Nope. They are equally shitty.Originally Posted by Corvus
Nope. They are equally shitty.
No disagreement on the fact we do reload and can sort our brass.
Pat
I have 2 moon clip revolvers. One a 25 mountain gun that started life as a 45 colt and then I had the cylinder cut to take 45 acp with moon clips and the other is the 625 JM both run great.
Other than occasionally bending a moonclip when I was inexperienced and didn't know what I was doing wrong, I never had an ignition issue with any of the three .45ACP 625s I've owned, and a couple of them saw at least moderately serious round counts. (I've never fired the near-mint pre-25, but I'd assume the same from it.) Similarly satisfactory performance from the moonclipped 325, 610, and 627. The 325 did have reliability issues, but they had nothing to do with moonclips; the flyweight .45ACP snubby was a kinetic bullet puller for uncrimped budget 230gr FMJ loads...
Smith provided two thicknesses of moons with the 646 because manufacturers can't seem to get their $#!+ together re: rim thickness on .40S&W.
As mentioned, they're equally shitty.
If you want a cheap, small revolver, get an Armscor. They seem to have a reputation for being serviceable (albeit rough and unrefined) and only cost $200 new.
Or, just buy a used S&W j-frame 642. With the least bit of bartering skills you should be able to get a used one for under $300.
Taurus gives me a sad. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with them from a design or materials standpoint, but a recurring massive indifference to the concept of quality control makes buying one a pretty big gamble.
Averaged across the years, I'd say you probably have a two-in-three chance of a satisfactory ownership experience with most models in their catalog, provided you don't expect the thing to endure massive round counts or anything. Personally, I wouldn't risk a dollar in a Coke machine that only ate it one time in three...
Well, that is not fair. You have two that work and I didn't get one that worked. Why would anyone need to have two guns that work when I was unfairly deprived of one through no fault of my own. You should redistribute one of them to me so that I can also have one that works. I tried to have a working one and I wanted to have one like yours. I don't even need your fancy mansion one, you can just send me the regular living wage one. It would be the fair thing to do.
Just a Hairy Special Snowflake supply clerk with no field experience, shooting an Asymetric carbine as a Try Hard. Snarky and easily butt hurt. Favorite animal is the Cape Buffalo....likely indicative of a personality disorder.
"If I had a grandpa, he would look like Delbert Belton".
It is sad that Taurus quality sucks so much because they have some good ideas or concepts. For example they make a 5 shot Tracker in 44 mag that a friend of mine has. Its the perfect size as a woods gun in bear country (where I live) but I would not trust a Taurus. I wish Smith would make a 5 shot .44 mag on their L frame. While their at it I would also like a 9mm J frame build around that cartridge with a short cylinder to match with a Scandium frame. I would also like to see a J frame in .327 mag with a 6 shot cylinder. (Scandium frame)
Pat
Grab a shovel and some vodka. I'm sure it can be done.
OK , I should have explained better to start with.
I have J and K frames and the only attraction of the Charter Arms was the caliber. I have come into ownership of a bulk of .40 ammo that was loaded very light. It will run in my 1911s if I go down to a 9 lb recoil spring if that gives an idea of power factor.
Just thought if I could find a cheap snubbie in .40 it would be cheap practice with a small revolver and recoil wise it might not be far off what I carry in the j frames. If the gun was junk after a couple thousand rounds it would be Ok , just don't want it junk after a few hundred rounds. Once the ammo is gone I probably would go back to .38 spec. so I did not want to drop a grand on a Smith.
thanks for the info , I will scratch the Charter and Taurus off the list.
Reply With Quote
