Anyone have any comments on the Taurus 709? Saw one at the gun show and really like it. Looks like a good little concealed 9mm. Want to get some feedback on it before buying.
Thanks,
fjtiii
Thanks,
fjtiii
The 709 is much thinner than the G26, but I would still rather have the G26 stricly for the mag capacity.
Well, actually, if you look closely, it looks nothing like a Glock, IMO. Much sleeker, better looking, and many differences.
I think the jury is still out on performance/longevity.
If the Boberg doesn't come out soon, then I'm gonna do a hardcore compare & contrast of the KT PF9, Rohrbaugh R9, Taurus 709, Walther PPS, and Microtech Archangel. I want a light slim little dude for SmartCarry - an upgrade from a .380. Leaning towards the Walther at this point.
They're not even in the same category of pistol really - one is a fatty fat fat double stack that you cannot comfortably smartcarry, pocket carry, or IWB - the other one is.
I'd pick pretty much any gun over a glock (except Hi-point, etc.) - BTDT; had many and they suck nards compared to today's offerings. In the 90s, they were a decently innovative pistol for the price. Now, they're just about the worst price-to-performance/innovation/features/fit & finish ratio you can find out there. Unless a serious injury left your wrist cocked in a permanently downward fashion, which would be compensated by the freakish upward grip angle they put into their pistols for some reason.
I think the jury is still out on performance/longevity.
If the Boberg doesn't come out soon, then I'm gonna do a hardcore compare & contrast of the KT PF9, Rohrbaugh R9, Taurus 709, Walther PPS, and Microtech Archangel. I want a light slim little dude for SmartCarry - an upgrade from a .380. Leaning towards the Walther at this point.
They're not even in the same category of pistol really - one is a fatty fat fat double stack that you cannot comfortably smartcarry, pocket carry, or IWB - the other one is.
I'd pick pretty much any gun over a glock (except Hi-point, etc.) - BTDT; had many and they suck nards compared to today's offerings. In the 90s, they were a decently innovative pistol for the price. Now, they're just about the worst price-to-performance/innovation/features/fit & finish ratio you can find out there. Unless a serious injury left your wrist cocked in a permanently downward fashion, which would be compensated by the freakish upward grip angle they put into their pistols for some reason.
I agree that they look nothing alike, but I disagree that the Taurus looks any better. Not that looks has anything to do with it.
What in today's offerings are so different from the 90s that they make the Glock "suck nards?" The only serious competitors to the Glock I can think of are the XD and M&P. And the XD is a good gun, but does NOT make the Glock look bad. And the M&P is a great gun; yes, but still not enough to put the Glock out of the running either. What do either of those do that the Glock does not, other than different ergonomics? In fact, I prefer the grip angle of the Glock. It is much more similar to the grip angle for the revolvers I also like.
What in today's offerings are so different from the 90s that they make the Glock "suck nards?" The only serious competitors to the Glock I can think of are the XD and M&P. And the XD is a good gun, but does NOT make the Glock look bad. And the M&P is a great gun; yes, but still not enough to put the Glock out of the running either. What do either of those do that the Glock does not, other than different ergonomics? In fact, I prefer the grip angle of the Glock. It is much more similar to the grip angle for the revolvers I also like.
I agree.
Hmm, well that's weird - I've never held a revolver with the extreme grip angle of a glock. And I like and own Taurus, S&W, DW, and like Colt & Ruger. Hitting work now, but I will later detail why Glocks are terrible (for the price) in many ways. I'd rather have a Bersa than a Glock. Which revolver(s) have the grip angle of a Glock?
Not only does the M&P and XD blow them out of the water, to kingdom come, so does Walther, and several others, arguably even Taurus, in the fantastic plastic game. Don't get me wrong, they work well and have their strong points (finish, caliber choice), but they are terrible IMO for the price they charge. They should be less than a Taurus, the way they're built. They'd be a decent pistol at around $275 brand new.
I guess grip angle is personal preference and a matter of anatomy person to person, but I'd venture a bet that 80%-85% of the population (easily) prefer the "standard" grip angle of the 1911, XD, M&P, and 98.44% of the handguns out there in the world, past and present, to the "weird" angle of the Glock, Ruger Mk2/3, etc. Granted, there are some that prefer the latter, but they are a small minority, if they're being honest. If I want to kill the moon, the Glock is the perfect handgun for that! :p
Their failure to innovate is dismally evident - I will detail more later (probably in a different thread, so as not to derail this one).
Thought what I typed might evoke a response.
I will say that I prefer the trigger guard on the Glock that that one on the Taurus, for sure - I like to perch my offhand index finger there -for that reason, I won't be getting the Taurus 709 in all likelihood.
The knock on Taurus that they put out lemons a lot more often *IS* a valid one, so I don't really want to use Taurus as the baseline against Glocks. But when looking at M&P, XD, Walther, etc., with equal quality control and part longevity, there is a clear loser. YMMV (and does)!
Not only does the M&P and XD blow them out of the water, to kingdom come, so does Walther, and several others, arguably even Taurus, in the fantastic plastic game. Don't get me wrong, they work well and have their strong points (finish, caliber choice), but they are terrible IMO for the price they charge. They should be less than a Taurus, the way they're built. They'd be a decent pistol at around $275 brand new.
I guess grip angle is personal preference and a matter of anatomy person to person, but I'd venture a bet that 80%-85% of the population (easily) prefer the "standard" grip angle of the 1911, XD, M&P, and 98.44% of the handguns out there in the world, past and present, to the "weird" angle of the Glock, Ruger Mk2/3, etc. Granted, there are some that prefer the latter, but they are a small minority, if they're being honest. If I want to kill the moon, the Glock is the perfect handgun for that! :p
Their failure to innovate is dismally evident - I will detail more later (probably in a different thread, so as not to derail this one).
Thought what I typed might evoke a response.
I will say that I prefer the trigger guard on the Glock that that one on the Taurus, for sure - I like to perch my offhand index finger there -for that reason, I won't be getting the Taurus 709 in all likelihood.
The knock on Taurus that they put out lemons a lot more often *IS* a valid one, so I don't really want to use Taurus as the baseline against Glocks. But when looking at M&P, XD, Walther, etc., with equal quality control and part longevity, there is a clear loser. YMMV (and does)!
WTF? Several guns have the European grip (as a matter of fact, very few have the 1911 grip anymore).
I don't think a gun's design-date has anything to do with it being effective (case in point the BHP, the 1911, the CZ 75, etc...), but one thing about Glocks is that their price-point has remained relatively low over the years (new Glocks can still be had for $500) - the same cannot be said for BHPs, 1911s, and CZs (all of which had much lower price-points in the recent past).
I'm no Glock fan, but even I can't argue with their performance vs. price or fit/finish (though they are like holding a bar of soap for comfort).
I'm curious - what gun do you consider as a good price-to-performance/innovation/features/fit & finish ratio?
No, sir, they do not, I don't believe - not like the Glock, if that is what you're calling a 'European grip'. Which one(s)? Are you talking current production, or old stuff that is no longer made (for good reason).
If you get into measurements, the M&P, XD, CZ75, BHP, and the vast majority of the others are far, FAR closer to 1911 than they are to glock - we can get out the protractors if you like!
THAT's 'WTF', since you asked!Tell you what, guys - I don't want to derail this one any more (and sorry for doing so. But instead I will start a "Glocks suck nards bigtime, for the price, and here's why" thread of sorts, to discuss this there. Give me a day or so.... That will get some folks riled up!
And when I start that one...
I will answer this question of course - but I need to know - are you asking (a) among polymer frames only, or (b) among all pistols, polymer or otherwise? But for starters, XD and M&P!!
Again, I owned about 5 or 6 glocks in the 90s and early 2000s, so I think I know of what I speak.....shot them a lot. I was a *HUGE* fanboy/ koolaid drinker!! Had a 21, then 27, then 29, then 30, then 20....I think that's it.
Similar threads
- Sub Category: Handguns
- Sale Price: 4200$
- Caliber: 218 Bee
- Sub Category: Rifles
- Sale Price: 900$
- Caliber: 357, 22lr, 9mm
