I've owned Smith's and Taurus' since the eighties. Finish-wise, the Smith's are superior. Accuracy-wise for self-defense shooting there is not much difference. If you are collecting, go for the Smith. If you are looking for a self-defense gun you'll pay a lot less for the Taurus.
There is no situation in which choosing to buy a Taurus firearm is the right option. If someone doesn't want to spend as much money for a 686 they should get something like a Ruger gp100.
Sorry, I disagree. The Taurus 85 I currently own is a better handgun overall than the S&W model 36 I carried off duty in the eighties.It is sturdier, more ergonomic and a much better point and shooter. I also currently own a S&W model 64. It is a fine, utilitarian revolver, and an occasional carry gun, but at almost $600, it was overpriced. I should have spent $200 less and got a Taurus 82.
Lionquest Fitness You happened to luck out and not get one of their lemons, which is a very common considering their lack of quality control. If you get a bad Taurus firearm, which is not too uncommon, then it would be a miracle if, when sent to the factory and back, it actually gets fixed. Taurus is hit or miss, and if you miss then you're out the price of whatever you payed for the gun.
In general, their revolvers hold up and that goes back to some of the first Taurus revolvers I owned decades ago. I've also owned and carried Smith revolvers that more than held up. But, I recently purchased a Smith polymer wonder that had problems that Smith wouldn't fix and could have fixed easily. I haven't any experience with any of the current semi-autos that Taurus manufactures and I probably never will based on much of what you have said and what I have researched. With the semi-autos at least - it is hit or miss.
+Lionquest Fitness my first auto was a Taurus millennium Pro.First time I shot it the back of the slide blew off.lucky I was wearing my safety glasses.
@King Savage Take it to the range every weekend and shoot 100 rounds through it. That is 5200 rounds in one year. I bet by the end of the year you will have problems with it.
@King Savage I speak from experience as a former Taurus owner. Smith and Wesson and Ruger are far superior to Taurus. Especially with the guns Taurus is making today and don't even get me started on their customer service which is practically non existent. Heck, I would buy Charter Arms before I would buy another Taurus
@@ironphoenix5145 There's nothing wrong with Tarus revolvers. I'm a smith guy. Revolver or semi but tarus revolvers are known to be reliable. Their semi automatics are junk though.
I've owned both and can't tell much difference in accuracy, I liked the trigger on the taurus the best and personally think the taurus is the prettiest of the two, but resale is much better with the Smith, both are great revolvers
I have a 686,I bought new right after I moved to Florida in1992.I love it.I even tried carrying it concealed for a while,and figured out pretty fast that sucker is heavy!
I've had a Taurus 689, blued, with a 6 inch barrel sense 1992. Never had the cleaning problem you mentioned. It stays with my marlin 1894c . These two gun are what got me into reloading. Awesome combination. Lots of fun at the range. Sure, I'd love to get a Smith, but you buy what you can afford. Thanks for the great video.
I have the Smith 686. Have had the Ruger GP100 and currently own a Taurus Tracker 7 shot 627 w a 4 inch barrel. I'm hear to tell you that the Taurus is definitely right there w both. The finish is where the others slightly outshine the Taurus but that doesn't really bother me. I shoot the Tracker regularly. It actually replaced my Glock 19 as my home defense gun. If I were to hide brand from you I would wager that you would never know the difference when shooting either. A master, professional , competition shooter may but for regular Joes???? The Taurus is just as good as either
Taurus is the poor man's S&W. I've owned many Taurus revolvers over the past 20 years and have never had an issue with any of them. In my opinion Taurus is just as well built and reliable as a Smith.
Spend the extra money on the Smith and Wesson. If you ever need to get rid of it, you will have many takers. The Taurus? Forget about it, no one will want it. The 686 is arguably the pinnacle of .357 magnum revolver design. It is a tank, yet carryable. It is accurate and well balanced. It also a damn fine-looking gun too. The 586 is the blued version of the 686, and is becoming VERY collectible.
In the past I've had several S&W (models 10, 19, 27 & 28) and now I have a Taurus 689, blued and with a 6" barrel like most of my S&W. Honestly I can't say that my S&Ws were better than the Taurus in any way. The Brazilian revolver groups as well as the S&Ws did and mechanically works perfectly. Regards
Nice review, i ll take the S&W, i know a lot of people love the Taurus but ive had horrible luck with them, Smith and Rugers for me, thanks, good video
One reason for the similarities between Smith and Wesson and Taurus is that Smith and Wesson once had a factory in Brazil to fulfill a contract with the Brazilian government. At the end of the contract, S&W sold the factory complete with all the tooling. Taurus was born.
People underestimate how awesome Taurus revolvers are. I have the 4 inch, ported, 7 shot Tracker and it's fantastic. I have much experience w firearms to back that statement up. I have had GP100 and Smith 686 and the Tracker is nipping at their heels. If they were the same price I'm going w the Smith. And more than likely gonna choose the Ruger over Tracker as well but prices being what they are today.... You will not be making a mistake going w Taurus Tracker. All 3 are fine weapons and will do anything any of us need and then some. I challenge anyone to show me a short coming of the Tracker that would classify it as mediocre. My Tracker is now my bedside handgun and often my carry gun. It replaced/ retired my Glock 19 to the safe. 7 reliable powerhouse loads of 357 magnum beats 15 maybe,s of not so powerful 9mm. At least in my book. But carrying what you can shoot well is the main thing. I will not down anyone who carrys.
+Mr Wolf: Using a ported (vented) barrel as a “bedside handgun” has serious disadvantages to your home defense: 1. The excessive flash being vented thru the ports will spoil your night vision. 2. The vented gasses represent lost energy, which would otherwise assist in propelling the bullet forward thru the muzzle, will result in lower bullet velocity. Hence, your ”powerhouse loads of .357 magnum” are being reduced to a .38 +P.
Mr Wolf I totally agree with you!! BTW, befor one gentleman said, "with the $300 diference, I buy a bottle of whisky"!! Ohw!! $300 for a bottle of scoth??? Not even "Royal Salute" costs that!! VERY EXPENSIVE Whisky he got!!!! BTW, I have the Smith, the Taurus and the Colt, and the better is the DAN WESSON!!!!!!
I've had a few amazing Taurus firearms. For some reason I dont want to like them but they have always been fantastic. The 66 imhad was awesome one of the best triggers I've ever felt.,wish I kept it.
If logos are important get the Smith. Your avg shooter isn't going to notic a difference, especially $300 worth. I'd personally get the Taurus but I'm also okay with a Columbia coat over North Face and spending the savings on a nice bottle of scotch.
JFeezy YOU ARE SO WRONG! I'd definitely spend the savings on a bottle of bourbon . And I think it would take more than an average shooter to notice the difference between the Taurus and a Smith and Wesson . But that saying as much about average shooters than the guns I think .
JFeezy Logos aren't the only difference in Taurus and Smith, there's a big difference in quality. Buying a Taurus is a crap shoot, if you get a good one, you're lucky and it will serve you well. But if you get a bad one, you'll just join the countless number of people who got screwed over by Taurus.
What kind of loading dies do you have (which will load 38 Special, but not .357 Magnum)?? I've never seen that... pretty much any dies for the 38 will do the .357 mag.
Great video! Just a thought about price: when you buy quality, it doesn't end up costing anything. Because when you go to to sell, you get all of your $ back... and more!
I wanted a good revolver and did a lot of research. I rented guns. I read reviews on guns. And here’s what I found. The S&W has the best fit and finish. The best trigger I’ve felt. And holds the highest resale value. Try to sell the taurus and see what you get.
This model Smith & Wesson 686 is pre-1990. I have one of these and it is sweet. I have had the trigger worked on by Smith and it is smooth. It shoots as well in double action as in single. The accuracy is outstanding. I use it in IDPA competition.
Bought a Taurus 627 magnum here! Nice review on the revolvers! I'm new to the revolver scene and have only owned a Glock. In general, I prefer revolvers because the fact that they are more reliable and accurate plus less maintnance (as I read what people in my area are saying), than a semi auto pistol. Though I have not shot a single bullet into my new revolver yet, I can't wait to test it out soon.
They are both stainless, yet the Taurus is harder to clean? This would indicate the metallurgy between the two is different. Either that or the Taurus is not polished as well from the factory?
I have a Taurus 627 Tracker 7 shot stainless .357 Magnum revolver. It comes with a ported barrel and for the money tough to beat. I have never had to repair any of my Taurus hand guns. Despite what people say they are good quality. My PT101 .40 Cal pistol is 25 years old and has never failed me.
Quite a bit of differences mechanically in these, very interesting presentation. And the weight difference was way more than one would suspect given their similarity.
My opinion : I shot both, and owned a S&W and preferred the S&W because of the feel and cleaning, just like the video. However, recently purchased a Chiappa Rhino 357 Magnum which blew away the competition, hands down ! For about the same as I paid for the S&W. Look it up you will see the difference almost right away !
I know this is old, but this is more or less exactly what I've been telling people for a while about Taurus guns, particularly their revolvers. Yeah, their "Stainless" finish usually is more of a Satin finish and is harder to clean than a S&W or Ruger I'll give it that, but I tend to clean my revolvers after every shooting and it's often not that difficult until I get right by the muzzle. That being said, it's a minor issue to me as my guns are tools that I use and use often. Be it for hunting, EDC or otherwise. So a little wear doesnt bother me. But looking at features, Taurus features a vented rib to cool down faster, a grooved trigger for better surface texture when your fingers are wet potentially, trigger pull is nearly identical, accuracy is nearly identical, but the price is different. Early Taurus revolvers had some issues like being much rougher on the triggers and etc... but they were always known to work. New Taurus revolvers, I hear people complain about lemons and duds, but in all my years of shooting Taurus revolvers I've not seen them in person with their revolvers. I find the new ones to be much smoother and well worth the money. I own quite a few Taurus guns, both revolver and semi auto and my overall experience has been positive. The only issues with Taurus guns I've ever had have been semi autos and it was very early models of the Millennium series. Namely a PT145 that would disconnect the magazine when firing and a PT111 that would have a lot of FTF and FTE issues. Both of those guns were not mine however... Now, it's a known fact early Taurus semi autos excluding their PT92 and PT1911 had some problems. But Taurus definitely corrected that issue, same with their revolvers. They have shown they actually care about improving their products and still remaining affordable. Lately, S&W has had tons of issues of barrels being over torqued and thus being "Canted" from the factory and potentially dangerous. The .500 and .460 S&W revolvers have also had frame issues where they break in under 200 rounds and in some cases not even firing the dedicated round for the revolver like .454 Casull or .45 Colt in the case of the .460 models or the .500 Special in the .500 Magnum model. This doesnt mean S&W guns are bad or garbage, but people want to give them a pass for the same issues they complain about with Taurus. Biggest difference I've seen is that Taurus outsells their competition in a lot of ways with a lot of makes and models, thus that means they produce more. Thus you see more lemons and duds out there. Take Kimber for example... love them or hate them, they outsell all other 1911 manufacturing companies. So there are more Kimber 1911's floating out there than any other company, so it's likely you'll hear about a broken Kimber before something like say a broken Les Baer or Colt Government. But after all the guns I've shot I'm well aware Taurus is reliable and often brings more features to the table or the same features, for less money and that's hard to argue with. Now, I do own S&W's, Colt's, and Ruger's and I can safely say that my Taurus guns can run with the best of them. I find if you run any revolver hard, you'll discover issues you never thought you'd experience and it always makes me chuckle when the S&W guy's or the Ruger guy's finally have a problem and they look so perplexed as if what just happened was impossible and could never happen to them. Each of my Taurus revolvers minus one has at least 2,000 rounds through them and I have yet to experience them going out of timing, locking up, or any other issue. Likewise, my S&W's, Colt's, and Ruger's have the same or more and also have not had any major issues of such, except for one of my old Colt Police Positive revolvers that I went shooting right after I bought it as the owner said it had some problems and I wanted to diagnose them on the range to better fix it when I got home. So to me, at the end of the day... If you want a S&W get a S&W, if you want a Ruger, get a Ruger, but dont knock on Taurus as a potential option. I understand plenty of people have had problems with them in the past, but I can assure anyone looking today that Taurus is not the same company you likely had a poor experience with. Only recent guns I've heard major issues with are the 8 shot .357's, but that seems to be across the board with S&W and Ruger as well. I imagine getting the timing right is hard and a few stout loads can get it out of sync real quick.
I heard once that when the company was sold in the 70s Taurus bought some of the equipment so their pistols were made on the same machines that S&W had used prior to the sale. That explains the similar look.
I got real lucky at a gun show back in the 90s as I was walking in the door to the show the first booth I went to had a S&W 686 6 shot revolver. I bought it for 295.00 and couldn't be happier with it. It wsa used but I couldn't see a mark on the gun. Happy, happy.
$300 more yea S&W is tighter, has a better finish, and a bit more accurate but unless you're into target competition you probably are not going to be bothered that much. With the $300 you save you can get a good used revolver then you have two for the same price as one S&W.
I do know this is an older video. But is on a subject matter that is near and dear to my heart. I have owned both Smith and Wesson and Taurus revolvers. As you pointed out they're virtually the same the quality control between the two is obvious and for the extra money that would be the Smith & Wesson. That's not saying there is anything wrong with the Taurus both will serve you well. Personally if you're on a budget or just don't want to spend a huge amount of money on a decent revolver Taurus is the way to go. The money you save can go towards ammo and training. As far as lockup I noticed on the Taurus there was a little bit of Wiggle, which was not excessive but does hinder accuracy a little bit. The Smith & Wesson was tight and the accuracy was obvious due to that fact. As far as the coil spring versus the flat mainspring there's really no difference. Overall very good production of your video. I would expect nothing less from an infantry squad leader. At least if I remember correctly my Marine MOS correctly that is what 0365 is. Anyhow thank you for the video. SEMPER FI..
I own a S&W K-frame (Model 88), and I concur that it's real easy to clean. Taurus makes a great revolver, no joke, and my first firearm was a Taurus revolver. I use Remoil to clean with and it gets the gunge out of my Model 941.
UN-BIASED OPINION! I was shopping for my first revolver. I went to a gun shop with a shooting range. I shot a Taurus 686 and a S&W 629 with a few dozen rounds of .357 tmj. The Taurus banged on every shot. So did the S&W. They both "looked" very similar, but completely different quality standards. The Taurus had a rough/sloppy trigger, sloppy cylinder, too fat of a grip for me personally, dinner plate groups at 15 yards, and got dirty very fast. The S&W had a smooth trigger, took more rounds to get dirty, had a more comfortable grip for my smaller hands, shot tighter groups and the cylinder was tighter than the Taurus. The Taurus works, but the S&W works better. I'm saving that extra $300 for the S&W.
I’ve got a 1987 model 686s and I’ve ran thousands of rounds through it.......almost 35 years later it still shoots like a dream..... The only thing better than that is my 1925 police positive 38 police special....I 95-year-old work of art. I can hit a quarter at 25 yards.....Four out of six shots. Not bad for an old blind guy.
I owned a Smith model 27 357 and it was the most accurate pistol I have owned. I made the mistake of selling it which was one of the worst decisions I have ever made. I own a 686 now which is a great gun but the 27 had a little tighter group.
They were, but the Bangor Punta era was not the best for quality control for either Smith and Wesson or Taurus. To the Smith purists the Bangor guns aren't as desirable, which is not to say some good ones weren't made my either company at that time, but both did turn out more lemons!!!
I will tell you something else about the Taurus you didn't know. Take a Magnet to the Smith & Wesson. You will notice that it doesn't attract that much. Where as on the Taurus it will noticeably attract more. The reason is the metal used especially in the older Taurus models contained more steel, (way less quality stainless). Taurus chambers are sloppy (in revolvers), you can test this by firing same ammo in both then trying to fit the empty casings into each gun one from the other. You should find that the Taurus spent casings either wont fit or are very much tighter in the Smith & Wesson. The Smith & Wesson spent casings will chamber almost without effort (when guns are not dirty) in the Taurus. This will give you an indication of how tight the chambers are. You want tighter chambers for accuracy in most cases (Semi-autos are an exception). Because the stainless steel is of lesser quality in older Taurus(dont know about new ones) than Smith & Wesson's. That is probably why the Taurus is harder to clean as to the removal of fouling. A Taurus will through normal use wear out faster. More internal parts breakage and worn out barrel. So in essence you get what you pay for. Want a gun to last get a Smith & Wesson. Need a gun that your not going to shoot much, get the Taurus.
I suspected the Taurus of being made from a lower quality stainless as soon as I started getting rust freckles along one side of the barrel. I've only had it for about two months but after only about a week of handling it the freckles started showing up, just enough time for the factory protectant to wear off I guess.
@@wizardofahhhs759 , what i know about Taurus is that sometime in the late 70s to early 80s, S&W opened a manufacturing plant in Brazil. But almost immediately there were problems. Brazil's political turmoil combined with transportation costs. Undermined S&W hopes of profit. The market slipped and they ended up selling the company complete with dies and tooling. This meant that whoever bought the company (Taurus?) could make exact replicas of the famous and noteworthy S&W's and undersell American made guns. Which Taurus did. They accomplished this by making guns with lesser quality metals and less accurate tooling. Two things hurt Taurus; 1) They didn't have a lifetime warranty (they do now). 2) American gun owners resented copycat firearms (which they mostly stopped doing???). Taurus has been a major bane for S&W. It has caused S&W to cut back on quality slightly and the checking for quality. S&W made a major blunder selling the plant to a company that owns Taurus. If I was S&W I would of taken all the tooling and dies shipped them back to the USA and used them when i needed them.
@@GunDrone Until recently I wondered how Taurus could get away with making guns that look almost identical to the S&W until I started digging around doing a little research. They also make "knockoff" Berettas too.
@@wizardofahhhs759 , this is also true and those suck. My understanding is Beretta sold a manufacturing plant to them too. I cant however ever remember seeing a real S&W that says, "Made in Brazil". I would think that would be rare and collectible indeed.
Great review, mahalo nui Kimo. I believe the Taurus 689 frame is basically a clone of the S&W (model 66) K-Frame whereas the S&W 686 is made in the slightly larger and heavier L-Frame. The L-Frame S&W will hold up to a steady diet of 357 magnum loads much better than a Taurus K-frame clone at least in theory. I have owned both revolvers and liked them both but if I had to choose one it would be the L-Frame S&W due to it being stronger and smoother with a tad better build quality (which of course you pay for). Nothing against Taurus, I still own 2 a model 94 22L, and a model 44 in 44 magnum. Not parting with either of these anytime soon. Taurus a nice value for those on a tight budget. ALOHA.
I used to have a Taurus exactly like that, I believe it was called the "Model 669"; because it didn't have the vented rib like your's on top, it was a completely solid rib, but it was a .357Mag w/ a 4" barrel & polished finish just like that. She was surely a sweet shooter, stupidly accurate, & honestly for me it was super easy to clean unlike my M686 CS1 Mod.0 ["No-Dash"] w/ a 4" barrel & matte-finish (the CS1 [& CS2] was for "Customs"/"I.C.E." w/ 3" or 4" barrel options & it was strictly round-butt, & they were made before the normal M686 that was for the public, so the "M686 CS1 Mod.0" IS THE ORIGINAL "M686"; the "Mod.0" means "Modification 0", which I guess would be like the "dash-nomenclature" although there wasn't any "dash-models" of the CS1 & CS2, just Mod.0 through Mod.4 or Mod.5), my M686 CS1 Mod.0 is one tough cookie to clean w/o a doubt in mind. I guess the matte-finish on the CS1 makes the residue stick to it harder than a polished gun, at least that's the case for me. Now if I was to clean her right there & then when done shooting her, it wouldn't be such a problem, but I ain't gonna' do that EVERY-SINGLE-DANG-TIME when I get done shooting her. I LOVE my M686 CS1 Mod.0, but that Taurus M669 I had was a real damn beauty too & I really really freakin' regret getting rid of her, if I hadn't of though then I honestly wouldn't of been able to get my Kel-Tec RDB Bullpup rifle that I got myself. Which my Kel-Tec RDB is also special since it was actually a finalised experimental-model that somehow ended up out here in my small town in Oklahoma. I did have to send her back to Kel-Tec though because her firing-pin broke when I was using the red-tipped Hornandy ammo, but Kel-Tec's customer service was absolutely amazing & they fixed her up immediately & sent her back to me in like a week's time or less, they did a damn fine job & [to me at least] have one fine customer-service plan/warranty/service. Soooooo yeah, that's that!! ✌👌👍 💯💯💯💯💯💯💯
Very nice review. My taurus 689 was manufactured in 2013 and I shot about 1500 rounds. The cylinder remains tight as same as shown with Smith. But I have no doubt , I know that the smith is a better weapon. Cheers from Brazil.
Nice review. Thanks for posting! Love the Lava Walls at the range. Wish I had lava walls!! Looking forward to the Vs Ruger reiview. Love my GP100 and Security Six.
And the venting on the Rob DOES provide a function. It allows for more rapid cooling of the barrel, as well as helping to prevent such overheat that the barrel begins to anneal (not a good thing). It also slightly lightens the gun, which has both positive and negative aspects. The biggest “positive” is that it is slightly lighter. Only by about 2.5 Oz. On the 6” barrel, though. And the biggest negative of the ported-rib on the barrel is that this makes the barrel lighter, and thus can “jump/climb” more during recoil... But the lighter weight also means faster recovery. The Taurus 689 was a copy of the S&W 686/586, with touches of the Colt Python thrown-in. It is basically a .357 version of a Rossi 851/951 although the Rossi 851’s barrel is slightly different (aside from the full-underlug being squared-off, rather than rounded like the Taurus 689, the Front-Sights for the 851 came in 3 different varieties: 1) Identical to the Taurus 689, being a triangular blade, with a cutout for a colored-resign indicator; 2) the bottom-half of the Triangular sight being a ramp that is about ½ the thickness of the ported-rib; and 3) The Ribbed-rail having a ramp across its entire width curved-up into a platform for the Front-Sight), with the Rossi 851 being constructed to take .38 +P ammunition. Another Revolver related to these two is the Armscor Model 210. Rather than being a copy of the S&W 686/586, the Model 210 is a copy of the Colt Diamondback, which was itself a copy of the Colt Python, on a smaller-frame, intended to shoot .38 Special +P ammunition. The Armscor M210 came in several different variations, with earlier versions having the squared underlug like the Rossi 851/951, but with the Vented-Rib cutouts looking like the Colt Diamondback/Python (1 cutout per 2”, rather than 1 cutout every 1.33”, like on the Rossi 851/951 and Taurus 689). The Front-Sights on the early-model Armscor M210s also were modeled after the Rossi 851/951, with the weird “ramps” on the rib slanting/curving up to form a raised-platform for the Front-Sight Blade. A “platform” that could be either ½ the width of the rib, or its full-width. But after the first few years of production, the barrel of the Armscor M210 was changed such that it is indistinguishable from a Colt Diamondback/Python, with the cylindrical underlug, and the triangular Front-Sight Blade mounted directly on the rib, without any “platform.” I also own a Colt Diamondback and an Armscor M210, both made to shoot .38 Special +P without any problems, and where it is really difficult to distinguish the two for the later-models of the Armscor M210 and the Diamondback. Unless you saw any brand-markings on either revolver, it would be impossible to tell them apart by sight alone. The Armscor M210 did have some parts wear-out more quickly (and most parts are interchangeable WITH a Colt Diamondback, but not grips, and the mainsprings on both are different), such as the Cylinder-Pin that helps to maintain both Headspace AND the seal on the barrel forcing-cone... On the M210, the Cylinder will begin to have a bit of “give” to it (if you shake the emptied gun Back-and-Forth along the length of the barrel you will begin to hear the cylinder sliding ever so slightly back-and-forth after about four to five years of heavy use, while the Colt will remain as tight as the day it was born).
try cream of tarter to clean your stainless, i shoot a model 44SS6 Taurus and it is my pick,just saying. i want performance. without testing many of each then just testing one of each is not proof enough for me. thanks for the video,very interesting.
On the Lock up. Who is to say that the Taurus in your match-up hasn't had more use than the S&W causing the looseness. I've had my TAURUS 357 Magnum for 35 Years with very little use and it's Lock up is similar to your S&W. I Now own a Taurus PT609 Pro 9MM Brazilian Police Sidearm. Purchased the 9mm and a Mossberg 12Ga Shotgun models unknown and sight unseen for $150 from a lady I work with... (She didn't want them in the house)
Thanks So Much for the Very Nice Review. I have been trying to figure out the difference between the Taurus 608 and the S-W TRR8, M327 and 627. They are all 8rd and look to be great shooters.
Taurus has very smooth Trigger on that specific model. Additionally, the Smith cyclinder will get much looser after a box of shells. But if you want a good pistol.... get a Ruger.
I own two Taurus Revolvers. One in .357 Magnum. It is the Tracker model with a 4" ported barrel and it is seven shot. I really like it and it shoots as good as my S&W revolvers. The only difference is the price. I love S&W, but you are paying for the name as well as quality. In Taurus you are paying for quality and that is it.
I was handed down a Taurus 689 from 1989. I know absolutely nothing about the revolver but this video helped me quite a bit on how it handles against its American counterpart.
A few weeks ago, I needed to purchase a revolver in order to prepare for becoming a License to Carry Instructor. Since, I have never owned a revolver before, I consulted several gun shows, competitive shooters, and gunsmiths for advice. I informed them I was considering the major three revolvers (Taurus, Ruger, and Smith & Wesson). Over 90 percent of the recommendations were to stay away from the Taurus because although it is an good gun at a decent price point; it has to be shipped back to the Taurus factory for any type of repair work. Which means that it will take 6 -8 weeks or longer to get your revolver back. Every gunsmith stated that they can not get parts for the Taurus revolvers, they can only ship them to the factory on your behalf!. So, if you believe that your revolver won't need repair or you shoot less than 100 rounds a month, then a Taurus might be the way to go.
Use a Birchwood Casey Lead Removal Cloth to clean the residue from the flutes. It also works well to completely remove burn rings from the front of the cylinder (will remove the finish from a blued cylinder though).
Loved this vid. I have a Taurus 689 myself and now I know how it compares to the 686. Suffice to say, I don't think I'll need a 686 as the finish and how harder it is to clean compared to the 686 doesn't bother me as much, and the cylinder lock bit, to me as long as it's capable of 2-inch groups on DA shots fired at 10 yards I'm okay with it (my 689 I think is a little more accurate though, as it has a 6-inch barrel). Anyway, liked and subscribed. Keep these videos coming.
I have a Smith 586 and a Taurus 65. Both .357mag. I don't know if the 65 had trigger work, but it has an amazing trigger. L frame vs. approximately K frame.
I would say that you are very much correct. I had purchased a Taurus 66 and sold it because of the blast I was getting while shooting. I got a new model S&W 66, and even with lesser quality of the new Smith, no such blast. I am no expert, but the Smith was, and is, a much tighter weapon.
I was not impressed with the Taurus at my local dealer. Seriously considered the 686 fro Smith but in the end bought a Ruger GP100. Thousands of rounds later I am very happy with the Ruger. Sleeved cylinder and key lock on new Smiths along with all of the quality issues of late made Ruger my choice. As far as Taurus, maybe the one at my dealer was manufactured on a day where the quality control people were at an offsite meeting?
I believe both the 2 guns in the video are older models. The cylinder release lever is different now on both guns. Plus the S&W now has a built in lock in the side of the frame which most people do not like. I believe the Taurus no longer offers the barrel with a ventilated rib anymore. Although Rossi does offer a similar revolver with the ventilated Rib Barrel in .38 special. Rossi only offers the gun in a Blued finish. Although I did recently buy one of the Rossi .38 Special Revolvers with the Ventilated Rib Barrel in Stainless Steel. It is an older model from the 90's back when they were imported by Interarms of Virginia.
its fantastic. if you want some decent stopping power- load with 357. if you want manageable one handed stopping power get those .38 specials in there! I'm using the .38 special for home defense so i can flashlight in one hand and easily shoot one handed.
I've owned many S&W and Taurus handguns over the years and I love the fact Taurus revolvers are a close copy of S&W models. Taurus has come a long way since the 70's and 80's and IMHO their current handgun offering is of excellent quality and I wouldn't have any problem carrying a Taurus for personal or home protection. I've owned the old Beretta copy PT92 in 9mm and PT58 in .380acp. You couldn't ask for more reliable handguns for such a low price :)
My first time viewing your channel. Really well thought out and straight to the point. I kept thinking while watching, that I could have a Taurus in each hand for the price of the Smith... But there's a shelf of S&W revolvers in my safe that aren't havin' non of that!
Thank you! I am a little shocked to find that the Taurus has the coil spring and the Smith the leaf type.I've read that the coil is a better design. But if you can't tell the difference than there's no difference, I would say. And I would definetly take that Taurus for less over the Smith. Frankly the Taurus is a little sexier looking to me, maybe like another viewer noted the old vent rib design kinda harkens back to the beautiful Colt Python( and the Llama Comanche had that look as well an I'm sure others too.)
Very good review over all. I noticed at the end of the video with the cylinders open, that the walls of the forcing cone of the Taurus 689 appears to to be significantly thinner or was that due to the lighting.
![Chino Pacas - Modo Capone (with Drake & Fuerza Regida) [Video Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zjv8TQ0gBkg/mqdefault.jpg)
I've owned Smith's and Taurus' since the eighties. Finish-wise, the Smith's are superior. Accuracy-wise for self-defense shooting there is not much difference. If you are collecting, go for the Smith. If you are looking for a self-defense gun you'll pay a lot less for the Taurus.
There is no situation in which choosing to buy a Taurus firearm is the right option. If someone doesn't want to spend as much money for a 686 they should get something like a Ruger gp100.
Sorry, I disagree. The Taurus 85 I currently own is a better handgun overall than the S&W model 36 I carried off duty in the eighties.It is sturdier, more ergonomic and a much better point and shooter. I also currently own a S&W model 64. It is a fine, utilitarian revolver, and an occasional carry gun, but at almost $600, it was overpriced. I should have spent $200 less and got a Taurus 82.
Lionquest Fitness You happened to luck out and not get one of their lemons, which is a very common considering their lack of quality control. If you get a bad Taurus firearm, which is not too uncommon, then it would be a miracle if, when sent to the factory and back, it actually gets fixed. Taurus is hit or miss, and if you miss then you're out the price of whatever you payed for the gun.
In general, their revolvers hold up and that goes back to some of the first Taurus revolvers I owned decades ago. I've also owned and carried Smith revolvers that more than held up. But, I recently purchased a Smith polymer wonder that had problems that Smith wouldn't fix and could have fixed easily. I haven't any experience with any of the current semi-autos that Taurus manufactures and I probably never will based on much of what you have said and what I have researched. With the semi-autos at least - it is hit or miss.
+Lionquest Fitness my first auto was a Taurus millennium Pro.First time I shot it the back of the slide blew off.lucky I was wearing my safety glasses.
Revolvers are not only much more fun to shoot, they are more beautiful than any semi-auto. Some are true works of art.
@King Savage Can't he have an opinion?
@King Savage Taurus revolvers are fine revolvers just so long as you don't shoot them.
@King Savage Take it to the range every weekend and shoot 100 rounds through it. That is 5200 rounds in one year. I bet by the end of the year you will have problems with it.
@King Savage I speak from experience as a former Taurus owner. Smith and Wesson and Ruger are far superior to Taurus. Especially with the guns Taurus is making today and don't even get me started on their customer service which is practically non existent. Heck, I would buy Charter Arms before I would buy another Taurus
@@ironphoenix5145 There's nothing wrong with Tarus revolvers. I'm a smith guy. Revolver or semi but tarus revolvers are known to be reliable. Their semi automatics are junk though.
I have a 686 with a 6"barrel from 1993. Still looks great. Shoots like a dream. Excellent revolver through and through.
Got mine in 1997
I've owned both and can't tell much difference in accuracy, I liked the trigger on the taurus the best and personally think the taurus is the prettiest of the two, but resale is much better with the Smith, both are great revolvers
I have a 686,I bought new right after I moved to Florida in1992.I love it.I even tried carrying it concealed for a while,and figured out pretty fast that sucker is heavy!
That Taurus is Brautiful! I like the slimmer grip on it. I’d gladly take the Taurus over the S&W, especially for the price point! Great video!! 👍🏻👍🏻
Look at Kimber K6S, six shot and really like mine.
686 3" is an excellent CCW firearm! I carry mine in a verticle shoulder rig. Great vid!
Used your review as one of several to justify a 686Plus purchase.
As if I needed an excuse.
Thanks.
SgtHulkasBigToe lol I know that's Right best handgun ever
I've had a Taurus 689, blued, with a 6 inch barrel sense 1992. Never had the cleaning problem you mentioned. It stays with my marlin 1894c . These two gun are what got me into reloading. Awesome combination. Lots of fun at the range. Sure, I'd love to get a Smith, but you buy what you can afford. Thanks for the great video.
I've had a Taurus 689 since about 1979, I have been very happy with it.
I have the Smith 686. Have had the Ruger GP100 and currently own a Taurus Tracker 7 shot 627 w a 4 inch barrel. I'm hear to tell you that the Taurus is definitely right there w both. The finish is where the others slightly outshine the Taurus but that doesn't really bother me. I shoot the Tracker regularly. It actually replaced my Glock 19 as my home defense gun. If I were to hide brand from you I would wager that you would never know the difference when shooting either. A master, professional , competition shooter may but for regular Joes???? The Taurus is just as good as either
Shhhhh, if too many people tell, they might raise their prices.
Taurus is the poor man's S&W. I've owned many Taurus revolvers over the past 20 years and have never had an issue with any of them. In my opinion Taurus is just as well built and reliable as a Smith.
with smith, you pay for the name.
bullshit, Taurus has HUGE reliability problems!!!
@Rick Slade Mike fu Is a dumb fuck.
@@94SexyStang that's true
I owned a Taurus once......once. P..S. the ribs dissipate heat and can be used to mound a scope.
Spend the extra money on the Smith and Wesson. If you ever need to get rid of it, you will have many takers. The Taurus? Forget about it, no one will want it.
The 686 is arguably the pinnacle of .357 magnum revolver design. It is a tank, yet carryable. It is accurate and well balanced. It also a damn fine-looking gun too.
The 586 is the blued version of the 686, and is becoming VERY collectible.
I deer hunt with a Taurus model 66 with a 6" barrel, reload my own 158 gr swchp. one shot one kill
Cliff Harwood Sounds like a great set up, happy hunting, and enjoyable and safe shooting.
Ribs are ALWAYS functional. They dissipate heat allowing the barrel to cool. Porting isn't related to the ribs. Ports are for muzzle control. SMH.
and mounting optics.
And giving a straight sight picture.
In the past I've had several S&W (models 10, 19, 27 & 28) and now I have a Taurus 689, blued and with a 6" barrel like most of my S&W. Honestly I can't say that my S&Ws were better than the Taurus in any way. The Brazilian revolver groups as well as the S&Ws did and mechanically works perfectly. Regards
Nice review, i ll take the S&W, i know a lot of people love the Taurus but ive had horrible luck with them, Smith and Rugers for me, thanks, good video
One reason for the similarities between Smith and Wesson and Taurus is that Smith and Wesson once had a factory in Brazil to fulfill a contract with the Brazilian government. At the end of the contract, S&W sold the factory complete with all the tooling. Taurus was born.
People underestimate how awesome Taurus revolvers are. I have the 4 inch, ported, 7 shot Tracker and it's fantastic. I have much experience w firearms to back that statement up. I have had GP100 and Smith 686 and the Tracker is nipping at their heels. If they were the same price I'm going w the Smith. And more than likely gonna choose the Ruger over Tracker as well but prices being what they are today.... You will not be making a mistake going w Taurus Tracker. All 3 are fine weapons and will do anything any of us need and then some. I challenge anyone to show me a short coming of the Tracker that would classify it as mediocre. My Tracker is now my bedside handgun and often my carry gun. It replaced/ retired my Glock 19 to the safe. 7 reliable powerhouse loads of 357 magnum beats 15 maybe,s of not so powerful 9mm. At least in my book. But carrying what you can shoot well is the main thing. I will not down anyone who carrys.
+Mr Wolf: Using a ported (vented) barrel as a “bedside handgun” has serious disadvantages to your home defense:
1. The excessive flash being vented thru the ports will spoil your night vision.
2. The vented gasses represent lost energy, which would otherwise assist in propelling the bullet forward thru the muzzle, will result in lower bullet velocity. Hence, your ”powerhouse loads of .357 magnum” are being reduced to a .38 +P.
Great review. I didn't realize they were so similar. I think I'm going with the Taurus mainly due to budget reasons however. Thanks!
Daniel Carpenter You won't be disappointed
Mr Wolf
I totally agree with you!!
BTW, befor one gentleman said, "with the $300 diference, I buy a bottle of whisky"!!
Ohw!! $300 for a bottle of scoth???
Not even "Royal Salute" costs that!!
VERY EXPENSIVE Whisky he got!!!!
BTW, I have the Smith, the Taurus and the Colt, and the better is the DAN WESSON!!!!!!
I've had a few amazing Taurus firearms. For some reason I dont want to like them but they have always been fantastic. The 66 imhad was awesome one of the best triggers I've ever felt.,wish I kept it.
I own a 6" Black 689VR since 7 years now. very accurate, very reliable. Purchased it 550 euros. Best bang for the bucks for sure.
@Rick Rickerson France. www.armurerie-lavaux.com/article/Revolver-TAURUS-689VR-6-Bronze-calibre-357-Magnum.html
If logos are important get the Smith. Your avg shooter isn't going to notic a difference, especially $300 worth. I'd personally get the Taurus but I'm also okay with a Columbia coat over North Face and spending the savings on a nice bottle of scotch.
JFeezy YOU ARE SO WRONG! I'd definitely spend the savings on a bottle of bourbon . And I think it would take more than an average shooter to notice the difference between the Taurus and a Smith and Wesson . But that saying as much about average shooters than the guns I think .
I bought a used Taurus Tracker 357 with 6 inch barrel about 2 years ago. No issues what so ever! It's a great revolver and fun to shoot.
JFeezy
Logos aren't the only difference in Taurus and Smith, there's a big difference in quality. Buying a Taurus is a crap shoot, if you get a good one, you're lucky and it will serve you well. But if you get a bad one, you'll just join the countless number of people who got screwed over by Taurus.
JFeezy mmmmmm scotch
L.E. Batte mmmmmmm bourbon
Try a large pencil eraser to get the powder off. The ones for erasable ink work as well.
+Tom Muse totally gonna try it, been using a touch of mothers
Or just use some hopes 9
NevrDull works good too.
@@KIMO365or use stainless gun cleaning cloths. You can only use them on stainless or nickel finishes, as they will take the bluing off.
I have the Taurus 689. Definitely a cheaper clone of the 686. It's been a very reliable gun for me.
Same here, owned it since 2000.. has yet to skip a beat!
What kind of loading dies do you have (which will load 38 Special, but not .357 Magnum)?? I've never seen that... pretty much any dies for the 38 will do the .357 mag.
Great video! Just a thought about price: when you buy quality, it doesn't end up costing anything. Because when you go to to sell, you get all of your $ back... and more!
The much tighter lock-up on the S&W is what sold me! I've been standing beside a buddy when he fired his "Loosey-goosey" revolver!
I wanted a good revolver and did a lot of research. I rented guns. I read reviews on guns.
And here’s what I found.
The S&W has the best fit and finish.
The best trigger I’ve felt.
And holds the highest resale value.
Try to sell the taurus and see what you get.
New to your videos and I find them refreshing ,well done.
Very good, thorough review. I am a Smith and Wesson man but was interested in the comparison between the two revolvers. Thanks/Mahalo.
Good unbiased review, thanks man!
This model Smith & Wesson 686 is pre-1990. I have one of these and it is sweet. I have had the trigger worked on by Smith and it is smooth. It shoots as well in double action as in single. The accuracy is outstanding. I use it in IDPA competition.
Your review is very timely as I am currently pondering the purchase of the Taurus, or the Ruger GP100 in 357 Mag. Thanks for a good review.
I have a Taurus mod 65 had it 24 years love it shot it for years probably had 2000 rounds of 357 through it and 4000 38 specials through it
Bought a Taurus 627 magnum here! Nice review on the revolvers! I'm new to the revolver scene and have only owned a Glock. In general, I prefer revolvers because the fact that they are more reliable and accurate plus less maintnance (as I read what people in my area are saying), than a semi auto pistol. Though I have not shot a single bullet into my new revolver yet, I can't wait to test it out soon.
They are both stainless, yet the Taurus is harder to clean? This would indicate the metallurgy between the two is different. Either that or the Taurus is not polished as well from the factory?
I have a Taurus 627 Tracker 7 shot stainless .357 Magnum revolver. It comes with a ported barrel and for the money tough to beat. I have never had to repair any of my Taurus hand guns. Despite what people say they are good quality. My PT101 .40 Cal pistol is 25 years old and has never failed me.
Tarurus serves its purpose well, it's all about what you want.
Quite a bit of differences mechanically in these, very interesting presentation. And the weight difference was way more than one would suspect given their similarity.
I just bought my first revolver, a S&W 686 P 4"barrel. your videos are informative and fun to watch! Mahalo.
My opinion :
I shot both, and owned a S&W and preferred the S&W because of the feel and cleaning, just like the video.
However, recently purchased a Chiappa Rhino 357 Magnum which blew away the competition, hands down !
For about the same as I paid for the S&W.
Look it up you will see the difference almost right away !
I know this is old, but this is more or less exactly what I've been telling people for a while about Taurus guns, particularly their revolvers. Yeah, their "Stainless" finish usually is more of a Satin finish and is harder to clean than a S&W or Ruger I'll give it that, but I tend to clean my revolvers after every shooting and it's often not that difficult until I get right by the muzzle. That being said, it's a minor issue to me as my guns are tools that I use and use often. Be it for hunting, EDC or otherwise. So a little wear doesnt bother me.
But looking at features, Taurus features a vented rib to cool down faster, a grooved trigger for better surface texture when your fingers are wet potentially, trigger pull is nearly identical, accuracy is nearly identical, but the price is different. Early Taurus revolvers had some issues like being much rougher on the triggers and etc... but they were always known to work. New Taurus revolvers, I hear people complain about lemons and duds, but in all my years of shooting Taurus revolvers I've not seen them in person with their revolvers. I find the new ones to be much smoother and well worth the money.
I own quite a few Taurus guns, both revolver and semi auto and my overall experience has been positive. The only issues with Taurus guns I've ever had have been semi autos and it was very early models of the Millennium series. Namely a PT145 that would disconnect the magazine when firing and a PT111 that would have a lot of FTF and FTE issues. Both of those guns were not mine however... Now, it's a known fact early Taurus semi autos excluding their PT92 and PT1911 had some problems. But Taurus definitely corrected that issue, same with their revolvers. They have shown they actually care about improving their products and still remaining affordable. Lately, S&W has had tons of issues of barrels being over torqued and thus being "Canted" from the factory and potentially dangerous. The .500 and .460 S&W revolvers have also had frame issues where they break in under 200 rounds and in some cases not even firing the dedicated round for the revolver like .454 Casull or .45 Colt in the case of the .460 models or the .500 Special in the .500 Magnum model. This doesnt mean S&W guns are bad or garbage, but people want to give them a pass for the same issues they complain about with Taurus.
Biggest difference I've seen is that Taurus outsells their competition in a lot of ways with a lot of makes and models, thus that means they produce more. Thus you see more lemons and duds out there. Take Kimber for example... love them or hate them, they outsell all other 1911 manufacturing companies. So there are more Kimber 1911's floating out there than any other company, so it's likely you'll hear about a broken Kimber before something like say a broken Les Baer or Colt Government. But after all the guns I've shot I'm well aware Taurus is reliable and often brings more features to the table or the same features, for less money and that's hard to argue with. Now, I do own S&W's, Colt's, and Ruger's and I can safely say that my Taurus guns can run with the best of them. I find if you run any revolver hard, you'll discover issues you never thought you'd experience and it always makes me chuckle when the S&W guy's or the Ruger guy's finally have a problem and they look so perplexed as if what just happened was impossible and could never happen to them. Each of my Taurus revolvers minus one has at least 2,000 rounds through them and I have yet to experience them going out of timing, locking up, or any other issue. Likewise, my S&W's, Colt's, and Ruger's have the same or more and also have not had any major issues of such, except for one of my old Colt Police Positive revolvers that I went shooting right after I bought it as the owner said it had some problems and I wanted to diagnose them on the range to better fix it when I got home.
So to me, at the end of the day... If you want a S&W get a S&W, if you want a Ruger, get a Ruger, but dont knock on Taurus as a potential option. I understand plenty of people have had problems with them in the past, but I can assure anyone looking today that Taurus is not the same company you likely had a poor experience with. Only recent guns I've heard major issues with are the 8 shot .357's, but that seems to be across the board with S&W and Ruger as well. I imagine getting the timing right is hard and a few stout loads can get it out of sync real quick.
Hey braddah, i bought a S&W 686 brand new in 1998 and still own it today, I wouldn't get rid of the gun for anything!!!!
I heard once that when the company was sold in the 70s Taurus bought some of the equipment so their pistols were made on the same machines that S&W had used prior to the sale. That explains the similar look.
I got real lucky at a gun show back in the 90s as I was walking in the door to the show the first booth I went to had a S&W 686 6 shot revolver. I bought it for 295.00 and couldn't be happier with it. It wsa used but I couldn't see a mark on the gun. Happy, happy.
$300 more yea S&W is tighter, has a better finish, and a bit more accurate but unless you're into target competition you probably are not going to be bothered that much. With the $300 you save you can get a good used revolver then you have two for the same price as one S&W.
Or you can use that money for more ammo to practice with. 😉
Finn Macky Yea that ammo is very expensive.
I've also heard that current production S&W 686s aren't nearly as nice as the pre-lock models.
Myanameis Beestingz Oh no - that is not good news when things get worse.
ungertron It's hardly a surprise though. Technology goes up, craftsmanship goes down.
I have a M 66 combat mag since 1981 and a mountain lite 7 shot love them both. Carry tn woods
I do know this is an older video. But is on a subject matter that is near and dear to my heart. I have owned both Smith and Wesson and Taurus revolvers. As you pointed out they're virtually the same the quality control between the two is obvious and for the extra money that would be the Smith & Wesson. That's not saying there is anything wrong with the Taurus both will serve you well. Personally if you're on a budget or just don't want to spend a huge amount of money on a decent revolver Taurus is the way to go. The money you save can go towards ammo and training.
As far as lockup I noticed on the Taurus there was a little bit of Wiggle, which was not excessive but does hinder accuracy a little bit. The Smith & Wesson was tight and the accuracy was obvious due to that fact. As far as the coil spring versus the flat mainspring there's really no difference.
Overall very good production of your video. I would expect nothing less from an infantry squad leader. At least if I remember correctly my Marine MOS correctly that is what 0365 is. Anyhow thank you for the video.
SEMPER FI..
My wife bought me a 4.125" 686, 7-shot . Great gun ...... highly recommended
I own a S&W K-frame (Model 88), and I concur that it's real easy to clean. Taurus makes a great revolver, no joke, and my first firearm was a Taurus revolver. I use Remoil to clean with and it gets the gunge out of my Model 941.
+desdecardo des, thanks for the views, and man so much easier to clean!
Great video. The superiority of Smith & Wesson is obvious. The accuracy issue ALONE justifies the added cost (especially since 357 ammo is expensive).
UN-BIASED OPINION!
I was shopping for my first revolver. I went to a gun shop with a shooting range. I shot a Taurus 686 and a S&W 629 with a few dozen rounds of .357 tmj. The Taurus banged on every shot. So did the S&W. They both "looked" very similar, but completely different quality standards.
The Taurus had a rough/sloppy trigger, sloppy cylinder, too fat of a grip for me personally, dinner plate groups at 15 yards, and got dirty very fast.
The S&W had a smooth trigger, took more rounds to get dirty, had a more comfortable grip for my smaller hands, shot tighter groups and the cylinder was tighter than the Taurus. The Taurus works, but the S&W works better. I'm saving that extra $300 for the S&W.
You won't ever regret it. Love my S&W 686.
I’ve got a 1987 model 686s and I’ve ran thousands of rounds through it.......almost 35 years later it still shoots like a dream..... The only thing better than that is my 1925 police positive 38 police special....I 95-year-old work of art. I can hit a quarter at 25 yards.....Four out of six shots. Not bad for an old blind guy.
I owned a Smith model 27 357 and it was the most accurate pistol I have owned. I made the mistake of selling it which was one of the worst decisions I have ever made. I own a 686 now which is a great gun but the 27 had a little tighter group.
I believe both S&W and Taurus were both owned by Bangor Punta at one time, and probably shared a lot of tooling and technique.
They were, but the Bangor Punta era was not the best for quality control for either Smith and Wesson or Taurus. To the Smith purists the Bangor guns aren't as desirable, which is not to say some good ones weren't made my either company at that time, but both did turn out more lemons!!!
686 I used to shoot competition with mine wouldn't have another revolver loved it still love it I even did an overhaul on it myself
Nice review, however I'm sticking with the Taurus revolver. Saves money I love mine. Three daughters and tuition I like the Taurus
I will tell you something else about the Taurus you didn't know. Take a Magnet to the Smith & Wesson. You will notice that it doesn't attract that much. Where as on the Taurus it will noticeably attract more. The reason is the metal used especially in the older Taurus models contained more steel, (way less quality stainless). Taurus chambers are sloppy (in revolvers), you can test this by firing same ammo in both then trying to fit the empty casings into each gun one from the other. You should find that the Taurus spent casings either wont fit or are very much tighter in the Smith & Wesson. The Smith & Wesson spent casings will chamber almost without effort (when guns are not dirty) in the Taurus. This will give you an indication of how tight the chambers are. You want tighter chambers for accuracy in most cases (Semi-autos are an exception).
Because the stainless steel is of lesser quality in older Taurus(dont know about new ones) than Smith & Wesson's. That is probably why the Taurus is harder to clean as to the removal of fouling. A Taurus will through normal use wear out faster. More internal parts breakage and worn out barrel. So in essence you get what you pay for. Want a gun to last get a Smith & Wesson. Need a gun that your not going to shoot much, get the Taurus.
I suspected the Taurus of being made from a lower quality stainless as soon as I started getting rust freckles along one side of the barrel. I've only had it for about two months but after only about a week of handling it the freckles started showing up, just enough time for the factory protectant to wear off I guess.
@@wizardofahhhs759 , what i know about Taurus is that sometime in the late 70s to early 80s, S&W opened a manufacturing plant in Brazil. But almost immediately there were problems. Brazil's political turmoil combined with transportation costs. Undermined S&W hopes of profit. The market slipped and they ended up selling the company complete with dies and tooling. This meant that whoever bought the company (Taurus?) could make exact replicas of the famous and noteworthy S&W's and undersell American made guns. Which Taurus did. They accomplished this by making guns with lesser quality metals and less accurate tooling. Two things hurt Taurus; 1) They didn't have a lifetime warranty (they do now). 2) American gun owners resented copycat firearms (which they mostly stopped doing???). Taurus has been a major bane for S&W. It has caused S&W to cut back on quality slightly and the checking for quality. S&W made a major blunder selling the plant to a company that owns Taurus. If I was S&W I would of taken all the tooling and dies shipped them back to the USA and used them when i needed them.
@@GunDrone Until recently I wondered how Taurus could get away with making guns that look almost identical to the S&W until I started digging around doing a little research. They also make "knockoff" Berettas too.
@@wizardofahhhs759 , this is also true and those suck. My understanding is Beretta sold a manufacturing plant to them too. I cant however ever remember seeing a real S&W that says, "Made in Brazil". I would think that would be rare and collectible indeed.
Great review, mahalo nui Kimo.
I believe the Taurus 689 frame is basically a clone of the S&W (model 66) K-Frame whereas the S&W 686 is made in the slightly larger and heavier L-Frame. The L-Frame S&W will hold up to a steady diet of 357 magnum loads much better than a Taurus K-frame clone at least in theory. I have owned both revolvers and liked them both but if I had to choose one it would be the L-Frame S&W due to it being stronger and smoother with a tad better build quality (which of course you pay for).
Nothing against Taurus, I still own 2 a model 94 22L, and a model 44 in 44 magnum. Not parting with either of these anytime soon. Taurus a nice value for those on a tight budget. ALOHA.
Another really good review Kimo. Informative as usual. Aloha
thanks Ola now guy buy the Taurus on 2a cheeee
I've owned both, and with amount of shooting I do, I wouldn't spend the extra for the Smith unless I got the 3" 686+.
I love my 686 ! Nothing like shooting a revolver, Old school!!🇺🇸😎
I used to have a Taurus exactly like that, I believe it was called the "Model 669"; because it didn't have the vented rib like your's on top, it was a completely solid rib, but it was a .357Mag w/ a 4" barrel & polished finish just like that.
She was surely a sweet shooter, stupidly accurate, & honestly for me it was super easy to clean unlike my M686 CS1 Mod.0 ["No-Dash"] w/ a 4" barrel & matte-finish (the CS1 [& CS2] was for "Customs"/"I.C.E." w/ 3" or 4" barrel options & it was strictly round-butt, & they were made before the normal M686 that was for the public, so the "M686 CS1 Mod.0" IS THE ORIGINAL "M686"; the "Mod.0" means "Modification 0", which I guess would be like the "dash-nomenclature" although there wasn't any "dash-models" of the CS1 & CS2, just Mod.0 through Mod.4 or Mod.5), my M686 CS1 Mod.0 is one tough cookie to clean w/o a doubt in mind.
I guess the matte-finish on the CS1 makes the residue stick to it harder than a polished gun, at least that's the case for me.
Now if I was to clean her right there & then when done shooting her, it wouldn't be such a problem, but I ain't gonna' do that EVERY-SINGLE-DANG-TIME when I get done shooting her.
I LOVE my M686 CS1 Mod.0, but that Taurus M669 I had was a real damn beauty too & I really really freakin' regret getting rid of her, if I hadn't of though then I honestly wouldn't of been able to get my Kel-Tec RDB Bullpup rifle that I got myself.
Which my Kel-Tec RDB is also special since it was actually a finalised experimental-model that somehow ended up out here in my small town in Oklahoma.
I did have to send her back to Kel-Tec though because her firing-pin broke when I was using the red-tipped Hornandy ammo, but Kel-Tec's customer service was absolutely amazing & they fixed her up immediately & sent her back to me in like a week's time or less, they did a damn fine job & [to me at least] have one fine customer-service plan/warranty/service.
Soooooo yeah, that's that!! ✌👌👍
💯💯💯💯💯💯💯
Very nice review. My taurus 689 was manufactured in 2013 and I shot about 1500 rounds. The cylinder remains tight as same as shown with Smith. But I have no doubt , I know that the smith is a better weapon.
Cheers from Brazil.
I hope I never have to sell mine Mahalo from Hawaii
+1 for SW, I own 686 6", fantastic , not the easiest to carry but accuracy and feel is first rate
Nice review. Thanks for posting! Love the Lava Walls at the range. Wish I had lava walls!! Looking forward to the Vs Ruger reiview. Love my GP100 and Security Six.
thanks red!
The S&W no questions. But I have six S&W and three Taurus. I have J, K, & L frame. Good video.
And the venting on the Rob DOES provide a function.
It allows for more rapid cooling of the barrel, as well as helping to prevent such overheat that the barrel begins to anneal (not a good thing).
It also slightly lightens the gun, which has both positive and negative aspects.
The biggest “positive” is that it is slightly lighter. Only by about 2.5 Oz. On the 6” barrel, though.
And the biggest negative of the ported-rib on the barrel is that this makes the barrel lighter, and thus can “jump/climb” more during recoil... But the lighter weight also means faster recovery.
The Taurus 689 was a copy of the S&W 686/586, with touches of the Colt Python thrown-in.
It is basically a .357 version of a Rossi 851/951 although the Rossi 851’s barrel is slightly different (aside from the full-underlug being squared-off, rather than rounded like the Taurus 689, the Front-Sights for the 851 came in 3 different varieties: 1) Identical to the Taurus 689, being a triangular blade, with a cutout for a colored-resign indicator; 2) the bottom-half of the Triangular sight being a ramp that is about ½ the thickness of the ported-rib; and 3) The Ribbed-rail having a ramp across its entire width curved-up into a platform for the Front-Sight), with the Rossi 851 being constructed to take .38 +P ammunition.
Another Revolver related to these two is the Armscor Model 210. Rather than being a copy of the S&W 686/586, the Model 210 is a copy of the Colt Diamondback, which was itself a copy of the Colt Python, on a smaller-frame, intended to shoot .38 Special +P ammunition.
The Armscor M210 came in several different variations, with earlier versions having the squared underlug like the Rossi 851/951, but with the Vented-Rib cutouts looking like the Colt Diamondback/Python (1 cutout per 2”, rather than 1 cutout every 1.33”, like on the Rossi 851/951 and Taurus 689). The Front-Sights on the early-model Armscor M210s also were modeled after the Rossi 851/951, with the weird “ramps” on the rib slanting/curving up to form a raised-platform for the Front-Sight Blade. A “platform” that could be either ½ the width of the rib, or its full-width.
But after the first few years of production, the barrel of the Armscor M210 was changed such that it is indistinguishable from a Colt Diamondback/Python, with the cylindrical underlug, and the triangular Front-Sight Blade mounted directly on the rib, without any “platform.”
I also own a Colt Diamondback and an Armscor M210, both made to shoot .38 Special +P without any problems, and where it is really difficult to distinguish the two for the later-models of the Armscor M210 and the Diamondback. Unless you saw any brand-markings on either revolver, it would be impossible to tell them apart by sight alone.
The Armscor M210 did have some parts wear-out more quickly (and most parts are interchangeable WITH a Colt Diamondback, but not grips, and the mainsprings on both are different), such as the Cylinder-Pin that helps to maintain both Headspace AND the seal on the barrel forcing-cone... On the M210, the Cylinder will begin to have a bit of “give” to it (if you shake the emptied gun Back-and-Forth along the length of the barrel you will begin to hear the cylinder sliding ever so slightly back-and-forth after about four to five years of heavy use, while the Colt will remain as tight as the day it was born).
try cream of tarter to clean your stainless, i shoot a model 44SS6 Taurus and it is my pick,just saying. i want performance. without testing many of each then just testing one of each is not proof enough for me. thanks for the video,very interesting.
On the Lock up. Who is to say that the Taurus in your match-up hasn't had more use than the S&W causing the looseness.
I've had my TAURUS 357 Magnum for 35 Years with very little use and it's Lock up is similar to your S&W. I Now own a Taurus PT609 Pro 9MM Brazilian Police Sidearm. Purchased the 9mm and a Mossberg 12Ga Shotgun models unknown and sight unseen for $150 from a lady I work with... (She didn't want them in the house)
Thanks So Much for the Very Nice Review. I have been trying to figure out the difference between the Taurus 608 and the S-W TRR8, M327 and 627. They are all 8rd and look to be great shooters.
Taurus has very smooth Trigger on that specific model. Additionally, the Smith cyclinder will get much looser after a box of shells. But if you want a good pistol.... get a Ruger.
Lockup and grouping sold me on the Smith. Cleanup is not an issue for me as I would hand polish using flitz anyway.
I own two Taurus Revolvers. One in .357 Magnum. It is the Tracker model with a 4" ported barrel and it is seven shot. I really like it and it shoots as good as my S&W revolvers. The only difference is the price. I love S&W, but you are paying for the name as well as quality. In Taurus you are paying for quality and that is it.
I was handed down a Taurus 689 from 1989. I know absolutely nothing about the revolver but this video helped me quite a bit on how it handles against its American counterpart.
+Caleb Smithwick its a good one
A few weeks ago, I needed to purchase a revolver in order to prepare for becoming a License to Carry Instructor. Since, I have never owned a revolver before, I consulted several gun shows, competitive shooters, and gunsmiths for advice. I informed them I was considering the major three revolvers (Taurus, Ruger, and Smith & Wesson). Over 90 percent of the recommendations were to stay away from the Taurus because although it is an good gun at a decent price point; it has to be shipped back to the Taurus factory for any type of repair work. Which means that it will take 6 -8 weeks or longer to get your revolver back. Every gunsmith stated that they can not get parts for the Taurus revolvers, they can only ship them to the factory on your behalf!. So, if you believe that your revolver won't need repair or you shoot less than 100 rounds a month, then a Taurus might be the way to go.
Use a Birchwood Casey Lead Removal Cloth to clean the residue from the flutes. It also works well to completely remove burn rings from the front of the cylinder (will remove the finish from a blued cylinder though).
Loved this vid. I have a Taurus 689 myself and now I know how it compares to the 686. Suffice to say, I don't think I'll need a 686 as the finish and how harder it is to clean compared to the 686 doesn't bother me as much, and the cylinder lock bit, to me as long as it's capable of 2-inch groups on DA shots fired at 10 yards I'm okay with it (my 689 I think is a little more accurate though, as it has a 6-inch barrel).
Anyway, liked and subscribed. Keep these videos coming.
Lance thanks a bunch man. gp100 is up next!
Great review my friend, love the camerawork at the end especially!
thanks A Mahalo for the views
Great review. just got the Smith a few months ago and I love it
Which revolver was your load tuned to ?
Or did you tune the load independently for each revolver ?
Now that’s what I call a Real 686. No lock, flash chromed hammer and trigger and Goncalo Alves grips!
I have a Smith 586 and a Taurus 65. Both .357mag. I don't know if the 65 had trigger work, but it has an amazing trigger. L frame vs. approximately K frame.
I habe a 686 and i love that thing! :D
Hey Kimo, What day did you go to Koko Head? Every time I went there it was never empty?
That was many moons ago most likely weekday morning
If you're getting more fouling in the cylinder flutes of the Taurus, there may be a bit more of a cylinder gap.
I would say that you are very much correct. I had purchased a Taurus 66 and sold it because of the blast I was getting while shooting. I got a new model S&W 66, and even with lesser quality of the new Smith, no such blast. I am no expert, but the Smith was, and is, a much tighter weapon.
my taurus m82 4" satin can shoot groups at roughly 1" at 7 yards. it's a tight shooting pistol.
Paul Fisher haven't a problem with my 709 slim half inch groupings at seven yards and 1 inch at 15 , sights zeroed in like a scud missile lol
I'm in love with my 6" 689.
+Chief Whis-san Sosa #FAO good stuff! Oh man android 17 meets goku this week
I was not impressed with the Taurus at my local dealer. Seriously considered the 686 fro Smith but in the end bought a Ruger GP100. Thousands of rounds later I am very happy with the Ruger. Sleeved cylinder and key lock on new Smiths along with all of the quality issues of late made Ruger my choice. As far as Taurus, maybe the one at my dealer was manufactured on a day where the quality control people were at an offsite meeting?
I believe both the 2 guns in the video are older models. The cylinder release lever is different now on both guns. Plus the S&W now has a built in lock in the side of the frame which most people do not like. I believe the Taurus no longer offers the barrel with a ventilated rib anymore. Although Rossi does offer a similar revolver with the ventilated Rib Barrel in .38 special. Rossi only offers the gun in a Blued finish. Although I did recently buy one of the Rossi .38 Special Revolvers with the Ventilated Rib Barrel in Stainless Steel. It is an older model from the 90's back when they were imported by Interarms of Virginia.
its fantastic. if you want some decent stopping power- load with 357. if you want manageable one handed stopping power get those .38 specials in there! I'm using the .38 special for home defense so i can flashlight in one hand and easily shoot one handed.
I've owned many S&W and Taurus handguns over the years and I love the fact Taurus revolvers are a close copy of S&W models. Taurus has come a long way since the 70's and 80's and IMHO their current handgun offering is of excellent quality and I wouldn't have any problem carrying a Taurus for personal or home protection. I've owned the old Beretta copy PT92 in 9mm and PT58 in .380acp. You couldn't ask for more reliable handguns for such a low price :)
+foskten10 will be working a beretta v pt video sometimes this year thanks for the watching
My first time viewing your channel. Really well thought out and straight to the point. I kept thinking while watching, that I could have a Taurus in each hand for the price of the Smith... But there's a shelf of S&W revolvers in my safe that aren't havin' non of that!
hey Tony thanks for watching. Smiths are sweet. their booth at show show was crazy. did you have a chance to view the gp100 v Smith video?
+Reload Hawaii Not yet. I'll get to it now.
Great video, very detailed and thorough!!
Thank you! I am a little shocked to find that the Taurus has the coil spring and the Smith the leaf type.I've read that the coil is a better design. But if you can't tell the difference than there's no difference, I would say. And I would definetly take that Taurus for less over the Smith. Frankly the Taurus is a little sexier looking to me, maybe like another viewer noted the old vent rib design kinda harkens back to the beautiful Colt Python( and the Llama Comanche had that look as well an I'm sure others too.)
Smith and Korth are the best❤
Very good review over all. I noticed at the end of the video with the cylinders open, that the walls of the forcing cone of the Taurus 689 appears to to be significantly thinner or was that due to the lighting.
Love ur channel bro. Great reviews