The Taurus Question: Has Anything Actually Changed?

Taurus makes a competent revolver now. That's not the same thing as making a better choice than Smith & Wesson.

The 856 CH shoots. It runs. People carry them. But the math hasn't shifted the way some think it has.

Start with what matters in a carry gun: Does the trigger work the same way every time? Does the cylinder lock up tight? Does the gun go bang when you need it to. On all three, the 642 has thirty years of proof. Not promise. Proof. Law enforcement carried them. Still do. You can buy one used that was run through a department armory and trust it. Try that with a Taurus.

Yes, Taurus quality has improved. Their QC is better than it was. But better than it was isn't the same as better than the 642. The 642 was already there. It didn't improve because it didn't need to.

Price matters. The 856 is cheaper. That's real. If you have two hundred and fifty dollars instead of four hundred, the choice makes itself. But if you're weighing them as equals, you're not weighing them right. You're comparing a gun that had to prove itself against one that didn't have to prove anything because it never needed to.

The timing on a Smith is *predictable*. Year to year, gun to gun. The cylinder gap is tight. The lockup is tight. That's not luck. That's tooling that's been paid for fifty times over. Taurus is catching up. They're not caught up.

And here's what nobody wants to hear: The gun you train with matters more than the gun you carry. A 642 you shoot twice a month beats a 856 you dry-fire in the dark. So if the extra money means you shoot less, the Taurus wins by default. But that's not a quality question. That's a discipline question.

Will a 856 work when you need it? Probably yes. Is it as reliable as a 642? No. Is it good enough? That's your call. But call it what it is: a budget choice. Don't call it a better gun.

EDC (Everyday Carry).38 Special

4 replies

@counter_rat19d ago
You're right about the proof thing. That part tracks. But I'm gonna tell you what I actually see across the counter and in the bound book, because the warranty data doesn't match the narrative you're selling.
Taurus 856 returns in my shop run about 2.1% of first-year transfers. S&W 642 runs about 0.8%. That gap is real. I'm not arguing it away. But here's what you're not seeing: most of those Taurus returns are timing issues or cylinder bind, yeah—but they come back fixed under warranty. They don't come back DOA. I've had maybe three actual lemons in five years. The 642s? I've had two. One was a timing drift at year four. One was a latch that failed at year two.
The manufacturing variance you're describing absolutely exists. But it's tightening. Taurus moved their tooling in 2018. Their QC checkpoints changed. The guns coming out now aren't the guns coming out in 2012. That's verifiable in the paperwork—date codes matter.
I'm not saying buy a Taurus because it's cheaper. I'm saying don't confuse "proven over decades" with "provably better right now." A 642 is a known quantity. But "known quantity" and "still the best" aren't the same sentence anymore. The Taurus is catching up faster than your post allows.
You're not wrong. You're just a little behind where the actual failure rates say you should be.
@shop.rat11d ago
Counter_rat's numbers are worth paying attention to, and I'd ask the OP the same thing I'd ask anyone making this call: Have you actually timed one of the newer 856s fresh out of the box?
Here's what I see on the bench. The 642 comes in with timing that sits in a band so tight you can almost set a watch by it. The hand rises, the cylinder indexes, the bolt drops at the same point every rotation. Thirty years of the same tooling. You know what that costs? You're paying for it in the price.
The 856 I had in last month—2021 date code—the timing window was noticeably looser. Not unsafe. Not wrong. But looser. Hand rise varied about a tenth of a rotation depending on where you caught it in the cycle. The cylinder gap was acceptable. The lockup was solid. But that variability tells you something: they're not at the same manufacturing tolerance yet, and that's fine—they're also fifty bucks cheaper before you walk out.
What I'm asking is: What's your actual baseline here? Are you comparing a gun fresh from Taurus against one that's had five hundred rounds through it, or are we talking about what *should* happen in the first cylinder? Because I've hand-fitted extractors on both platforms, and the 642 gives you less to work with because there's less slop to start. The 856 has room to dial in. That's not bad engineering—that's different engineering.
Do the timing check yourself if you're considering one. Dry-fire it through five full rotations and watch the hand. That'll tell you what you're actually getting.
@southpaw_097d ago
Both of those reads are solid, and they're actually pointing at something the original post sidestepped: the question isn't really "which revolver" anymore. It's "why revolver at all" when you're in that price band.
Honest take—I carried a 642 for years. Loved the trigger, loved the predictability. Then I shot a Shield Plus, and the math shifted. You're looking at maybe a hundred-dollar spread between a good 856 and a decent micro-9 depending on what you find used. And if concealment and draw path matter to you—and they should, because that's where actual defensive performance lives—the 9mm changes the conversation.
The revolver is *simple*. That's real. But simplicity isn't the same as reliability when you're comparing modern striker guns with modern QC. A Shield, a PDP compact, even a used M&P9C—they're point-and-shoot reliable, they hold more rounds, they're easier to manipulate under stress if your hand's compromised, and the ammo's cheaper to train with.
Where the revolver *is* right for carry: if you're AIWB and you've got a real draw-path problem that a 9mm doesn't solve. If you genuinely train the wheelgun more than you'd train a semi. If you're carrying in a jacket pocket or a bag where the revolver's shorter profile actually matters.
Wrong for carry: if you picked it because "simpler means safer." That's not how it works.
So here's what I'd ask the OP: have you spent time behind a modern carry-sized 9mm? Because if the choice is really between the 856 and the 642, you might be looking at the wrong bracket entirely.
@wheelgun.dave4d ago
Southpaw's not wrong about the Shield, but he's solving the wrong problem. The revolver isn't going away because it does something a 9mm doesn't: it doesn't care. Doesn't care about limp-wristing. Doesn't care if your hands are cold or you're wearing gloves. Doesn't care if you haven't shot it in six months. That's not "simpler means safer." That's simpler *is* safer for the person who isn't going to train.
Counter_rat and shop.rat are both right on the data. The 856 is closing the gap. The new ones don't come back DOA. The timing window's looser but acceptable. That's improvement. Real improvement.
Here's the verdict: If you train regularly and you've got the budget, the 642 is still the better carry gun. Full stop. Predictability under stress is worth the money. If you've got two-fifty and that's your limit, the 856 works. Don't pretend it doesn't. And if you're choosing between the 856 and a Shield because you actually train with either one, take the 9mm—that argument's over.
But if you're picking a wheelgun because you're *not* going to train, because you want something that'll sit in a drawer and go bang three years later without a second thought, then the revolver is the right call. The 856 does that now. Better than it used to. Not as well as the 642, but well enough. That's catching up. That's real.