◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

Okay, I know it seems like it’s all Taurus or Rossi news lately, but they dropped a lot of stuff just ahead of the NRA Annual Meeting. This time it was the Executive Grade 692 revolver chambered in .357 Magnum.

The Executive Series guns are hand assembled and fitted at the Taurus plant in Georgia and are the premiere guns in the Taurus lineup. Like the other Executive Grade guns, the new 692 features a gorgeous satin finish and premium walnut grips. They have tuned triggers and slick actions as well. I haven’t shot one yet, but the ones I’ve handled at SHOT have been impressive.

The 692 comes with a 3-inch, full under lug barrel complete with compensator. It has an adjustable rear sight and brass insert front. It has a seven-shot capacity cylinder and if that isn’t enough, it also comes with a spare 9mm cylinder. The Taurus switch cylinder design makes it easy to swap calibers with just the push of a button.

The Executive Grade 692 is a classy and functional looking build, and the fact that you can shoot .357 Magnum, .38 Special and 9mm is an added bonus. You may need the option to shoot the cheaper ammo after all since it does carry an MSRP of $1106.99.

◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

32 COMMENTS

  1. Cool! But I will never pay anywhere near $1100 for a Taurus. Well maybe a 454 Casull raging hunter🙄

    • I’ve owned and used Taurus revolvers. Have no experience with their autos. I’ve had good results with their wheel guns. But they’ve always been a cost savings over Smiths and Rugers.

      I paid 900 for a Ruger gp100. I’m not paying that kind of cash for a Taurus.

      • My $250 Taurus G3C in 9mm is a perfectly acceptable pistol. My $99 Heritage 22lr revolver (Taurus owned) is also fine. I wouldn’t dream of spending anywhere near $1000 for a Taurus revolver. For that kind of money I want a S&W or Ruger and I want it in 44mag.

    • former water walker,

      Same here. I have more than one Taurus revolver and I really like all of them. A significant reason that I like them is their price. The revolver which is the topic of this article fails spectacularly in that regard and I have no interest in trying to purchase one.

      Pro-tip: if you want a good revolver and you can only afford/justify half the price of a Ruger, Smith-and-Wesson, or Colt then go with a Taurus.

      • Oh I’ve had 2 Taurus revolver’s. They ran fine. Ya gotta break them in like every Taurus I’ve had. I’ve heard a lot more negative about Charter Arms revolvers🙄

        • I only ever owned one Charter Arms revolver. It worked. But it was not what I would call a well fit and finished gun.

  2. At first glance I liked it, but would question the utility of the 9mm cylinder. Years ago, I had a 357/9 blackhawk that shot really well as a 357/38spl, but was frustrating with the nines which weren’t near as accurate, required a lot of sight changes, and required a hard push of the ejector rod.
    I’d think about it if it were 357 only, and priced more “Taurusly”

    • 3″ Taurus’s are quite well priced! I may get one for carry. My buddy gotta new 4″ stainless 66 for around $400(he knew the Cabela’s guy). I’m his “guru” more or less & need to shoot it🙄

      • 0.002″ is not that much, literally one one thousandth of an inch on either side of the projectile while assuming that the tolerance on the projectiles is less than that. 0.002″ is also likely much less than the cylinder gap which tends to be more than .005″. In fact, revolvers with cylinder gaps less than .005 tend to have issues with drag and lockup due to carbon fouling, lead fouling or both. In general .355, .356 and .357 bullets have all been used for .38 special, .357 magnum and 9mm for years. Go buy a box of bullets from each of three or four different manufacturers, get out a micrometer with a precision of better than 1/1000th and mic a couple hundred – you would be likely to see variation on the order of 2 thousandths even if all the projectiles were nominally the same size – certainly if they are not match grade projectiles. People have been throwing .355″ bullets down nominally .357″ barrels for over a century.

        • MyName,

          Good to know. I was initially thinking that the 9mm Luger bullet’s diameter of 0.355 inches allowed for enough “slop” to explain less accuracy shooting out of a barrel sized for 0.357 inch bullets. You commentary suggests that any “slop” is likely due to something else rather than the ever-so-slightly smaller bullet diameter.

          • It is possible, even likely, that the rifling pitch was more suitable to heavier (and longer) .357 bullets than lighter and shorter 9mm bullets. That or just some other particular quirk of the gun/ammo combination.

            This has been discussed a lot with various 5.56 and .223 bullet weights and different AR barrel twist rates. I have an AR with a 1:7 twist rate that is a 200 meter hole punch with 62 gr. bullets but produces shotgun patterns at half that distance with 55 gr rounds.

    • My brother bought the black hawk with 9 cylinder in the 70’s. The 9 was never installed on the revolver. It was on sale, he got a bargain so he just ignored the 9 side of things.

      I’ve never seen a black hawk that wasn’t a shooter. And because of its size and weight he was able to pistol whip a bad dude that was trying to grapple him.

      • jwm,

        Several years ago I purchased a used Ruger New Model Super Blackhawk with 7.5-inch barrel chambered in .44 Magnum: I purchased it for hunting white-tailed deer at ranges up to 50 yards minimum. Alas, I am having a rough time getting consistent and acceptable groups at 50 yards. I don’t think I am at fault for the group sizes and I have no idea what may be the root cause if I am not the root cause. For now it sits around collecting dust until I have more time to investigate and hopefully correct whatever is out-of-whack (even if that means I am the root cause).

        • I’ve only hunted with a .22 pistol. Raccoons and possums. I don’t normally try a 50 yard pistol shot. That’s out of my experience range. At least with a handgun.

          • jwm,

            I believe that a heavy full-size revolver with a 6-inch or even an 8-inch barrel and a shooting rest should enable most people who are decently accurate shooters to shoot consistent 6-inch groups at 50 yards with minimal practice. And with a moderate amount of practice, I imagine that same population of people could consistently shoot 4-inch groups at 50 yards.

            The key to such accuracy at 50 yards is a heavy revolver, long barrel (e.g. long sight radius), and stable rest. If you were trying to shoot small game at 50 yards with a short barrel and no stable rest, I can see how most people (you and me included) would struggle to hit small game even at 25 yards.

        • @Uncommon:
          Don’t overlook leading in the barrel’s forcing cone. I cannot see it myself visually, but have had problems with this in my beloved Model 15 Smith.
          The “Lewis Lead Remover” is a cone-shaped rubberized anvil that is screwed onto the end of your cleaning rod that has been inserted all the way into the barrel. Pulling and twisting it “out” scrubs the forcing cone with a bronze woven “window screen” like material.
          Could help.
          That .44 Mag Ruger should be an excellent shooter. Well worth sorting out the problem.

          • 05Banana,

            I like your suggestion. I will definitely investigate that.

            For reference I have never done anything (in terms of cleaning the barrel) other than the very common and simple procedure:
            1) run a standard brass brush through the barrel to remove surface residue
            2) run a solvent patch through the barrel and let soak for 10 minutes
            3) run a standard brass brush through barrel to loosen heavy fouling
            4) run solvent patches through the barrel until clean
            5) run a dry patch through the barrel
            6) run a VERY lightly oiled patch through the barrel

            As you can see, I have never paid any special attention to the forcing cone, which could very well be my problem.

        • I bought a 7.5″ used New Blackhawk in .44mag about a year ago with a 4x scope. First shot at 25 yards off a bag was 1″ above the bullseye. “Man, this is gonna be fun” I thought. Second shot….nothing. After the rest of the cylinder I had 1 or 2 more holes in the target. I took aim at a piece of trash on the berm at 100 yards and watched for splashes. The first was real close, the next was 5 feet to the right. The next was off to the left. I wound up firing 5 or 6 cylinders worth of ammo with the same results. I had a 44 lever rifle with me and shot 4″ groups at 100 yards with the same box of ammo and some of the next box. I haven’t shot the Blackhawk since and had planned to take the scope off, thinking that was the most likely point of failure. Your post makes me think it may be something else.

  3. I just acquired a 4″ S&W 629 for $900, which is what this would probably cost on the street.

    • You almost certainly got a better gun.

      I understand, a bit, the existence of Taurus’ revolvers (which are, in many respects, S&W clones) if they are substantially cheaper than the genuine article but, when they start trying to market a knock-off S&W for a S&W price, well, I just don’t get it.

      I will admit to being a S&W fanboy but, for the most part over the years, they have earned my affection. I’ve owned a fair few S&W revolvers (and a couple autos) and they have all been top shelf firearms, even some that had been around the block a few times before they became mine.

      • I’ve mostly been pleased with S&W revolvers, but I find I almost always need to apply locktite to one or more screws or ejection rods to make sure everything stays together. My neighbor owns a couple of Tauruses and I’ve shot them. They seem fine, and he says he has never had any problems with them, but I’m wary of purchasing one. Reviews seem to be excellent or terrible, with no middle ground.

        • Most common problems of the type you describe I’ve found on ejector rods, as you mention, and the cylinder release thumb pad screw. As you suggest, a little loctite goes a long way in those places. Myself, I’m a bit of a tinkerer anyway so I tend to take things apart and put them back together often enough that I don’t really notice.

          I feel similar to you about Taurus revolvers. I’ve met some who think they are great and some who think they are junk. I’ve not shot many but, my opinion is that they are nice enough if they are the right price but, in this case, a grand can buy a pretty spiffy Smith or Ruger. If this gun were, say, $600, I might check it out but given that MSRP on a Performance Center 627 is under $1200, I don’t see it for over $1100.

  4. They could and should have left the 9mm cylinder as a separately available accessory. However, that would have required Taurus to have a fully functioning retail operation. The most frustrating thing about Taurus is the impossibility of buying parts from them. Apparently they think we’re all too stupid to replace a hammer or a spring.

  5. “premium walnut grips”

    They are laminated walnut – essentially nice plywood. Nothing is necessarily wrong with that but I would not use the word “premium” to describe it.

  6. Strangely (in my view) many of the Taurus revolvers are not available in California. I am pretty sure this is one of them. I have been browsing for a 3″ or 4″ .57, but many are hard to buy here.

  8. It appears that with extended use and a cavalier attitude towards babying a gunm that front sight will turn into a peep sight,,,,,like the one on a shotgunm I have, an after market on an 870.
    The Mod37 Ithaca is robust as it has steel guards
    The steel shot only certainly has closet queened a lot of my shotgunms, dang it.

Comments are closed.