apparently whoever test fires them doesn't know how to look for keyholes. Then again it could be like Heritage; there's a video online of the Rough Rider revolver assembly line. Each worker on the line does their job as quickly as humanly possible. There's just no way you could pay any attention to detail at that speed. Then it showed the test firing: the guy had a rack of guns without cylinders. He would put rounds into a cylinder, slap the gun together, and fan six rounds into a barrel as fast as he could, without slowing down to really even look at the gun. Maybe that's the only way that bean counters are able to get a revolver on the market for $120 retail.
Member 34319
- Messages
- 17,146
- Reactions
- 37,066
Lol, I worked for a certain vernonia manufacture, their test fire was muzzle in a tube, if it functioned after 5 rounds, it shipped.
Very few manufacturers test for accuracy. The ones that do, tend to be more costly...
Very few manufacturers test for accuracy. The ones that do, tend to be more costly...
- Messages
- 4,916
- Reactions
- 12,963
- Thread Starter
- #88
I hear that. I inherited my dads SIG 226 (West German). He still had the box and original paperwork, complete with test target grouped at 25 meters, as I recall.
I suppose it's not very realistic to expect that from an inexpensive rimfire.
I suppose it's not very realistic to expect that from an inexpensive rimfire.
Well let's be honest, MOST guns in the US are more rarely more than proofed. Test firing, especially for accuracy, is both expensive and time-consuming. Many companies will admit that openly, and a LOT more will admit they do not test fire on the QT either. Sure there is one manufacturer who just went through bankruptcy and got broken up after the scum that buys up companies and bleeds them before dumping them waited too long, trying to get that last drop of blood out, got caught short. This old-line company has (had?) their A line and B line top line rifle. If a rifle was especially accurate, or just better than average accurate, it went in the more expensive B stock when tested for accuracy, but some of the other companies bought up and moved there were not even tested for function from what I saw coming through. I mean one lever gun had a barrel you could see was slanted down! The old lever-action company was noted for their fine work and accuracy, but the new owners wanted it moved and set up, and quality be damned, and quality and accuracy both went south.
The Wilson 1911 that was short chambered? Billy claimed he personally test-fired each gun, guess he missed that one! Henry AR-7? Guess "feed the first round and jamming on every other cartridge" was acceptable to them! The Kimber with the off the chart trigger pull, unfinished extractor, junk mag? Guess that one missed the test-firing too, or that was "acceptable"' to them? The S&W M-25 that unscrewed the barrel when shot six times? Wonder if just screwing the barrel back on finger tight was acceptable after test-firing? Guess so!
Of course, putting an accuracy guarantee on the gun is a nightmare for the company too. How many Weatherby rifles are returned every year because the owner is a lousy shot? A lot of rifles I heard of that have been returned because the owner couldn't hit the inside of a barn, from the inside, and got them back with a 1" test group and "meets company standards" reply. Let's face it, it is just cheaper (or easier) for the factory to put out junk and let the consumer keep sending them back, over and over and over (and I am talking about "top line" US manufactures here, like Mossberg and Detonics - which were NOT test-fired at the factory!) rather than worry about QC and CS.
Of course not all "cheap guns" are junk AND are test fired. The SAM 1911 (Phillippine 1911 sold by Century and now has their own US import company) I got had a slip that everyone who touched the gun signed off on! Worked right out of the box! Compare THAT to Colt/S&W/Kimber/etc!
The Wilson 1911 that was short chambered? Billy claimed he personally test-fired each gun, guess he missed that one! Henry AR-7? Guess "feed the first round and jamming on every other cartridge" was acceptable to them! The Kimber with the off the chart trigger pull, unfinished extractor, junk mag? Guess that one missed the test-firing too, or that was "acceptable"' to them? The S&W M-25 that unscrewed the barrel when shot six times? Wonder if just screwing the barrel back on finger tight was acceptable after test-firing? Guess so!
Of course, putting an accuracy guarantee on the gun is a nightmare for the company too. How many Weatherby rifles are returned every year because the owner is a lousy shot? A lot of rifles I heard of that have been returned because the owner couldn't hit the inside of a barn, from the inside, and got them back with a 1" test group and "meets company standards" reply. Let's face it, it is just cheaper (or easier) for the factory to put out junk and let the consumer keep sending them back, over and over and over (and I am talking about "top line" US manufactures here, like Mossberg and Detonics - which were NOT test-fired at the factory!) rather than worry about QC and CS.
Of course not all "cheap guns" are junk AND are test fired. The SAM 1911 (Phillippine 1911 sold by Century and now has their own US import company) I got had a slip that everyone who touched the gun signed off on! Worked right out of the box! Compare THAT to Colt/S&W/Kimber/etc!
Last Edited:
- Messages
- 4,916
- Reactions
- 12,963
- Thread Starter
- #90
Just to cap off this thread, I'll post here what I posted in the other thread on keyholing. I finally received a replacement barrel yesterday, and it looks and shoots great.
It was simple to install. The machining of the chamber and bore are much nicer. Best of all, no keyholing! I shot several groups this afternoon, with an average of about 3" at 25 yards. I forgot to bring good targets, and the sun was in my eyes, so I think it might do a little better under better conditions. Even if not, that's still not bad, and acceptable for what it is.
It was simple to install. The machining of the chamber and bore are much nicer. Best of all, no keyholing! I shot several groups this afternoon, with an average of about 3" at 25 yards. I forgot to bring good targets, and the sun was in my eyes, so I think it might do a little better under better conditions. Even if not, that's still not bad, and acceptable for what it is.
- Messages
- 3,277
- Reactions
- 3,941
I'm going to try calling tomorrow and hopefully get a replacement barrel headed my way.
Member 34319
- Messages
- 17,146
- Reactions
- 37,066
Now you are in the business of burning through 22!!
- Messages
- 179
- Reactions
- 301
Curious if you ever got a new barrel for your TX22 and if so if that resolved the issues you were experiencing?
Read the quote in the post above yours.
- Messages
- 179
- Reactions
- 301
I was asking about spookshack. I saw CLT65's last post.
- Messages
- 3,277
- Reactions
- 3,941
- Messages
- 3,277
- Reactions
- 3,941
Double post. Lol
Similar threads
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
-
-
-
-
247 count of Hornady .458 350gr round nose
- Started by alelord
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
