Friends don't let friends buy Taurus. Get a smith and Wesson governor. The customer service is outstanding( reply within 24- hours usually), Taurus takes forever and is rude. Taurus does have a larger selection, but the manufacturing and quality is poor. Governor is a more reliable, more rugged, better made gun. It also chambers a .410 or .45

Originally Posted by JMessmer

Friends don't let friends buy Taurus. Get a smith and Wesson governor. The customer service is outstanding( reply within 24- hours usually), Taurus takes forever and is rude. Taurus does have a larger selection, but the manufacturing and quality is poor. Governor is a more reliable, more rugged, better made gun. It also chambers a .410 or .45

Wow, S&W quality and SIX rounds of 000 Buckshot -- even a Crimson Trace option!

Taurus quality is hit or miss, pay a little more and get a S&W

Friends don't let friends buy one of these type revolvers.......buy a .45............for home protection, the .410 isn't going to stop too much, you'd have to use the .45, so why not just get the .45.

Originally Posted by berettabone

Friends don't let friends buy one of these type revolvers.......buy a .45............for home protection, the .410 isn't going to stop too much, you'd have to use the .45, so why not just get the .45.

I see the S&W Governor also handles .45ACP -- the other purpose is to carry fishing, etc. for snakes which the .410 is pretty good for.

So is the .45......

Originally Posted by RONWEN

I see the S&W Governor also handles .45ACP -- the other purpose is to carry fishing, etc. for snakes which the .410 is pretty good for.

.410 is a better caliber to kill a small dog, snake, etc. I was suggesting the governor because he wanted a gun like the judge not because I recommend it over a .45. Although, I think I would rather have the .410 option because it's cool and fun to shoot.

Gee, then I guess "cool" supersedes everything...........if you check prior postings, you can read what others think of Taurus, and of the .410 load.

Use the search function, and look for "Judge" and "Governor."
There has already been quite a lot of discussion on this subject.

Why reinvent the wheel?

Cool is important or we wouldn't care what guns look like. From a collectors POV a governor would be a unique piece to have. Also, cool is obviously not the only point I made so don't strew my words to make me sound like a juvenile or uneducated person when I may very well have better insight than you. I'm simply stating my opinion that I'm entitled to. He wanted a judge like gun, so I lead him into a better direction, while staying in the same category. You can have your opinion and I'll have mine.

Thanks for the info & opinions all.
Steve pointed me in the direction of several threads already discussing both the Taurus and S&W versions. By far I prefer S&W.
I have 9mm's and .40 semi-autos and of course .38's, .357 and .22 handguns. I guess the "cool appeal" probably does attract me to the S&W Governor to carry fishing along rivers & streams.
Not to ignite a heated flurry of opinions here our State Police recommend 12ga. pump shotguns in lieu of handguns for home defense for three main reasons -- the sound of jacking a pump shotgun is enough to drive sane intruders from the home, the long gun isn't nearly as easy to get turned on the owner in a struggle and it can be used as a club against the intruder if you decide not to dispatch him.

Originally Posted by RONWEN

...[O]ur State Police recommend 12ga. pump shotguns in lieu of handguns for home defense for three main reasons -- the sound of jacking a pump shotgun is enough to drive sane intruders from the home, the long gun isn't nearly as easy to get turned on the owner in a struggle and it can be used as a club against the intruder if you decide not to dispatch him.

This sounds to me like an attempt by the State Police to make life safer for home intruders.

It is not completely rational for anybody, the police included, to think that merely hearing the sound of a shotgun being pumped will do anything to deter someone who is intent upon harming you—or your family.
If this were true, why, then you wouldn't need a loaded shotgun at all. Just racking an empty gun would be enough.
Yeah. Right.

When you confront an intruder within your home, the assumption has to be that he means to harm you.
Thus, the shotgun should already be loaded and cocked, long before you ever confront him.

And if you attempt to use your shotgun as a club, you should be prepared to lose the gun—and your life.
You must not let anybody, particularly someone who has invaded your home, get close enough to you, for you to be able to club him.
For goodness sake: It's a gun, not a baseball bat.
If he's advancing on you, even though you're holding a shotgun that's presumably loaded, then you need to shoot, and to stop him in his tracks. Otherwise, he just might turn out to be crazy enough to ignore the gun, rip it out of your hands, and aim it at you.

I'm sorry, but that advice from your State Police is just wrong. And crazy. And dangerous—to you.

Originally Posted by Steve M1911A1

This sounds to me like an attempt by the State Police to make life safer for home intruders.

It is not completely rational for anybody, the police included, to think that merely hearing the sound of a shotgun being pumped will do anything to deter someone who is intent upon harming you—or your family.
If this were true, why, then you wouldn't need a loaded shotgun at all. Just racking an empty gun would be enough.
Yeah. Right.

When you confront an intruder within your home, the assumption has to be that he means to harm you.
Thus, the shotgun should already be loaded and cocked, long before you ever confront him.

And if you attempt to use your shotgun as a club, you should be prepared to lose the gun—and your life.
You must not let anybody, particularly someone who has invaded your home, get close enough to you, for you to be able to club him.
For goodness sake: It's a gun, not a baseball bat.
If he's advancing on you, even though you're holding a shotgun that's presumably loaded, then you need to shoot, and to stop him in his tracks. Otherwise, he just might turn out to be crazy enough to ignore the gun, rip it out of your hands, and aim it at you.

I'm sorry, but that advice from your State Police is just wrong. And crazy. And dangerous—to you.

What is your "theory" on why they would want to do that?

The police exist to "clean up" after crimes.
You will complicate their job if you shoot someone, and make it even worse of you kill someone.
If you shoot someone, it will have to be investigated. Reports will have to be written. District Attorney staff will have to be consulted. A trial may be contemplated, not necessarily of you.
The shooting will have to be shown on police books as an unsolved crime, until the whole event has been investigated and "cleared." That will make the police department's statistics look bad until the advent of the next reporting period.

But if you are successful, and just scare someone away, or even chase him away, none of this applies. The police don't really even have to investigate the case, since no "important" crime will have been committed. The whole incident can be written off, and uncomplicated police life can go on as usual.

That's my theory, based upon a little bit of experience, and I'm sticking to it until I learn something reliable to the contrary.

Originally Posted by Steve M1911A1

The police exist to "clean up" after crimes.
You will complicate their job if you shoot someone, and make it even worse of you kill someone.
If you shoot someone, it will have to be investigated. Reports will have to be written. District Attorney staff will have to be consulted. A trial may be contemplated, not necessarily of you.
The shooting will have to be shown on police books as an unsolved crime, until the whole event has been investigated and "cleared." That will make the police department's statistics look bad until the advent of the next reporting period.

But if you are successful, and just scare someone away, or even chase him away, none of this applies. The police don't really even have to investigate the case, since no "important" crime will have been committed. The whole incident can be written off, and uncomplicated police life can go on as usual.

That's my theory, based upon a little bit of experience, and I'm sticking to it until I learn something reliable to the contrary.

I see a shift from your original theory which implied the homeowner will most likely be the victim(s). Even more paperwork in the system.

They don't suggest confronting with unloaded shotguns quite the opposite. There is no doubt a huge difference in dealing with a hardened criminal that should quickly be capped and the scenario that happens more often in our neck of the woods, teenagers or drunks breaking in for a few dollars. The teenagers are often someone familiar with the house, way back when I was in the service my Dad came home from work one afternoon & saw a pair of legs running up the stairs into my bedroom. He grabbed his .38 went upstairs into my room with the hammer back. As he opened my door he found a son of our best friends with a pillow case full of loot. He called the Dad & waited for him to come and deal with his son. It really shook up my Dad because he said he was a frog hair from pulling the trigger until he recognized the teenager.

Story number two is when I was first married we had a second floor apartment which had just been vacated by a quite "loose" young girl that had lots of horny visitors. One Saturday night about 3:00am there was a pounding on my door, I wake up & pull on some jeans and go down the steps to see who it was. As I opened the door a drunk "kid" tried to push by me to go up stairs. I shoved him out onto the porch and finally got him to realize she didn't live here anymore. I've often wondered what might have happened if I had taken time to grab my handgun and gotten into the same tussle while half-awake???
My point is in both cases a shotgun was probably the better choice. I live in a rural, relatively low crime part of the country. No doubt if I lived where hardened druggies had kill on their minds (NW Washington state?) I wouldn't want to take the extra 2-3 seconds to assess the situation.

What has been your experience?

If you will please go back and re-read what I've written, you will see that I wrote only about the intruder as eventual victim, at the hands of the homeowner. I did postulate that, if the homeowner followed the police suggestions reported by you, the outcome would very likely not be in the homeowner's favor.
Further, nowhere did I even imply that I believe that a shotgun is not an excellent home-defense weapon. It is, however, a very poor club.
I did not write that you were suggesting a confrontation using an empty gun. Instead, I was using reductio ad absurdum against the police statement, reported by you, that merely racking the shotgun might be sufficient deterrent to a criminal.
Please don't misquote me.

I cannot predict who will be breaking into my home. I have to assume that, if someone is breaking in while I'm at home, that person means me no good. Therefore, I have to be in a position to act in serious defense. (And, by the way, the nearest "hardened druggies" in this very rural area are to be found less than 1/4 mile away.)
At the only time that I had to behave in that sort of defensive manner, the intruder was potential, not actual. He was still at my door, in this normally peaceful, completely rural area, when my fairly subtle indication that I was armed (with a pistol in my pocket) and ready stopped him from entering feloniously with force. He departed in something of a hurry, and was subsequently interviewed by the sheriff's deputy on duty and encouraged to leave the island.

My experience with the reluctance of police to counsel a household defense that includes harm to an intruder stems form a period of time spent as a volunteer with the Los Angeles Police Department, almost 20 years ago.

Originally Posted by Steve M1911A1

If you will please go back and re-read what I've written, you will see that I wrote only about the intruder as eventual victim, at the hands of the homeowner. I did postulate that, if the homeowner followed the police suggestions reported by you, the outcome would very likely not be in the homeowner's favor.
Further, nowhere did I even imply that I believe that a shotgun is not an excellent home-defense weapon. It is, however, a very poor club.
I did not write that you were suggesting a confrontation using an empty gun. Instead, I was using reductio ad absurdum against the police statement, reported by you, that merely racking the shotgun might be sufficient deterrent to a criminal.
Please don't misquote me.

I cannot predict who will be breaking into my home. I have to assume that, if someone is breaking in while I'm at home, that person means me no good. Therefore, I have to be in a position to act in serious defense. (And, by the way, the nearest "hardened druggies" in this very rural area are to be found less than 1/4 mile away.)
At the only time that I had to behave in that sort of defensive manner, the intruder was potential, not actual. He was still at my door, in this normally peaceful, completely rural area, when my fairly subtle indication that I was armed (with a pistol in my pocket) and ready stopped him from entering feloniously with force. He departed in something of a hurry, and was subsequently interviewed by the sheriff's deputy on duty and encouraged to leave the island.

My experience with the reluctance of police to counsel a household defense that includes harm to an intruder stems form a period of time spent as a volunteer with the Los Angeles Police Department, almost 20 years ago.

I mistook your original reply as suggesting the pump shotgun isn't the best choice for home defense.

The reasons they (PSP) give, along with their recommendation of 00 buck loads that increase the likelihood of hitting the intruder while inflicting maximum damage is their reasoning. Unofficially, when you discuss it with them individually they will tell you it's always better if only the home-owner side of the story ever gets told.
Also, don't think of "using the gun as a club" as a baseball style swing but rather as they teach in military hand-to-hand combat.

In your real life scenario your potential intruder would no doubt have left in an even bigger hurry if you were wielding a 12ga. pump shotgun instead of a hidden pistol in your pocket.

Dude.........

Originally Posted by JMessmer

Cool is important or we wouldn't care what guns look like. From a collectors POV a governor would be a unique piece to have. Also, cool is obviously not the only point I made so don't strew my words to make me sound like a juvenile or uneducated person when I may very well have better insight than you. I'm simply stating my opinion that I'm entitled to. He wanted a judge like gun, so I lead him into a better direction, while staying in the same category. You can have your opinion and I'll have mine.

Originally Posted by RONWEN

I see the S&W Governor also handles .45ACP -- the other purpose is to carry fishing, etc. for snakes which the .410 is pretty good for.

Just curious, you have PA listed as your location...

Where do you fish in PA that you need to worry about snakes? I don't recall PA having an indigenous poisonous snake population.

Now if your fishing in the south or west etc I can see rattlers, copperheads, etc.

But that being said, they do make snake shot for a variety of different calibers and they seem to work quite well.

Originally Posted by VAMarine

Just curious, you have PA listed as your location...

Where do you fish in PA that you need to worry about snakes? I don't recall PA having an indigenous poisonous snake population.

Now if your fishing in the south or west etc I can see rattlers, copperheads, etc.

But that being said, they do make snake shot for a variety of different calibers and they seem to work quite well.

Tons of Copperheads and Timber Rattlers in my area. It is also the prime hunting ground in the U.S. for the Massasauga Rattlesnake.
http://fishandboat.com/anglerboater/...b/08play04.pdf

And you are correct, not nearly the problem as the southern swamps.

I have & use snake shot in my Ruger .357.

Originally Posted by RONWEN

...[D]on't think of "using the gun as a club" as a baseball style swing but rather as they teach in military hand-to-hand combat...

Any contact between the bad guy and your firearm is really bad tactics.
If he grabs the muzzle end of a shotgun's barrel, he can move (it or himself) to avoid the fired charge—and he can use the leverage of the gun's barrel to disarm you.

Originally Posted by RONWEN

In your real life scenario your potential intruder would no doubt have left in an even bigger hurry if you were wielding a 12ga. pump shotgun instead of a hidden pistol in your pocket.

You are joking, right?
I don't routinely grab our shotgun, when I go to answer the door. That might be misconstrued by the United Way Volunteer or the Jehova's Witnesses.
That's why I always carry a concealed pistol.

Originally Posted by Steve M1911A1

Any contact between the bad guy and your firearm is really bad tactics.
If he grabs the muzzle end of a shotgun's barrel, he can move (it or himself) to avoid the fired charge—and he can use the leverage of the gun's barrel to disarm you.

You are joking, right?
I don't routinely grab our shotgun, when I go to answer the door. That might be misconstrued by the United Way Volunteer or the Jehova's Witnesses.
That's why I always carry a concealed pistol.

Exactly the point made by PSP -- it's far easier to turn the muzzle of a handgun on the homeowner (in a struggle) than a long gun.

I take your point of capping before the intruder is close enough to grab the weapon although I'm sure you can understand my reluctance to take your advice in this area (you have strong opinions but little real experience -- 20 years ago as a volunteer!) vs. my very good PSP friends & neighbors that have many, many years of real life experience and training on this subject. Not even a close race here.
It seems you have a hammer & are looking for a nail.

Thanks to everyone.

Personally, I am not going to be walking around the house(small) with a shotgun, in the dark of night........too long of a weapon....too many things to bump into....too long to make fast moves........too much damage can occur.....I'll take my chances with a handgun, everytime.....