Taurus just got an expensive lesson on Quality Control.

Brazil-based handgun maker Forjas Taurus SA has agreed to a $39 million settlement in a class action lawsuit alleging some of the company’s most popular semi-automatic handguns can discharge when dropped and have a defective safety that allows the gun to fire even when it’s engaged.According to court documents filed May 15 in a U.S. District Court in Florida, the company has agreed to pay up to $30 million to owners of nine separate handgun models who opt to send their pistols back, with owners receiving anywhere from $150 to $200 for their pistols depending on how many choose that option.

Source: Taurus Agrees To $39 Million Settlement In Defective Pistol Case | Hunting, Fishing and Shooting News on Grand View Outdoors

I would risk and say that this settlement took a nice bite out of the already collapsing Taurus Profit/Loss ledger. And unfortunately, they deserve it because they keep ignoring they are not selling to a captive market but one that has choices and it is rather picky.

The pisser is that there is a great brain trust within Taurus. Yes they come up with some weird stuff, but thinking outside the box is always something good in a competitive market. But no matter how imaginative your design team can be if you have the proverbial drunken monkeys making the parts and assembling them.

At any American company, this much money going out would cause the dismissal of some people in management and a boatload at the line production. However, I don’t see this happening it in Brazil where the socialists unions would raise hell and paralyze all the manufacturing activities (They also have a tool & die plant plus construction.)

They good news is they are not yet Colt in economic terms, the bad news is that they are now below Hi-Point and Jimenez in reliability and craftsmanship.

9 Replies to “Taurus just got an expensive lesson on Quality Control.”

  1. Interesting.

    A firing pin block/striker block is that hard to get right?

    , has never issued an effective and complete warning to the public or recall of the Class Pistols and Taurus continues to falsely represent to the public that the Class Pistols are safe and reliable,”

    in contrast to, for example, Ruger (various models, various problems) and Springfield (XDS). Pay up front to fix your problems, or pay even more at the back end.

    Taurus autos have never much interested me. Too much other good stuff out there, even at the lower end where Taurus has their niche.




    0



    0
  2. Crap! Well, I bought a couple of these more than 10 years ago: I bought a PT145 Millennium Pro early in 2004, and I got a PT 140 about a year later. Never had any problems but then again I never dropped one. So, I’m not sure if they are going to be part of this kerfuffle or not. I carry one or the other sometimes, and I’m glad that I decided long ago to never carry any of my auto pistols with a round in the spout. I think this is good advice all the time, but especially for Glock owners, since the Glocks have no safety at all. Now, apparently, my Tauruses may not have a safety either!

    Now, some people think I’m nuts not to have a round in the chamber, but I beg to differ. If anyone has read this far and want to know my rationale, here it is: I can draw, rack the slide, and fire in nearly the same amount of time as drawing, flicking the safety, and firing. Since I’m not LEO, I think that the odds of having to actually use my pistol are pretty low, and the odds that I would have to use my pistol extremely quickly are even lower. The odds of having a disabled arm, to boot, are even lower than that. But, the added safety factor of NONE in the chamber, to me, makes the decision an easy one.

    Now, for those of you who use Glocks, please don’t reply to say that you have “internal safeties.” Does my S&W revolver have a safety? No, you say? Well, it has an “internal safety” that blocks the hammer unless the trigger is being pulled. If you say that modern revolvers have no safety, then you have to admit that Glocks don’t have safeties, either.




    0



    0
  3. I’d accuse you of not knowing what you are talking about, but your post makes that abundantly clear.

    There is something called an “external safety” or “manual safety” which is what most people on the planet refer to as a safety (a manually activated switch or lever which physically blocks either the trigger from moving to engage the sear, or the hammer from dropping on the firing pin, and sometimes both). Your revolver has no external or manual safety. Most revolvers don’t. Nothing special there.

    Most modern revolvers do have some sort of “internal safety” which blocks the firing pin from being hit unless the trigger is being pulled. The trigger bar often lifts or pushes the safety out of the way to allow the hammer the full fall, hitting the pin. (Ruger, by comparison, does the opposite, and lifts the bar into place, filling a gap between the hammer and pin, thus allowing contact between the hammer and pin.) Regardless, no one considers the internal safety (designed to prevent a dropped gun from firing) to be a manual safety (designed to interfere with the trigger and/or hammer and prevent the gun from firing regardless).

    The whole point behind any “internal” trigger safety system is to prevent the hammer from making contact with the firing pin unless the trigger was pulled, presumably on purpose. Glocks are no different than a revolver in that regard. Their trigger safety level is designed to not allow the trigger the full travel length unless the lever is being depressed, presumably by the trigger finger, on purpose.

    Anyone who owns a Glock understands (or should understand!) that their gun has no external safety, but it does have an internal safety to prevent it from firing if it is dropped. They also understand that your revolver has no external safety, but it has an internal safety to prevent it from firing it it is dropped. You are correct to say that neither gun has a (manual) safety. And there is nothing wrong with that. Personal preference is all.

    As long as you don’t pull the trigger on either gun, they shouldn’t fire (unless something is wrong with it).

    As far as your comfort level with carrying a gun with a loaded chamber, that’s all on you. Again, personal preference. I’m just glad you carry.




    0



    0
    1. What you said is exactly what I was trying to say. Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear. I do ask for an apology from you for your first sentence, however.




      0



      0
      1. “Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear.”

        No, you didn’t. It sounded like you think people who own Glocks (and know that their Glocks have internal safeties) are unclear as to what exactly a safety is.

        And, thus, the reason for my first sentence. It wasn’t mean to hurt feelings, so for that I apologize.




        0



        0
  4. While being a gun hipster can be kind of fun, it’s often best to stick with the leading brands.
    This is a rule that not only includes guns, but tools, musical gear, motorcycles, ect, ect.




    0



    0
    1. Joe,
      I’m not sure I understand what a “gun hipster” is, but I’ve been shooting for nearly fifty years, and I think that it’s important to understand the care and feeding of a variety of firearms. My favorite large auto is my 1911, favorite small auto is Walther PPK, favorite (and most accurate) wheelgun is my S&W Model 28, favorite large rifle is my 1903A3—well, you get the picture. Sometimes it’s a “leading brand” and sometimes it’s not. Good advice for newbies, maybe. My problem with glocks is that they are presented to newbies as the ultimate firearm, which they are not.
      To explain: I remember when most LEOs were not permitted to use auto pistols because they were “too hard” to train on. The departments wanted an easy gun to train the officers, and most departments wanted a standard firearm, and that was a revolver. The advent of the “wonder nines” and their use by criminals caused a lot of LEOs (my friends included) to lobby for the right to buy their own. The departments resisted for years, but the handwriting was on the wall. This was when a lot of manufacturers started offering “double action only” pistols, which were pitched as “not as hard to learn” and “easier to train” since there was not a disparity between single- and double-action trigger pull—and the elimination of the single-action option was pitched as making the pistol “safer.”
      Along came glock into this market with a better trigger pull than most DAO pistols, and steep discounts to law enforcement departments, and a military sale for credibility, and they made a few sales and gained ground. Selling to the public became easy, since “X police force uses them, so they must be good.” I’ve shot them and they are reasonably accurate, but I don’t own one and don’t recommend them for one reason only: they don’t have an external safety. It may be harder to train on a pistol with a safety, but, otherwise, there is no reason not to have one. Look up “negligent discharge” or “accidental shooting” and I would bet that most of them in the last 20 years were glocks.




      0



      0
      1. “Gun Hipster” is one of Tam’s terms. That refers to those who go for the obscure and odd in order to avoid being “ordinary”- I blame Hollywood for that.

        The tricky bit in going off the mainstream is things like parts, accessories, and gunsmithing expertise. I would love a Colt Python, but it is becoming more difficult to run one on a regular basis, especially if it goes out of time. Back in the pre internet days, I had a heck of a time finding bits, mags, and holsters for my CZ 75.

        Now most folks that recommend a Glock, M&P, or other modern service pistol do so not because it is the “ultimate” pistol. They do so because it is a pretty much disposable, ready to go out of the box pistol that doesn’t cost a fortune, a gun which one can pick up parts, mags, sights, or holsters from pretty much any gunshop in the USA. Guns that if one was to go down during a class or a match, you can probably find someone there able to get the thing up and running with very little trouble or effort.

        And contrasted with say, a custom 1911, you can do the recommended trick of buying 3 of the exact same gun- one for regular, hard training, one for carry, and one as a backup. In the current legal environment, you will likely lose your gun if you have to defend yourself with it.

        Personally, I’m not a Glock fanboi- S&W M&P sliding towards DAO Beretta 92 fanboi maybe.




        0



        0
        1. Joe,
          Well said! Thanks for defining hipster for me. I can’t think of anything wrong with your post, except maybe that the Python is overrated. I had a S&W Model 629 (basically a Model 29 in stainless steel) and I currently have a S&W Model 28 (basically a Model 27 without some frills and priced for the LEO market.) The Model 28 is called the “Highway Patrolman” (it says so right on the barrel!) and is one of the earliest revolvers chambered in .357 Magnum (the barrel is stamped “.357 CTG.”). Now, I’ve read that the Python has an amazing trigger, and that may be true. I’ve never had the good fortune to sample one. However, I’ve put a lot of .44 Magnum and .44 Special rounds through my Model 629, and a lot of .357 and .38 Special through my Model 28. Now, neither are custom guns, except for Pachmayr grips on the M629 and Hogue grips on the M28. And they both shoot very, very well. The triggers on both guns are just amazing. Now, if the Python is better than that, well, it must be the legendary Perfect Gun.

          By the way, I bought a S&W Model 469 back in the early 80s. It was one of the ancestors to the M&P that you have. I liked that little nine quite a bit. It was my carry gun for several years, and I wish I hadn’t sold it!

          Oh, and my 1911 is a standard, no-frills Commander model built by Springfield Armory. Apparently, Springfield only made “Commander” (on the slide) for a very short time, many years ago, and that’s the one I have. It is extremely accurate, will feed on any kind of ammo. I got it used, and the only thing I had to do was replace the recoil spring and the magazine springs. Nothing fancy — but that baby can shoot! That’s my carry gun unless I need something smaller.

          I assume that you like your M&P. Why are you considering switching to a DAO pistol? Just curious.




          0



          0

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .