Forjas Taurus (translated: Taurus Forge) is a Brazilian company now very familiar to American shooters. In 1941 it produced its first gun, a revolver. Decades later, Taurus has changed hands and handlers a few times. Of note, in 1970 it was purchased by Smith & Wesson’s parent company, Bangor Punta. That helped! Shared technology. Later, on and after a contract with Beretta to produce small arms for the Brazilian army ran out, the manufacturing facility they had built there for that contract was purchased by Forjas Taurus.
Taurus then owned all the blueprints and tooling, and had access to a skilled workforce (another stipulation of the contract with Beretta was to use local labor). The next big step was when Taurus opened a U.S.-based operation in Miami in 1982 and went to work making its products more appealing to the U.S. market. Good move! There’s more, and there’s a link to a couple of sources for those interested, and there’s a reason I included this much of it here.
That is because Taurus has that sort of reputation (now) of being a combination of borrower and innovator. Taurus has taken what it’s learned from Smith & Wesson and Beretta, and also from feeling the pulse of the diverse American market interests, and has developed a product line that’s all its own. Still, though, is a tad amount in the shadows of the giants behind it.
Although there are lesser-known revolver manufacturers (such as Korth) that make a better gun, Smith & Wesson, overall, is the standard for modern double-action revolvers. Taurus, therefore, gets compared to these. The general essence of that comparison usually takes this shape: “Well, Taurus isn’t as ‘nice,’ but it’s half the price…”
I still bought one.
So, that (finally, I know) brings us to the point of this—the Taurus Tracker 44. And this is actually “my” Taurus Tracker 44.
I guess I must fall in that “diverse market interest” because this is the only revolver, after shopping its competition, that had all I was looking for.
What I was looking for? Something big enough to shoot well with, small enough (and light enough) to store in a backpack, and with the most power I could get. And something durable and reliable! High (enough) quality. I was seeking a backcountry companion, a defensive sidearm for use against threats that might be a few times my size, and, somewhere in my mind at least, there was also the thought of something that could suit urban needs toting that same backpack.
What It Is
The Tracker 44 is a 5-shot .44 Remington Magnum built on what amounts to an “L-frame” as produced by Smith & Wesson. Four-inch ported barrel, 35 ounces empty, 5.3-in. height, 9.0-in. length overall, 1.6-in. wide. Not a big gun. Stainless steel, matte finish. Adjustable rear, standout ramped orange-insert front sight.
Its nearest match is an S&W Mod. 69, but that gun is a little bigger, a little heavier, and isn’t ported. And, this Taurus was just at that “half-price” difference.
The overall finish on the gun suits me, but it’s not as smooth and not nearly as shiny as a Smith & Wesson. All the “functional fitting” is likewise just fine. Lockup is tight, and no hitches or issues with unlatching, ejector mechanism, or ejection. I had heard there might be some stickiness in ejection, but none at all in mine. The grip is a proprietary patent Taurus calls the Ribber. More about that in a bit…
The Tracker, for me, is a well-balanced gun and has exactly the feel I like in any handgun. It’s fast to move, easy to stop, and sits the hand very well. It’s very stable on target and I have zero doubt that I simply cannot miss with this gun! It has enough barrel to allow precision sight alignment and enough frame size to get an effective hold, but not too much of either. It’s not nearly as bulky and unwieldy as most revolvers in this caliber.
Trigger is better than I expected but not nearly what I would call “great.” Yes. Smith & Wesson is better. The double-action stroke on the Taurus isn’t as light, but it is smooth. There’s only a little discernible “stacking” through the stroke. That’s when you feel an inconsistent increase in the trigger pull as the trigger is arced through its stroke. Spring tuning (and parts smoothing) can work wonders, but don’t cut it too close (the hammer has to hammer). Single-action broke just at 5 lbs. on my Lyman gage and that is likewise good, but not great.
What It’s Not
It’s not pleasant! I didn’t expect it to be. At 35 oz. (40 loaded) that’s not much mass to offset the recoil of a .44 Mag. This gun weighs less than a standard 1911. I want to believe that the porting helps but, dang, I also have to believe I’m glad it’s there! Porting does indeed help. I’ve shot enough side-by-side comparisons with other guns to tell you it’s very effective in reducing recoil.
Magnums sting the hand and shock the wrists. I get a cylinder-full on target and take a break.
“Controlling” a .44 Mag., or similar, is a little bit of an illusion. It’s not really possible to keep the gun flat. What matters is learning how to let it recoil and then see it return to the target, and that’s all about stance, posture, grip. That’s mechanics, but once you learn “how,” it’s not the recoil that misses a target. It’s the flinch! Just being honest. I get a kick out of gun writers who suggest that lower-recoiling guns are more accurate and can be fired more accurately. No. They can be fired successively on target more quickly, but realizing that requires developing another skill set. Of course, one reason for the choice of a .44 is the radically lower likelihood of needing successive shots. That’s actually THE reason.
Now, back to that grip. I did not like it. It’s distractingly squishy (as descriptive as I can be) and too small. The idea is that the ribs absorb recoil. After experience with a replacement, I can’t say it helped soften the shock a whit. I replaced it with a Hogue. Much better! A huge part of softening the bite is getting a healthy handful of grip. The Hogue is recommended; it’s bigger and better contoured, or sure is for me.
Speaking of recoil, one of the wonderful things about “big” revolver rounds is that they have a little brother. I took an assortment of ammo with me, and one reason was already suggested: I wanted to shoot more than a few rounds that morning.
I packed up some Hornady .44 Special 165-gr. Critical Defense, and 180-gr. XTP Custom. The “business” round test included three Hornady .44 Mag. loads—200-gr., 240-gr., 300-gr.—and Winchester 240-gr. That’s a bag-full of pain, folks, and a bag-full of serious power.
With the Specials, especially that 165-gr., recoil was little to no more than a striker-fired semi-auto. Special is a lot lower pressure than magnum. Switching to the mags, I started lightest first, and really should have ended there instead. The 300 was brutal. However, it’s what’s in the cylinder now.
The upshot is that it all shot well. Well enough. At 15-yards using a sandbag to support my hands, 5-shot groups hovered under 3 inches, and none were 3 inches. The best was the 200-gr. Hornady Custom .44 Mag. load, just under 2 inches. I went 15 yards because that’s a realistic distance for what I had in mind for this gun.
This one here fits very squarely into the “niche” category that all the market research likely found for Taurus. My recommendation of this gun hinges totally on subjectivity. What it is, to me, is the most powerful handgun I could find that I was willing to carry, and willing to pay for. That’s actually a lot of things it is, and a lot of things it isn’t. It’s not the most pleasant, or the most powerful, or the easiest to carry, or the “most” of any one thing. It’s a lot of a few things that mattered to me, and something that mattered very much is that its quality got a “good” box-check.
Would I recommend it? Yes! No! As a gun, yes, I recommend it. As a concept, no, not unless you need what I need, or what I think I need. There is a 7-shot .357 Mag. version that might be more agreeable for more people.
I’ve shot the fool out of this revolver (nearing 600 rounds so far) and I have absolute faith and confidence in it.
Objectively, I’m impressed with it, and more than I thought I would be. I have fairly high expectations for all firearms, by the way. It’s my first big revolver that wasn’t a Smith & Wesson, and it’s my first Taurus, and, while it is not a Smith, it’s about 90-percent of one for 50-percent of the cost.
Do you own a Taurus Tracker 44? Share your review in the comment section.
Check out the Zediker Publishing website for more articles and to see all the books written by Glen.