Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns 856UL vs. S&W Airweight

For a relatively inexpensive, very light revolver in 38+p, which has better quality in *new production* guns? I've read about Smith QC fading and Taurus improving. I've owned a couple stainless Taurus 605s and never had any issues, but never a SW. Or am I just better off with an LCRX?

If I were buying sight unseen I would take my chances on S&W without too many worries. Can't say that about Taurus.

Airweight every day of the two you mention. My preference is the steel J frames but I shoot mine more than most folks.

For something that I may have to defend my life with, or the lives of my family. I would not spend my money on a Taurus when there are quality alternatives available. I would much rather buy a Ruger or S&W. Even a used Ruger or S&W would be preferred before a new Taurus. Yes, I am sure there are individual examples of Taurus guns that worked but overall, they are not a brand that has a reputation for producing quality guns.

i bought two airweights in the past 2 or 3 years. the regular needed a lot of dry firing to get it to where you could slow pull the trigger and not have it lock up. the ladysmith didn't have that problem as much. i think both could use a professional look-see under the side plate to smooth them up. but then i shot all my 38 plinking ammo and i'm not paying a buck a round to plink. missed the boat on 38 so to speak.

no experience with taurus

In the family we have or had Taurus 66, 85 and 605 revolvers and they all worked well. These were all older models, not sure how their quality is today.

This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

My Momma's oldest boy is worth more to me than a Taurus.

Only have 1 Taurus, its the 85 ultra light, everytime its shot, at least a cylinder full, the side plate becomes loose. Have multiple S&W J-frames that have been super reliable. Im no fan of Taurus.

Most of the Smith's I've carried are older guns. Not a big fan of the Hillary lock. And I've carried various models, but for the most part a 642. Was a good gun. But then Ruger came out with the LCR and everything about is better. But I'm a curious kind of guy and I can say without equivocation, that the 856 if a good gun. It's an updated gun since they've upgraded and with new management. Plus is a 6 shot, and it's not a bad trigger at all. My first choice will always be a Ruger. But I have no heartburn carrying a Taurus. I've not even heard of a bad one.

For those who say "my life is worth more than a Taurus" I will add "my life is worth a modern S&W too". The last two S&W revolvers I have purchased (642 & 317) had to go back to the factory to be fixed within the first 20 rounds. I know it's only a sample of two, but that equates to a 100% failure rate for me.

I had ONE Taurus revolver, a "kit gun" size 22LR.

You couldn't fire a cylinder full of ammo through it before it bound up.

Gave it a good trading and got what I wanted in the first place; S&W Kit Gun.

My thought is; "you get what you pay for"

Buying today, I'd look hard at the Ruger LCR.

Virgil B.

My newest J frames are from the early to mid '90s.

all my taurus 38sp are steel. all my s&w 38sp are alloy. all came to me used. all shoot fine. this is how i would roll if starting out fresh.

I have too many revolvers to mention... I own a Taurus 856UL .. great little revolver.. basically frame size is similar to a Colt D frame & Charter Bulldog frame ... and I own S&W 36 & 642 ... great guns .. smaller than the 856 .. great for pocket carry
I have 25 + handguns 95 % for carry ... and the 856UL is on my side ... as I type this

Hard to beat an Airweight S&W snubby loaded with 135 grain +P Gold Dot short barrel ammo for a light, compact carry gun if you are looking for a revolver. Shot placement is paramount. I have a Taurus titanium .41 magnum that i carry in a pancake holster loaded with 250 grain hard cast flat nose ammo when bow hunting. It has gone bang every time I've pulled the trigger.

Ron

It's good to see someone that has both S&W and Taurus...and doesn't speak bad about Taurus.

About 2 years ago we bought a new Airweight, 85UL, and LCR in 38. We only shot target loads. The Airweight was the roughest trigger, disappointing since it was $150 over the Taurus. It has since smoothed out some. The Taurus has been satisfactory from the start with only cylinder and barrel cleaning. It could be improved to glossy smooth. The LCR doesn't have a hammer and that is unacceptable to me. It shot well and I liked the pull weight. There is a reason the Ruger costs the most. The takeaway is that I'll be buying an LCRX and 856UL to try.

None of these three has had to go back to the factory. From other experiences, best was Ruger, then S&W, then Taurus. I've heard Taurus is getting better in the repair department but turnaround time is still too long.