Is a Glock 30 really worth 200 bucks more than a Taurus p145?

C

Caffeine

New member
I've been looking at two guns, a Glock 30 and a Taurus P145. Neither one is anything special from the regular run of the mill type you'd find at a store, no special finish, no frills or anything like that.
They're both .45 cal, both of a similar size, but I'm wondering if Glock is really worth the extra 200 bucks.
From what I've heard, Taurus is really reliable, but so is Glock. Gun Test magazines have both regarded each one highly. I guess I really want to know...is Taurus really as reliable as a Glock? I'd like to get both sides before I make my decision.
 
I would go with the Glock if you can afford it, If not the Taurus will do. You just won't get a cookie for having a Glock.
 
I'm not a glock fan boy, however with that being said glock is a better gun. If you can't really afford the extra 200 dollars, which can be a lot of money then the Taurus will work too. They shoot and do everything a glock does. You just need that break in period to make sure its all primed and well. If not Taurus has a good customer service department. Like every gun however please break it in and practice. I was reading a thread earlier and it seems a common trend to buy a gun and a pack of hollow points and toss it in the drawer.
 
Thanks for your replies so far.
Even though I'm almost 30 years old and live on my own, my father still is concerned with money and how my family spends it. He never had much when he grew up, and likes to conserve what money there is.
That being said, I usually take him when I go to buy a gun due to his expertise. He's been around weapons his whole life, served 2 tours in Vietnam, and was a NC State Trooper for 25 years. He's also a great shot, better than me.
He likes the Taurus because of the price, and the trigger pull on it is nice too. You have to pull the trigger all the way back, but once you do, it's a clean pull almost as if it were single-action.
I like Glock because there are so many accessories that are custom-made for the Glock as well as the fact that the Glock30 has an accessory rail where things can be mounted to it, and I've always liked them. Being able to put a blinding LED light in someone's face during a self-defense encounter in a darkened area can give you the edge.

I'm pretty sure I want to get the Glock, and it is my money, but I don't want to hear him griping and harping at me about me possibly wasting money on a gun that is just as good as a lower-priced gun in his book.

What makes Glock so good? Do they have a better warranty, better parts, more gunsmiths that can work on it? I'd like to give him a few reasons to let him know that I'm not throwing away an extra 200 dollars just because of the name brand. I know it's a better gun, I'd just like to give him some reasons why.
 
I am hoping to buy a Glock at some point in the future. Why? First, I just like the feel; when firing, it feels like an extension of my arm, with little noticeable muzzle lift. Second, it has about half the moving parts of any sidearm on the market, making it easier to maintain and fire under adverse conditions. Finally, the Glock undergoes some of the most rigorous testing of any sidearm on the market - very high dependability, and, again, the assurance that you will be able to fire it under nearly any conditions you could ever encounter.
 
Listen to your dad, he has the lifetime of experience with weapons and he is obviously not swayed by advertising. I could have purchased any carry pistol I wanted, price was not an issue, and I chose a Taurus 709 Slim and love it. I don't automatically think Glock is better because it has Glock stamped on it.
 
I never subscribed to the Glock "hype" until I shot one for myself. Like someone else said previously, "it feels like an extension of your hand". That's no BS. You pick one up and fire it and it's effortless to point and shoot, very confidence inspiring.
 
Glock is obviously a good gun and reliable. I've never been a fan of subcompacts due to the overall feel and ammo capacity. Have you checked out the S&W M&P series? Very similar to Glock but has many improvements over the Glock. LE agencies across the country are switching to the M&P. Can't be a bad thing. There are compact versions of the M&P chambered for .45cal. I believe price is very similar to Glock. Worth checking out!
 
had a pt 145 and got rid of it cause it constantly jammed and shot to the left and low . I found many threads with similar complaints.Something about the .45 cause I have pt 111 (9mm) which is just fine. I have yet to shoot a Glock but was not happy with my Taurus. Traded it for a Kahr cw45, and I absolutely love that gun. Good luck with whatever you chose.
 
Depends what you want out of it. If you're looking for something to shoot at the range with and train, maybe the Taurus is for you. If you want a reliable carry gun, I'd say THAT'S worth the extra $200, and then some. Don't put the price on the gun. Put the price on the result.
 
Caffeine said:
I've been looking at two guns, a Glock 30 and a Taurus P145. Neither one is anything special from the regular run of the mill type you'd find at a store, no special finish, no frills or anything like that.
They're both .45 cal, both of a similar size, but I'm wondering if Glock is really worth the extra 200 bucks.
From what I've heard, Taurus is really reliable, but so is Glock. Gun Test magazines have both regarded each one highly. I guess I really want to know...is Taurus really as reliable as a Glock? I'd like to get both sides before I make my decision.
Click to expand...

As a 'very satisfied' owner of numerous Glocks (I got my very first Glock back in 1993) I would have to say that "Yes", Glocks are better than Taurus i.m.h.o.
Here is a Hickock45 video about Glocks;
 
If you're going to use this pistol to protect yourself, get the Glock. I'd never trust my personal safety to a Taurus if I had a choice. $200 is not a large number when you consider what it's for. If you insist on going the ultra-cheap route then get a Taurus revolver. They're much less likely to fail compared to their autos.
 
I love my G30. If it breaks (which is unlikely)it is easy to fix yourself. I'm not really mechanically inclined and I can take mine apart and put it back together with out much hassle. That's one thing I love about them and why I own two.
 
I've tried a couple of Taurus semi-autos and I don't feel that the reliability is high enough to use them for EDC. I think the the Glocks are the closest to a revolver when it comes to reliability.
 
I'm just not seeing the "reliability issues" with Taurus I keep reading about. My EDC is a Taurus PT92AFS and its had hundreds of practice rounds through it and I've never had a FTF. A friend of mine owns 4 of them, a compact, one just like mine and 2 357 revolvers and not a single problem.....
 
Unfettered Might said:
I'm just not seeing the "reliability issues" with Taurus I keep reading about. My EDC is a Taurus PT92AFS and its had hundreds of practice rounds through it and I've never had a FTF. A friend of mine owns 4 of them, a compact, one just like mine and 2 357 revolvers and not a single problem.....
Click to expand...

My first gun was a 92 by Taurus. Literally thousands of rounds through it with out a single hiccup. Nothing bad to say about it on reliability. The sites well that's a different story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

Total: 152 (members: 1, guests: 151)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,523
Messages
610,661
Members
74,992
Latest member
RedDotArmsTraining

Share this page

Back
Top