PDA

View Full Version : Most Taurus guns fail to make it on the roster?


Chiuchimu
02-29-2012, 2:09 PM
I noticed that Taurus has a lot of new guns but most are not on the California Roster. They seem like quality guns that are currently selling at a great discount on the internet so I called Taurus customer service to find out if they plan to get any of these guns approved for California sales.

The agent from Taurus said all of their guns are sent to California and it's up to California to decide which guns they allow and which they don't. Does this sound right to you? I also asked about the 24-7 that expired last year and are no longer on the roster. To my understanding all Taurus had to do is pay a renewal fee to keep approved guns on the roster. The customer service person repeated that Taurus doesn't make that decision, instead California decides which guns are approved or stay approved for sale in California.:confused:

I was interested in the Taurus 24-7 or PT809, but if their customer service is full of bull like this then it shakes my confidence in their product quality and service.:eek:

FastFinger
02-29-2012, 2:32 PM
That doesn't sound right. If a model has been previously listed, the manufacturer only needs to pay the annual renewal fee to keep it listed.

There was a article or post from someone who started one of the independent firms that is licensed to run the tests. One of his comments was that out of the hundreds of models they tested only a couple failed.

Not familiar with the Tuarus line up, but assuming their guns meet the legal requirements (loaded chamber indicator, mag disconnect etc.), then the only reason they're not on the list is because they have elected to not submit them.

jwkincal
02-29-2012, 2:51 PM
...the only reason they're not on the list is because they have elected to not submit them.

This is what I understood to be the case. The mfrs must submit multiple copies (5 or something like that) of the gun to be tested, along with a sack of cash to pay the lab(s).

This is the reason no mfr has a full line-up on the roster... it would be too expensive (although I believe that the entire Hi-Point line is in fact represented; which would argue that it isn't all that cost-prohibitive after all).

Still and all... it ain't Taurus that sux, it's the California Legislature.

morrcarr67
02-29-2012, 3:34 PM
I think if you look at Taurus' new line up you will see that most don't have a magazine disconnect safety. Without that they can't even be tested.

Decoligny
02-29-2012, 3:54 PM
This is what I understood to be the case. The mfrs must submit multiple copies (5 or something like that) of the gun to be tested, along with a sack of cash to pay the lab(s).

This is the reason no mfr has a full line-up on the roster... it would be too expensive (although I believe that the entire Hi-Point line is in fact represented; which would argue that it isn't all that cost-prohibitive after all).

Still and all... it ain't Taurus that sux, it's the California Legislature.

No, they only have the C9, and the .380 on the roster.

The C9 Compensated, the .40, and the .45 are not on the roster.

Glock22Fan
02-29-2012, 4:10 PM
Taurus is true to their name, feeding you a load of bull.

There's no reason why they could not, before the requirement for magazine disconnects came in, get a representative sample of their catalog on the roster had they wished (things like the Judge excepted). The fact that they could not be bothered to pay the blackmail fees could be why their prices are reasonably good for their quality, but California should be a large enough market to absorb that cost for the extra sales that it might generate.

Or, maybe they are just making a stand against blackmail, and blind to the ill-will that causes amongst the likes of us.

G60
02-29-2012, 4:18 PM
Sometimes the roster is a blessing in digsuise.

jwkincal
02-29-2012, 5:00 PM
No, they only have the C9, and the .380 on the roster.

The C9 Compensated, the .40, and the .45 are not on the roster.

I would postulate that those two are their best-selling models, then... and that like every other manufacturer, they figure it isn't worth the expense of roster-certifying all of their eligible models.

motorhead
02-29-2012, 11:15 PM
not just multiples of every model. every model/finish/bbl. length combination.

bohoki
02-29-2012, 11:27 PM
).

This is the reason no mfr has a full line-up on the roster... it would be too expensive (although I believe that the entire Hi-Point line is in fact represented; which would argue that it isn't all that cost-prohibitive after all).

Still and all... it ain't Taurus that sux, it's the California Legislature.

well if hipoint sends 5 pistols to the lab what are they out like $20

Decoligny
03-01-2012, 8:26 AM
not just multiples of every model. every model/finish/bbl. length combination.

Exactly.

The Hi Point C9 and the C9 Compensated are mechanically identical. The C9 Comp has a barrel that is about 1/2" longer and is machined with flat surfaces on the barrel for the compensator to screw onto.

C9

http://www.hi-pointfirearms.com/images/9MMhandgun.jpg

C9 Comp

http://cdn.armslist.com/images/posts/634350539862306561vsea0xgt.jpg

SilverTauron
03-01-2012, 9:04 AM
I think if you look at Taurus' new line up you will see that most don't have a magazine disconnect safety. Without that they can't even be tested.

This.

One must remember that Taurus does not just sell weapons in the United States. Being a very large international exporter of arms, they must judge the needs and wants of an international customer base against investing R&D money towards making pistols "compliant" in a limited set of U.S. states.

The risk vs reward for a gun firm comes down to the fact that they must pay the development and R&D costs for a new compliant firearm up front, then submit the weapon for testing at the company's expense with the earnest hope that it passes and can be sold. If the gun is submitted and some government bureaucrat decides at the last moment to deny certification , the company is out the cost of certification , development, and lost sales.Glock's problems in Massachusetts are a great example of this.

Rather than blame a gun company for deciding not to run the gauntlet to sell their wares in one or two states, perhaps assigning blame to the statists who established such a roster is more appropriate? ;)

As to the customer service rep's response, what exactly was supposed to be said? Had they said "We didn't submit any of our products to be tested, because your state sucks and its not worth our while to sell to you.We didn't renew the 24/7 because Cali's market isn't worth the DOJ fees." , Taurus would be pilloried for not being considerate of California customers, even though the roster is the fault of the same customers & not the company. I don't blame the rep for lying to you, as the truth would have hurt business more than it would have helped.

ALSystems
03-01-2012, 10:50 AM
The truth hurts.
Blame California politics not Taurus. :(

Chiuchimu
03-01-2012, 11:11 AM
This.

One must remember that Taurus does not just sell weapons in the United States. Being a very large international exporter of arms, they must judge the needs and wants of an international customer base against investing R&D money towards making pistols "compliant" in a limited set of U.S. states.

The risk vs reward for a gun firm comes down to the fact that they must pay the development and R&D costs for a new compliant firearm up front, then submit the weapon for testing at the company's expense with the earnest hope that it passes and can be sold. If the gun is submitted and some government bureaucrat decides at the last moment to deny certification , the company is out the cost of certification , development, and lost sales.Glock's problems in Massachusetts are a great example of this.

Rather than blame a gun company for deciding not to run the gauntlet to sell their wares in one or two states, perhaps assigning blame to the statists who established such a roster is more appropriate? ;)

As to the customer service rep's response, what exactly was supposed to be said? Had they said "We didn't submit any of our products to be tested, because your state sucks and its not worth our while to sell to you.We didn't renew the 24/7 because Cali's market isn't worth the DOJ fees." , Taurus would be pilloried for not being considerate of California customers, even though the roster is the fault of the same customers & not the company. I don't blame the rep for lying to you, as the truth would have hurt business more than it would have helped.

What about," Due to the special process needed to sell guns in California, We at Taurus do not find it cost effective to sell most of our lineup there."

The Taurus customer service rep had any number of ways to explain Taurus's point of view and keep the customer happy at the same time. I agree that the California legislator is wrong on this, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Lying to the customer is not the smartest thing to due, at least in my opinion.

Andy Taylor
03-01-2012, 11:29 AM
What about," Due to the special process needed to sell guns in California, We at Taurus do not find it cost effective to sell most of our lineup there."

The Taurus customer service rep had any number of ways to explain Taurus's point of view and keep the customer happy at the same time. I agree that the California legislator is wrong on this, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Lying to the customer is not the smartest thing to due, at least in my opinion.

This is exactly what a Taurus rep told me about 3 years ago.