My new Taurus 942 22WMR

Discussion in 'Revolver Handguns' started by Rancid, Sep 28, 2020.

  1. Pasquanel

    Pasquanel Proud to be an American Supporter

    3,355
    3,287
    113
    They let their QC slip back a while but seem to be back on track, Problem is once branded it follows you for years!
     
  2. AgedWarrior

    AgedWarrior Well-Known Member

    460
    835
    93
    Yeah...that was too easy!:eek: And not my intention...:(
     
    Oldoutlaw likes this.

  3. AgedWarrior

    AgedWarrior Well-Known Member

    460
    835
    93
    I think you are right, but my experience with them sort of left me not wanting to try another...maybe someday...but I doubt it.
     
  4. sheepdawg

    sheepdawg Well-Known Member Supporter

    4,159
    10,489
    113
    I forgot, I'm probably the first member he put on his ignore list. At least I'm in esteemed company.
     
    Oldoutlaw and AgedWarrior like this.
  5. Oldoutlaw

    Oldoutlaw Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,682
    7,585
    103
    His name does fit him well does it not? :D
     
    AgedWarrior and sheepdawg like this.
  6. sheepdawg

    sheepdawg Well-Known Member Supporter

    4,159
    10,489
    113
    Tell him a Taurus is a P.O.S. and join us Steve.:cool::cool::cool:
     
    AgedWarrior and Rifling82 like this.
  7. Rifling82

    Rifling82 Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,327
    11,345
    113
    Spend a little more and you can get a S&W or Ruger has always been my thoughts
     
    AgedWarrior and BullMoose429 like this.
  8. freefall

    freefall Well-Known Member

    5,167
    4,380
    113
    Spend twice as much, you can get a Colt.
     
    Rifling82 likes this.
  9. BullMoose429

    BullMoose429 Well-Known Member Supporter

    618
    848
    93
    I agree- my Super Blackhawk is loaded up with 340 grain hard casts any time I hit the New England Big Woods, but I would say this- if you live in a poor area like where I grew up- you may not necessarily be able to afford a Ruger or a Smith, and I wouldn’t hesitate for a second in using a Taurus in a 44 or 454 casull for wildlife defense. I think most of the Taurus hate comes from suburban commandos who pretend to be Navy seals and backwoodsmen, but have never actually had to depend on a firearm in their life. A great friend of mine used to be a bear hunting guide and still lives in an isolated section of Oxford County Maine, and guess what his go to bear revolver is- a Taurus 44. He’s killed over 40 bear in his day- and has probably killed over 100 moose, deer, and turkeys. To all you Taurus haters- how many bear have you killed? And here’s one- the pic below is the ammo I carry for bear and moose defense-take note of which manufacturer has a gun listed as safe for this ammo (Taurus) and which has none (Smith and Wesson) BBE9A0CE-1EE4-45C6-BD41-4E131E1123A3.jpeg
     
    Rifling82 likes this.
  10. BullMoose429

    BullMoose429 Well-Known Member Supporter

    618
    848
    93
    For many living in isolated areas in New England, The Rockies and Alaska- the Colt May be way out of their price range- and can’t do anything that the Taurus cant
     
    AgedWarrior likes this.
  11. sheepdawg

    sheepdawg Well-Known Member Supporter

    4,159
    10,489
    113
    True but the Colts I've owned exhibited no better fit or accuracy. They may have been finished to a higher degree but the tradeoff was in the quality of the trigger. Nothing stock, out of the box that I've shot in a handgun compares to an S&W. K Frame trigger. A thirty minute trigger job done by a competent smith makes it unbeatable.
     
    Rifling82 likes this.
  12. BullMoose429

    BullMoose429 Well-Known Member Supporter

    618
    848
    93
    Except that Smiths can’t accept full powered 44 mag loads because their side plates make them more susceptible to torsional, bending, and tensile fractures
     
  13. sheepdawg

    sheepdawg Well-Known Member Supporter

    4,159
    10,489
    113
    I've never seen a 44 mag in a K frame. Nevertheless if I'm looking for a 44 mag a Ruger would be the first choice.
     
    Rifling82 likes this.
  14. BullMoose429

    BullMoose429 Well-Known Member Supporter

    618
    848
    93
    The K and L are more or less the same size. But I was speaking to the fact that Smith and Wesson as a whole is entirely overrated- I’d buy a Taurus Raging Bull long before I’d buy any Smith and Wesson 44 mag- granted Ruger beats them all. Smiths have great triggers and have the classic double action revolver look- but their engineering hasn’t seen any information cation since the 30’s. Bill Ruger was able to look at the designs from both Smith and Colt and say- those morons have made their guns so weak by having a side plate, and Bill ended up winning that’s battle- go around Maine, Vermont, the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska- and count the number of Rugers sitting on people’s hips compared to the number of Smiths- Ruger will win by an order of magnitude.
     
  15. sheepdawg

    sheepdawg Well-Known Member Supporter

    4,159
    10,489
    113
    You have to apply my likes to the equation. I just don't get into 44 magnums. I will never have the need to carry anything more powerful than a 357 where I live and my two S&W model 66s or my GP100 fit the bill fine. I recently sold a Super Redhawk I'd owned since 1990, I bet I haven't put 250 rounds through it.
     
    Rifling82 likes this.
  16. BullMoose429

    BullMoose429 Well-Known Member Supporter

    618
    848
    93
    But the main point of my argument the whole time is that a Taurus is perfectly fine for wildlife defense and that all the Taurus hate is from people who don’t know what they’re talking about. To say that a Taurus in 44 or 454 is not a perfectly good gun for the big woods of Maine (where I live) or the Alaskan tundra is absurd- I know plenty of people who carry a Taurus for moose and bear defense and don’t feel any less armed than someone with a Ruger. My Super Blackhawk may have a tighter lock up than a Taurus, and may be a bit more accurate- but if an angry bull moose was on top of me, I’d have no issue using a Taurus vs a Ruger.
     
  17. sheepdawg

    sheepdawg Well-Known Member Supporter

    4,159
    10,489
    113
    Some people like Fords, some Chevys. As far as hunting the X ring on a target with the calibers I like to shoot give me a Smith & Wesson. Carry one most of the time too cause I can rely on it.
     
  18. freefall

    freefall Well-Known Member

    5,167
    4,380
    113
    If I didn't already have 3 Super Blackhawks, I would buy a 4" Redhawk.
    can't beat it.
     
    BullMoose429 likes this.
  19. Rancid

    Rancid Well-Known Member Supporter

    938
    535
    93
    Well a good analogy for me personally is that I admire companies that put out an excellent product for 1/2 or 1/3 the price of the competition. I have absolutely no problem trusting my life to my Taurus 605 357 for CCW, and I trust my life to my Taurus Tracker .41 magnum when in black bear country. I own two Ruger 44 magnum Vaqueros and neither one of them will even shoot a group ... more like a shotgun pattern ... barely keeping 6 rounds on the paper of a 16" target at 12 yards ... absolutely useless. In comparison I own two Uberti 45 Colt 1873 peacemaker clones that shoot 1" groups that cost less than half what the Rugers did. I own a Ruger MKIII .22 Competition that is the most accurate handgun I have ever shot ... which carries a premium price. I owned a S&W model 19 that I could never shoot well ... beautiful gun and accurate off of sandbags but just something about it that I could never shoot well. I owned a Ruger Blackhawk 4" .41 magnum that was squirrel accurate. My Taurus revolvers are as accurate as any handgun I have ever owned except for that Ruger Competition ... accuracy being as accurate as I can shoot, if a gun is more accurate than I can shoot it that extra accuracy is irrelevant.

    I have ridden motorcycles my entire life. I have owned BMW and Harley and Yamaha road bikes. Now I ride a Royal Enfield Interceptor that costs a third what those do and is every bit as good for touring and twisy mountain roads ... better in the twisties than any Harvey Diddleson.

    Price is not everything. A high price does not mean better quality ... and by that I mean in a practical sense ... as a working tool. I don't want a gun with a super-nice polish that adds hundreds to the price and does nothing in a practical sense except make me afraid of dinging it. I don't give a rip if a S&W has a thousandth of an inch tighter lock-up ... it is no more accurate in my hands (me shooting it) than my Taurus's.
     
    DHall_37 likes this.
  20. AgedWarrior

    AgedWarrior Well-Known Member

    460
    835
    93
    Somehow I think I should stay out of this since I already got old Rancid mad for challenging his rhetoric, but having been a very big revolver guy for a lot of years...

    Over some years I have owned a lot of different revolvers and shot a few more. My affections were more in the big bore area, but I owned lots of smaller revolvers too. Brands I have owned include S&W, Ruger, Colt, Freedom Arms, Dan Wesson and High Standard. Brands I have shot would also include Taurus, Uberti...and a few others I cannot remember.

    As a handgun hunter for some twenty five years, I preferred .44 mag or .454 Casull, and the two game getters were a Ruger Super Blackhawk, 10.5” .44 Mag and Freedom Arms .454 with 7” barrel. Both guns were capable of excellent accuracy and were 100% reliable. For a carry gun in bear country I liked the S&W 4” 629 or the Ruger Blackhawk 4 5/8”, in .45 Colt (loaded for bear).

    My opinions of big bore revolvers that I owned or tried go like this.
    Ruger SBH is excellent in every way for me.
    Ruger Redhawks or Super Redhawks are nice but heavy and a bit bulky for carrying all day in the field.
    Ruger Vaquero just did not hack it, never shot one that was very accurate.
    Ruger Blackhawk in .45 Colt...loved it! With 4 5/8” barrel was accurate and quite portable.
    S&W 29 or 629 had exceptional accuracy and great triggers. 4” model was a great woods gun!
    Colt Anaconda had good trigger and was quite pretty (mine was in .45 Colt), but never measured up to the Blackhawk.
    Freedom Arms .454 was the most accurate revolver I ever owned. Took my one and only elk with this gun.
    Tried a Taurus (Raging Bull I think) in .454. Shot pretty fair, but in all honesty, did not compare in fit and finish to any of my revolvers at the time. And it felt like a brick with a rubber handle on it, recoil felt worse than with the Freedom Arms.
    Uberti quality never impressed me at the time, though they looked good until you gave em a closer inspection.

    It was not until more recent years that I actually owned a Taurus briefly, but that was a semi and that story doesn’t belong here, but it is the primary reason I pretty much reject the brand today.