- Messages
- 2,515
- Reactions
- 1,495
I've owned two Taurus, from back when they were decent.Never owned a Hi-Point. Owned several Taurus' and never had a problem. Only sold them to simplify mag use.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I've owned two Taurus, from back when they were decent.Never owned a Hi-Point. Owned several Taurus' and never had a problem. Only sold them to simplify mag use.
The part about badgering was not from this thread.First off, you have not been "Badgered or Trolled," period. (In my opinion.) I don't think you have badgered or trolled either. It's been a spirited debate.
I will take your word for it that you do not have an issue with Glocks. But honestly, on an internet forum like this people can only make a judgement by what you have said. You mentioned the "Ridiculous level of fandom" in context to Glocks. How could anyone, (who can only make a judgement of the situation from your words) believe that you do not think that there is in fact a "Ridiculous level of fandom" where Glocks are concerned?
You may in fact be the kind of guy who is open minded but I do not believe that your post's in this thread reflect that.
You mention "A few of the good guns Taurus makes." Perhaps implying that Taurus only makes a few good guns?
If you believe that at least a simply majority, (over 50%) of Taurus firearms do not function properly then you have an unrealistic perspective. Top of my head, at one time perhaps 10% of Taurus firearms had issues. (Which is indeed massive considering the sheer volume.) But honestly, when is a recall of any mass produced product not "massive?"
I believe that you are incorrect that Taurus does consistently terrible work. Using a company and people as a metaphor you believe that Taurus should be fired, and thus, Taurus should be put out of business.
If Taurus was in fact consistently terrible the company would not longer exist. (Although, obviously they have had their share of problems.)
Taurus will continue to exist because they offer, overall, a decent firearm at a more than fair price. There will always be a market for firearms that "Joe Average" can afford to own.
I have been around the shooting sports all of my life. There is plenty of snobbery in the shooting sports. From the 1911 and Hi-Power crowd who make fun of the tupperware guns that Glock produces, to some guys who show up to my Trap Club with $10K, (or $20K) Perazzi and Kolar shotguns,....And some "Average Joe" with a BT99 makes them look silly,....I've seen poor semi-toothless bubbas from South Carolina outshoot British snobs with $100K shotguns. I have seen a kid with a half-worn out Enfield shoot pie tin sized groups at 800 meters while snobs with $10K Accuracy International rifles could not do better.
Some of the comments in this thread highlight the opinionated closed minded willful ignorance of those involved in the shooting sports.
It's nice to hear some good news for a change. People just love bad news.I know Taurus had (has) a reputation for some of the worst customer service in the industry but I must say I'm rather impressed with the speed of this warranty repair; I think two weeks repair turnaround is pretty good. Anyone else have any RECENT experiences with Taurus CS, good or bad?
Maybe in South America, this isn't a problem. Where they might not expect to fire hundreds of shots during the typical lifetime of a gun. It might be a matter of importance that the first few shots go off and where they are intended, though.Taurus has rampant design and production quality problems across their product lines. Revolvers that lock up, autos that fire at the wrong time, accuracy all over the place.
I don't want people to have problems with their firearms. If you have a good Taurus that's good.^^ Yes, but do you also love hearing from those who have used the firearm extensively and have no bad news for you?
I suspect not.