You can read the full review of the Taurus Model 85 here.
Ah, a rare and sought-after colllectible.
“Ah, a rare and sought-after colllectible.”
We in TTAG prefer our sarcasm to be of the dry variety, like the losing candidate of the last US presidential election…
Probably the least offensive of the Tauri. However, a rock is still probably more accurate, and will not shoot you in the ass if you drop it like a Millenium.
Taurus fanboys, do yourself a favor and google the address of the Brazilian Taurus factory. Its a dumpy building surrounded by a slum, with a broken fence with barbed wire around it, most likely to keep the bare footed illiterate children they hire to assemble their junk from escaping more than preventing burglars.
Well Fred I’m beginning to think your right.I did own a Model 85 & it was very good & regret selling it, .I have owned a PT709 Slim for quit a few years with over 1000 rds fired ..It is a hidden Gem read G&A single stack 9MM shootout early 2016. I also own Colt, Sig, FN, & CZ
. ..THEN in Dec 2016(Black Friday Special) I decided to buy another at a very good price. When I took possession, one look made ask myself, what the H happened at Taurus? It looks similar, but the machining, fit, finish, feed ramp is pure crap.. And the trigger catches something halfway back, I’ve seen better quality with Ravens & Jennings. I contacted Taurus & sent it to the factory immediately, in box un-fired(because of the unsafe trigger). Can’t do anything about the quality. Been waiting over a month now.
I’ve looked at some of their New pistols currently out …It appears the little old PT709 slim will be the last Taurus for me. ..
My EDC is a stainless 606CH, which is a 2″ barrel .357 magnum 6-shot. Accurate enough at self-defense ranges, though I keep it loaded with +P .38 special rounds rather than full-house .357 loads. I have always heard that too much power is wasted running .357 loads though a snub. It’s also VERY unpleasant, in terms of noise, recoil, and the muzzle-flash fireball. Plus, I know S&W did not recommend using full..357 loads on a constant basis in their old K-frame .357 revolvers, and as this is basically the same size I figured the same would apply.
“The closer you get to the target the more accurate you’ll be.”
Alright Capt. Obvious. You are hereby promoted to Maj. Obvious. I see your B.S. from the John Madden school of Duh has served you well.
I only clicked on the article to see the comments about how bad taurus is. I was not let down.
Taurus == garbage
I had an 85. It was slightly used but had beautiful bluing. It ran fine but I sold it as I discovered I don’t like snubbies(1st gunbuy). Now the wife wants one and I may get another unless I can find a good used Ruger/S&W or maybe Charter Arms.
Please don’t let her waste her money on a Charter, just save a few more bucks and get a Smith or Ruger. If she really wants a lightweight revolver: a Smith 642 is good, a Ruger LCR somewhat better. Buy used if money is an issue – very unlikely the previous owner could have done anything catastrophic to it.
My Taurus 85 has served me very well for 25 years or so. Very reliable. As accurate as any Smith J-Frame.
The fit and finish on my stainless 85 is great and rivals many more expensive guns today. The specimen used for the very lame and non informative video review is certainly the most visually unappealing version of the Taurus 85. A standard blued or polished stainless version is a very sharp looking gun. My everyday winter carry is the discontinued 856 – the 6-shot version of the 85. It is slightly larger and heavier than the summer carry gun; a Ruger LCR.
The first gun I ever purchased (about 28 years ago I guess) was a stainless Taurus 85 .38 snub. It was COMPLETE GARBAGE. The cylinder’s charge-holes were so OVER-SIZED it was KEY-HOLING factory ammo at 21 feet! So obviously their testing and quality control was ZERO at that time. Perhaps things are better now? I don’t know maybe they are bit I will never bother with them again as there are way too many better options for just a little more money.
I bought a new model 85. One chamber was so out of line it would shave jackets of the bullets. To the point that it would lock up the cylinder and I had to pound it open. Traded that piece for an eotech best trade I ever had.
Bought 2 Taurus 85’s as a first concealed carry for me and my wife in 1985. Despite the fact you had to file down the grips for speedloaders to work, they were combat accurate, reliable, relatively mild recoil, and inexpensive. They served us well for four years, when my wife traded up for a Sig P230 ( lighter in the purse) and I sold mine to get something else.
I’ve not heard anything bad about Taurus revolvers. It’s the autos that seem to have the problems.
All these negative comments about Taurus makes me wonder if (A) I lucked out and got a good one, (B) quality control at Taurus has slipped 1997 (my 606CH was made before 1997, as it does not have the integral hammer block key lock), or (C) the negative posters happened to get lemons (even the best manufacturers sometimes produce lemons, or even simply crap designs – look at the Colt “All American 2000”, as an example).
It’s my observation, and somewhat limited direct experience, that Taurus guns blow hot and cold, and PROBABLY their overall lemon rate is somewhat higher than most European and American gunmakers. For example, the odds are generally in your favor if you get one of the more traditional revolvers. I had a blued 7-shot Model 66 with a 4″ barrel (66B4) about 3 years ago. It was well finished but by no means spectacular, had a smooth, fairly light trigger in both DA and SA, and was plenty accurate and reliable. I only sold it to fund another gun project, and my friend who brought it still has it, still loves it. But before that, I once got a Judge Poly. While I liked its proportions, its rear sight was crooked and loose, the trigger was heavy and rough, and the cylinder gap was pretty substantial. I sold that one unfired, and have no regrets. Before THAT, way back around the turn of the century, I got a PT945, blued, 8+1 .45ACP. It was very closely based on the PT92 platform, with the 3 position frame mounted safety and rotating take down lever. It had good sights, a good finish, decent trigger, was reliable, shot to point of aim. There were a couple big problems, though. One was more unique to my hand size and therefore not a gun design fault, and the other one definitely was. First off, while I have fairly large but not huge hands, just large enough to palm a basketball; I could actually reach AROUND the grip and depress the mag release button with my middle finger. Kinda cool, actually. But that same fit, for some reason, resulted in my being unable to properly squeeze the trigger in DA mode without taking an unnatural grip. I’d squeeze the trigger and lose all leverage on it as it traveled back to the point I’d be squeezing hard enough to draw blood out of a turnip, and just when I couldn’t squeeze any harder, BANG! Then I’d pinch the hell out of my finger between the back of the trigger and the frame. That took a lot of the fun out of it. If I consciously shifted my grip just a tad then no issues. But that’s beside the point. You SHOULD be able to take a natural grip and fire it reliably and accurately, every time. The solution would have been to replace the right grip with something a little thicker to increase the trigger reach but the gun was fairly new to the market at that time and no one seemed to have anything. It would have been a custom-made proposition, which was simply beyond my finances. Then the worst issue it had was its incredibly cheesy magazine design. It was, and still is as far as I know, a single stack magazine with a plastic floorplate held in place by 4 small tabs on the bottom. It was difficult to remove and replace correctly and securely, with an unnecessarily large gap between the frame and floorplate. Remember where I mentioned I could reach around and drop the mag with my middle finger? Well, that’s just what happened to me on a quick draw from low ready with a full mag. The mag of course plummeted to the ground, with the floorplate popping right off and parts and shells sailing in all directions under spring pressure. Mostly they went over my shoulder and landed behind me.
I think you can tell where this is going…..some of their guns are good, solid designs done in by poor QC (the judge and 945 mag), and a few are truly excellent products, and some guns are to be avoided entirely. If I had a few grand to buy nothing but Taurus, I’d go with the PT92/100 guns in blue or stainless, MAYBE the PT945 but only IF they’ve redesigned the mag floorplate, any of the various Model 66’s and 608’s in blue or stainless, likewise the .44Mag. Again, generally the older, more traditional designs. Not the Trackers, probably not the Judge Poly unless I could inspect it very closely, Definitely not the 24/7 or Millenium platforms. I’ve heard it on good word that Taurus customer service is good, but that in and of itself is an indicator of poor production and design – you shouldn’t have to use CS in the first place. Another of my friends has an 85 and is very happy with it, and I’d buy one in complete confidence if I had the disposable income to do so.
I picked up one of the 85 Ultralites back 10 years ago or so. It broke after less than 50 rounds. Cylinder release wouldn’t function, hammer couldn’t come back more than 1/4″ inch etc. I had to slide a knife blade into the thing to release the cylinder to unload the damn thing. But then the same basic shit happened to me with another revolver from a “good”/”high end” company too.
I sent it back for warranty repair and it’s functioned fine ever since, I’ve probably put another… 1000 rounds through it. It beats the hell out of your hand if you put 100 through her but I’ll wager it hurts the person you shoot with it more (OK actually the bullet does that but whatever). A Hogue grip replacing that stupid tiny Taurus grip made it a lot more pleasant and easy to shoot. Accuracy is surprisingly good once you get used what passes for “sights” on it but you won’t be acquiring them in low light or rapidly under stress. But hey, it’s a snubbie, not a target pistol.
Overall I’d say 3/5 rating is reasonable for the variant I own too. I do have to admit though, my experience with it breaking on it’s first trip to the range when it was NIB is partly responsible for my loathing of wheel guns for EDC.
PLEASE STOP WEARING DARK SHIRTS IN GUN REVIEW VIDEOS. Sorry to shout. It makes the firearm harder to see, even if it’s stainless.
I actually like Taurus products. I guess it helps to be born in April? My gripe? This the one model that stays in production. Everything I like gets discontinued too soon.
I’ve had 2 bad Taurus guns, an absolutely terrible, garbage Model 83, bought new in 1977. It had a defective barrel that Taurus CS said (two times looking at it) that there was nothing wrong with it. One look with a borelight showed the rifling was totally messed up, causing huge leading and jackets tearing off bullets. Six shots and the gun was so leaded up a seventh was doubtful. The second one, an 809, wasn’t nearly as bad. It just wasn’t reliable to the point I was comfortable carrying it. A trip to Taurus helped, but didn’t resolve it. A friend who had a perfect 809 bought it from me and made a project out of it. It’s almost 100% now, it goes mag after mag, then has a misfeed. I recently bought one of the soon to be gone 809C compacts and so far, it’s 100% with about 100 rounds through it. I also have 20 PT111 G2’s and they’re great guns. The first one has over 1000 rounds with one hiccup. On the 3rd shot out of the box, it jammed hard, but since then, it’s sawed though everything I’ve put through it. I did add one of the Lakeline LLC recoil springs to it at the 500 round mark, and I got one for the newer one too. It’s only got about 60 rounds through it, but it did fine on it’s first run.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.