Taurus Jamming Problem

[IndyBeerman]

Bought a 709 slim and have had nothing but trouble. It has a failure to eject on every magazine. I will say, I was very accurate with it. I will be getting rid of it and will get a glock.

Seen that Bapak2ja replied as I was typing this.

I'm betting you have a first run an older model, there was an ejection problem with the initial run of them that has
been fixed. Up thread Bapak2ja stated he sent his back in and and was fixed and runs great now.

The only handguns I own are Taurus's, currently have 4, and owned two others also. Not a single problem with any of them.
709 Slim, PT940, PT809 and PT845. Just wish Taurus would have came out with the .22 conversion kits for the 800 series,
would have been great to plink with and save $$$'s.

My 709 runs flawless with everything.

 

[Bapak2ja]

I sold off my G26 for enough to buy two Tauri. I experienced increased accuracy over the G26, easier handling, excellent performance.

Nimrodknaack, I wil take that piece of junk off your hands. I know it is a piece of junk, but I would be willing to give you $50 and drive down from the Fort to save you the trouble.

 

[chezuki]

Taurus Jamming Problem

"Department of Redundancy Department, how may I help you?"

I know this is an old thread and some on here will swear by their "flawless taurus", but of the 2 taurus pistols I've had experience with, neither could run an entire mag without a malfunction. IMO they are right there with bryco and Jennings.

 

[chezuki]

I sold off my G26 for enough to buy two Tauri. I experienced increased accuracy over the G26, easier handling, excellent performance.

You may not shoot the Glock as well as you do the Taurus, but I'd wager it has nothing to do with the accuracy of the pistol.

 

[churchmouse]

I have had a few Taurus pieces. One was a total turd and the rest were OK.
I have heard the story's.
My EDC for a long time was a 24/7 tactical poly with rail. I got it in a trade along with 5 mags. Took it to the range and ran a torture test. Dumped all 5 mags flawlessly. Re-loaded and repeated....again, no issues. Re-loaded....same result. That gun never went sideways on me....ever.
My son carried it for a while until it was traded due to boredom.
We have a Tracker in .17 HMR that has done in a few Coyote.
Just my personal experience.

 

[mk2ja]

You may not shoot the Glock as well as you do the Taurus, but I'd wager it has nothing to do with the accuracy of the pistol.

I know what you're getting at, and in a sense you're right. However, it wasn't just him. Myself, my older brother (prior Army NG 11B), and even one of the guys from the old H&H firearms in Fort Wayne had trouble with that G26. (Plus, the way that the magazines fit into the magwell left a space between the bottom of the grip and the top of the baseplate which literally caused blood blisters on fingers… it was strange because other G26s didn't do that, but it was still another reason he was looking to move on.)

Anyway, back to the first point: I think there *is* something to be said for weapon design that allows a new shooter to simply pick it up and instantly see increased accuracy. Glocks are great pistols, but I think it is a weak argument to say that they have natural point-and-shoot accuracy; people often talk about the grip angle being aggressive and requiring some muscle memory training, for example. But when we took the Taurus 24/7 to the range for the first time… wow, the accuracy on the very first trip was just outstanding. A weapon may be exceptionally accurate when fired by a machine on a brace in a lab, but if its design allows a new shooter to see that kind of improvement instantly—well, that's a good design (as far as accuracy goes, that is; durability notwithstanding).

 

[Mgderf]

Anyway, back to the first point: I think there *is* something to be said for weapon design that allows a new shooter to simply pick it up and instantly see increased accuracy. Glocks are great pistols, but I think it is a weak argument to say that they have natural point-and-shoot accuracy; people often talk about the grip angle being aggressive and requiring some muscle memory training, for example. But when we took the Taurus 24/7 to the range for the first time… wow, the accuracy on the very first trip was just outstanding. A weapon may be exceptionally accurate when fired by a machine on a brace in a lab, but if its design allows a new shooter to see that kind of improvement instantly—well, that's a good design (as far as accuracy goes, that is; durability notwithstanding).

You've basically just described the firearm aspect of "ergonomics". The study of comfortable, user-friendly designs that encourage more proficient use of a product.

Ergonomic design can be the deciding factor in some applications.

 

[chezuki]

Exactly. I am a better shot with my M&P's than I ever was with my Glocks, but it don't believe the Glocks were inherently less accurate.

 

[mk2ja]

Exactly. I am a better shot with my M&P's than I ever was with my Glocks, but it don't believe the Glocks were inherently less accurate.

So perhaps a shared definition of "accuracy" is what we lack. If a particular weapon cannot be fired by a person accurately, is it actually accurate? If it can only be fired accurately in a lab with testing equipment, does this count as accuracy? Depends on the definition.

 

[chezuki]

So perhaps a shared definition of "accuracy" is what we lack. If a particular weapon cannot be fired by a person accurately, is it actually accurate? If it can only be fired accurately in a lab with testing equipment, does this count as accuracy? Depends on the definition.

You or I not shooting a particular weapon well is a far cry different than saying it can't be done outside of a lab. Certain guns shoot more "naturally" for certain people, but that doesn't mean other people can't learn to shoot them well. Accuracy potential is determined by hardware. How much of that potential is achieved depends on software.

 

[mk2ja]

You or I not shooting a particular weapon well is a far cry different than saying it can't be done outside of a lab. Certain guns shoot more "naturally" for certain people, but that doesn't mean other people can't learn to shoot them well. Accuracy potential is determined by hardware. How much of that potential is achieved depends on software.

Well put. "Accuracy potential" was a phrase well chosen. I like that.

So, as long as we agree that some people shoot some guns better than others, maybe we can ease off of comments like this one, which imply a lack of skill instead of simply being a type of shooter not well adapted to a certain type of gun.

You may not shoot the Glock as well as you do the Taurus, but I'd wager it has nothing to do with the accuracy of the pistol.

#StickinUpForMyPa

Related: I'll reiterate that several of us had problems with that particular G26.

 

[chezuki]

maybe we can ease off of comments like this one, which imply a lack of skill instead of simply being a type of shooter not well adapted to a certain type of gun.

This was my point all along. I was never implying a lack of skill. I can't hit **** with a 1911, even high end ones. That doesn't mean they are inherently inaccurate or that I am a bad shot.

 

[mk2ja]

This was my point all along. I was never implying a lack of skill. I can't hit **** with a 1911, even high end ones. That doesn't mean they are inherently inaccurate or that I am a bad shot.

Well sir, then we may simply have to agree to agree about this. I don't see any other way around it at this point