The Taurus 856 still isn't the 642, and that matters more than the price gap

@counter_rat1mo agoSee in graph →

I'll cut to it: yes, Taurus quality has improved. No, it hasn't improved enough to make the 856 the rational choice if you can actually afford the 642.

Look, I sell both. The 856 walks out of here regularly — usually because someone's on a hard budget or wants a backup gun and doesn't want to sink $450 into it. That's a legitimate use case. For that customer, the 856 does what it's supposed to do: it's a five-shot .38 that goes bang reliably enough. I've had fewer lemons come back than I did five years ago. Taurus fixed some real problems with their QC.

But here's where the value math breaks: the 642 has institutional reliability. S&W's j-frame has thirty-plus years of actual carry data. Holster makers design for it. Gunsmiths can tune it. If your 642 breaks — and it won't — finding parts and someone who knows them is trivial. Try that with the 856. I've had two 856 customers call asking about trigger jobs. I told them to call Taurus's warranty, because I'm not touching it and I don't know anyone locally who will.

The trigger on the 642 is also, still, noticeably better out of the box. That matters in a defensive revolver more than people admit. The 856's trigger isn't *bad* anymore, but you're pulling through sand compared to what Smith gives you.

Cost-wise, we're talking $250–300 difference depending on what's in stock. That's not huge. For a carry gun — something you're betting your life on — I'd rather spend it and own the gun everyone's been carrying since Clinton was president. I know what its problems are. I can fix them. I can recommend with confidence. When I hand someone a 642, I'm not thinking about whether the firing pin retainer's going to stay put.

The Taurus 856 is a competent gun now. I'm not running it down. But "competent" and "as good as the alternative" aren't the same thing, and in the snub-nose market, they still aren't. If budget is the real constraint, the 856 makes sense — that's not weakness talking, that's reality. But if you're trying to decide between them and money isn't the limiting factor, spend the extra and own peace of mind.

EDC (Everyday Carry).38 Special

4 replies

@wheelgun.dave23d ago
You're spot on about the trigger and institutional support. But there's something else worth mentioning: the 642's timing and cylinder gap are tighter than the 856, and that gap only gets worse with use. The 642's been refined through thousands of rounds across thousands of guns. Taurus improved their QC, sure, but they haven't solved the fundamental issue—their tolerances wander. I've measured it. The 856 shoots fine new, but after a few hundred rounds that gap opens up. The 642 stays consistent. In a snub-nose you don't shoot much, so maybe it doesn't matter. But if you're actually training with the gun, the difference compounds. You're also right about the gunsmiths—I wouldn't touch an 856 timing without Taurus blessing it, and honestly I wouldn't bless it myself. The 642's geometry is proven. For a carry gun, that matters.
@shop.rat14d ago
Dave's measuring the gap—that's the right instinct. But let me ask: are you checking it at the same point in the cylinder rotation on both guns, and are you accounting for what the hand is actually doing during lockup?
I've had both platforms on the bench enough to know where the real separation is. The 642's hand and stop are tighter toleranced, yeah, but the actual diagnostic tells a different story if you're methodical about it. What I've found: the 856's extractor tension varies gun to gun. Some of mine measured loose right out of the box—not dangerous, but you can feel the slop in the indexing before you ever fire a shot. The 642's extractor is remarkably consistent. That's the institutional knowledge showing: S&W figured out the hand tension and spring rate decades ago and stuck with it.
Cylinder gap opens on both with use, but you're right that the 642 starts from a better baseline. Where it matters more than people think: throat erosion compounds with loose indexing. The 856's looser hand means the round isn't seated as precisely, and if you're actually *training* like Dave said, that throat gets worked harder.
I won't touch either one's timing without understanding what I'm correcting. The 642, I can dial in because I know the spec and the geometry's proven. The 856—I'd need Taurus's tolerance stack to be confident I'm not chasing a problem that's systemic to that particular gun versus out-of-spec.
@kept.simple8d ago
Both of you are measuring real things, but here's what matters for actual carry: how often does either gun fail to fire when it counts.
I've carried a 642 for twelve years. Shot it regularly—not mall ninja volume, but honest defensive drills. Never had a failure that wasn't ammunition-related. I know three people running 856s for carry. One had an ejector issue at month four. Two are fine at one year and two years respectively.
That's not a sample size. That's anecdote. But it's the only data most of us actually have access to: people we know, guns we've seen run.
Here's the pragmatic threshold: if your carry gun fails to fire, the cylinder gap and timing quality matter because they indicate *why* it failed. But the real question is whether you're hitting that failure mode in the first place. The 642 has thirty years of people betting their safety on it. The 856 has two years of people doing the same, and the failure modes are still emerging.
I'm not saying don't carry the 856. I'm saying: if you can afford the 642, the peace of mind isn't about tighter tolerances—it's about knowing how the gun actually breaks, and it breaks rarely. With the Taurus, you're still finding out.
For home defense where you're shooting it twice a year? The gap doesn't matter. For carry where it's your third hand? You're buying ammunition for a problem you hope you never have. Spend the $300. Own the gun people have actually proven works.
@counter_rat5d ago
I've transferred both platforms for eight years now. The bound book's honest if you know how to read it—not just serial numbers, but dates, and who comes back.
Here's what I see: 642s almost never come back. Not "rarely." Almost never. In eight years I can name three—two were used purchases where the previous owner had already put five thousand rounds through it, one was drop damage. Smith covers that under warranty anyway.
The 856? I've had seven transfers come back in that same window. Three were within ninety days—firing pin issues, cylinder stop wear, one extractor that wouldn't hold a round. Four made it past that and showed up at twelve to eighteen months. That's not a small pattern when you're talking about a gun that's supposed to be your last resort.
Dave and shop.rat are measuring real things. They're right. But what matters to me in the transfer column is simpler: which gun do I know won't be back here as a warranty hassle in six months, and which one probably will be?
I don't think the 856 is a bad gun. I think it's still a young gun. Taurus's QC curve points up—I'll grant that. But the 642 isn't expensive because S&W overcharges. It's expensive because eight years of my transfer data says it works. The 856's data still has pages left to write, and so far they're not blank.
The $300 difference? You're not buying metallurgy. You're buying eight years of evidence instead of two. That's worth the cash.