BREAKING: Taurus Class Action Settlement Reached, Your Gun May Qualify

If you own a Taurus handgun, you will want to read this post. Recently, Iowa deputy sheriff Chris Carter brought suit against Brazilian firearms manufacturer Taurus International Manufacturing, Inc. for a defect in their handguns whereby the weapons could potentially fire when dropped. Those who own Taurus handguns in the following models may be able to, if they wish, receive compensation for the weapons as part of the settlement reached between Taurus International Manufacturing, Inc. and the lead plaintiff. From the lawsuit’s website:

Carter v. Forjas Taurus, S.A., et al.

If you own one or more of the following “Class Pistols” : PT-111 Millennium; PT-132 Millennium; PT-138 Millennium; PT-140 Millennium; PT-145 Millennium; PT-745 Millennium; PT- 609; PT-640; and PT-24/7 pistols (including the “PRO” series of each of these models), you may be entitled to the settlement benefits below. The settlement does not include Taurus G2 model pistols.

    • Settlement Payment Option – Settlement Class Members may elect to return their Class Pistol to the Taurus Companies and receive a payment of up to $200 per Class Pistol.
    • Enhanced Warranty – The Taurus Companies agree to modify their existing warranty for all Class Pistols to allow any owner to submit a warranty claim at any time.
      • The Class Pistol will be inspected by the Taurus Companies at no cost and repaired or replaced as necessary.
      • The Taurus Companies will pay all costs associated with this enhanced warranty, including but not limited to the cost of shipping to and from the Taurus Companies and the cost inspect the Class Pistol.
    • Safety Training – The Taurus Companies have produced special and particularized safety training addressing the operation and handling of class pistols.

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida Case No. 1:13-cv-24583-PAS

This website is authorized by the Court, supervised by counsel and controlled by Heffler Claims, the Claims Administrator approved by the Court. This is the only authorized website for this case.

For more information please call 1-844-528-0180

Unfortunately, the Brazilian manufacturer’s handguns have been plagued by scandal recently. My own fairly negative experiences with the company’s products aside, the company has experienced two recalls prior to this lawsuit, the first being the abortive release of the Taurus Curve handgun due to some guns being released without the caliber markings required by law, the other being a Brazilian police recall of 98,000 24/7 DS pistols which had a propensity for firing accidentally. The lawsuit is based on the weapons potentially being able to fire when dropped, which is obviously a safety hazard. Our readers can see how this can happen by clicking this link and watching the embedded video.

The website has an FAQ to inform those who may need to trade in their pistols for the settlement. It can be reached via this link.

Nathaniel F

Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. In addition to contributing to The Firearm Blog, he runs 196,800 Revolutions Per Minute, a blog devoted to modern small arms design and theory. He is also the author of the original web serial Heartblood, which is being updated and edited regularly. He can be reached via email at


  • kavan grant

    Do these engineers even test these things before release. It’s not like it’s some war time rush to build. Next time just copy someone’s pistol design seems like they can’t design them well.

    • aka_mythos

      They probably do test them, the question is if they test them enough. It can get expensive; from my experience to do the full battery of tests the military uses to prove a weapon or munition is drop safe cost something like $8M for an item like these handguns before production launch and 3-5% cost for verification after the line is running. Now consider they’d strictly speaking have to do that with every version. Its not really cost effective.

      • JK

        $39.5 million lawsuit settlement, how many people dead or permanently disfigured, and, most importantly, how much lost revenue due to bad press/lost sales?

        • aka_mythos

          I’m not defending them. The consequences speak for themselves. What ever amount of testing obviously wasn’t enough. My point was that I believe they did some testing but for what it costs, I don’t believe Taurus can afford to test all of its firearms to the standard military equipment is tested. We will likely see more lawsuits and more design flaws from them and similarly sized companies.

          This is only to say how these failures of testing occur: Testing a design “enough” is always a difficult proposition; it is a largely open ended proposition with a great deal of unknowns where “enough” means many different things to many different people. Even still, when you’ve tested everything you could think of there can be other things. Most of the time even with a modest quality design as your progress your tests create data showing your design is sound making it harder and hard to justify additional spending. Consider that this lawsuit involved 9 different makes of firearms, it could easily have cost them $72M to have them tested to military standards just for drop and transportability safety, even before considering other types of tests. It’s easy in hindsight to see the flaw now, but consider that they listened to engineers who likely insisted it had been tested sufficiently. It would be difficult for any CEO to contradict their expertise and then say they should spend double their annual profits to retest what’s “proven.” It may seem cold hearted to say, but for what they will pay in the lawsuit, its less than what it might have cost to catch the problem.

          • Kivaari

            It seems that a qualified engineer could simply study the blue prints and come up with a “This looks bad” comment. Once one gun comes back for the particular issue, that it would be looked at closely. Or if it’s handed to a trained ape that been a pistol smith for 1 month ‘fixes the problem”. I’ve seen it. I’ve sent guns to manufacturers specifically explaining the problem – only to get it back with a replaced part, of the same type, that will fail. H&R/NEF ships junk, even covered with “inspectors marks” (electric pencil) having no rifling, broken sights, broken – stripped fore end screw, firing pin at least 3 times the safe length. Charter Arms ships junk regardless of model. Colt became a junk merchant when they still made DA revolvers. Colt’s 1 year warranty lasts from the day it was made to that date one year later. A gun can sit on a warehouse shelf for 2 years (because selling junk slows customer demand) making it past the 1 year mark. Those aren’t just gun shop BS, it has happened to me as both a dealer and simple customer. Junk is junk regardless of who’s label is on it.

          • aka_mythos

            There are many questions that arise when an article is returned defective; first there is the question of whether it was the factories fault, or if it was something caused by transportation, or if was a warranty breaking alteration made after the purchase. There are questions of if it is defective design, defective assembly, or simply an out of specification part that failed to be screened out. After that you can start answering the question of how wide spread the problem is.

            Taurus, their guns have a variety of problems as it is. That would tend to raise the statistical threshold at which a problem or defect would even be flagged. Assuming that weren’t the case and that they follow best practices… Six Sigma is the engineering statistical standards for defect analysis. It sets the threshold at 3.4 defects per 1,000,000 opportunities; each one of their guns have around 50 parts, each part with several critical dimensions or opportunities… just for approximation lets say 10… that’s 500 opportunities per gun. Meaning for every 2000 guns they produce they would have to see the exact same problem flagged 4 times. In this case we’re talking 100,000 handguns across 9 different production lines; assuming an even number of each gun was produced the exact same defect in an individual make of gun would have to be reported and recognized as a design defect 19 times before any one in the engineering department would even hear about it. Its claimed that Taurus knew of the design flaw, but with a settlement its unlikely we will ever hear how aware they were.

          • Kivaari

            Using that model obviously did not work. Break that model. Bring in an engineer early so fewer guns are shipped with built in issues. If they sit back, they are culpable in the mess. Engineers need to be there all the time. TQM protocols identify the issues faster than waiting for the hammer to fall on a pile pistols. It can be a simple thing, like I saw often on Taurus SA pistols. Plastic grip panels on new guns, that are already warped, allowing parts to move causing reliable functioning. If they use plastic grips to hold parts in place, than using cheap plastic where good plastic is needed is a failure of the engineers, production staff and sales. I opened many Taurus boxes to be greeted by an already piece of junk that should not have left the factory. There is no shame, if they ship faulty products. It hurts business to sell a Taurus, only to have the customer bringing it back the next day, already broken. I rarely bought Taurus pistols for sale in my stores. When I still had the shop, I tried calling Taurus several times to be greeted by nasty people in customer service. Same with Beretta. Horrid customer relations haunts many gun makers.

  • JK

    Does the extended warranty include fixing the design flaw that causes them to fire when dropped? ( aka, the reason for the whole mess)
    Also, the refund for a defective product should be MSRP, which I’m pretty sure is well over $200.

    • Precious Roy

      The lawyers are getting paid more than that so what do they care.

    • robocop33

      I would accept a new G2 Model or the MSRP for my 24/7, nothing less. I am not about to give them my 24/7 for less as it functions perfectly, accurate, and fits my hand. The simple solution is to use the de-cocker and release the tension on the firing pin hammer spring. If you do that and leave the pistol on safe, all you have to do to fire it is knock the safety off and pull the trigger like a DAO pistol.

  • Vitsaus

    Buy cheap sh*t, get cheap sh*t problems.

    • Kivaari

      Cheap at any price is still junk.

      • GearHeadTony

        “Cheap at any price”……what???

        • Kivaari

          Cheap doesn’t mean inexpensive. If a product is cheaply made using poor designs and poor quality parts it is cheap. A low price buys you a piece of junk. I like buying good quality guns that are inexpensive. A $500 Taurus on sale for $250 dollars, may be an inexpensive gun, but you still end up with junk. Hence junk at any price is still junk.

  • W.P Zeller

    I wonder… do I send Taurus my old PT145, which will cost me a couple of hours and about $75 to do, and get back a check for $200?
    That will be very close to break-even, and I have one fewer gun.
    Not sure that option works for me.

    • Phillip Cooper

      Is it really that hard to go to the site and read? These questions are answered already…

  • Kivaari

    Is there even a partial list of those injured or killed? How many suffering simple property damage? $200 is nothing. A new G2 pistol with spare magazines would be more appropriate. Or the price of a similar, but superior, Glock.

    • Broadway

      I have a Taurus 24/27 which was purchased in 2008 I’m thinking they are 7 years to late!

    • PeterMax


      • Kivaari

        I never saw a Taurus pistol, other than .22 or .25, sell for $200 new. I remember seeing them in the $300 to $500. Give them the price of a new Glock, so they don’t buy another Taurus. Or give the people brand new Generation 2 models. I would never trust a Taurus semi auto pistol. I do like the M85 5-shot .38 revolvers. Even the .22 magnum M941s are OK, but crude inside.

        • PeterMax

          If you wanted Glock money, you should have bought a Glock. I have seen several Taurus semi-automatics less than $300 [NIB]. Its been years ago. The deals that are worked out normally do not favor the consumer as the attorneys are interested in a class action settlement where they get large attorney fees while letting the class get soaked.

          • Kivaari

            Well, let’s put t this way. I own Glocks. I never bought a cheap Taurus semi-auto, or sold them in my gun store. The revolvers, yes!
            Before I opened my second store in ’93, I had watched customers at other gun stores coming in with Taurus autos. Junk at any price.
            My point being, Taurus should not needed a class action lawsuit to correct the problems. From day one, when the obviously poor designs started coming back for warranty. Taurus let this problem grow world wide. That is what is behind the coming and going of CEOs. Just think, a good company would have solved the problem quicker. It would have saved them million of dollars – literally. The Gen 2 pistols should have come out fast.
            I was issued Glock 17s and 34s and I recommend Glocks to the cops that needed to buy their own guns. Some insisted on buying Early S&Ws (Sigma, from memory) even though the reports on them was bad. S&Ws factory rep (before they fired all of them) told me about the problems. It was the only pistol Smith fired 3 full magazines of ammo through before shipping. Even then the guns did not work. I was getting beaten around for having sold one “used” gun as new (it was dirty because S&W didn’t clean them after testing. At least S&W worked at replacing those. Taurus dragged it out and look where that got the company.
            A local range uses M&Ps for classes. The instructor told me that the Glock e carries is more reliable than the M&Ps students use.
            Glock has its issues. The G1 and G2 parts recall-replacements did not help sales. But they did fix it. Taurus failed to get on the job.
            I dislike class action suits, as the lawyers are the only ones getting rich.
            It could have been avoided.
            I wont buy a Taurus again. I wont buy Beretta again. I wont buy current Colt’s. Glock pistols and S&W revolvers are the only handguns I keep.

          • PeterMax

            Just so I don’t misunderstand you, are you saying that Glock has not had any recalls [also called product upgrades] of its products due to failures, safety problems, springs, firing pins, and poor workmanship? I had a couple Taurus handguns [both wheel and semi-auto] and I had no problems with either of them. I also had a Glock at one time and it functioned well with the exception of a couple of misfeeds when it was new [factory ammo].

            I too have been around a lot of guns on and off for better than 40 years. We had both a gun store and a full service shooting range. I have seen a whole lot of guns of just about every make and model. In the hand gun crowd, I have seen a lot of them fail for reasons from mechanical failures to poor cleaning and maintenance. The Glocks were not exempt from either of these. I do like Glocks, but I also liked my Tauruses as well. If I had to carry one over the other, it would be a Glock because it is ergonomically an easier handgun for me to hold and holster designs are everywhere for them.

            My family had five members in both police departments and sheriffs departments. They always carried a gun in which they had absolute faith. These included S&W Model 13’s, 19’s, 28’s, and 59’s; Colt Troopers and 1911’s; and Browning High Powers, as well as various small revolvers as backups.

            Taurus may have had to be taken to court, or there may have been a hungry attorney looking for a class action lawsuit who pushed it quickly versus letting the manufacturer make a voluntary recall. I do not know the details of the suit. GLOCK HAS had to engage in a number of voluntary recalls and “product updates” to improve the reliability and actual functions of some of their pistols including the 17.

          • Kivaari

            I mentioned the recall and parts replacement for the G17 (2nd) and G19 (1st.-when it was first offered, along with the G2 17s). My Department also had G21 (the fist iteration) where slides were all screwed up. Glock sent loaner slides, until our guns were repaired).
            I was the first officer to be issued a M17. I had told the chief the M21 (no SFs at the time) were too large for my hands. Before long they switched from .45s to 9mms. He was a tall man with huge hands, and the M21 fit him, but not many others. When doing night shoots I demonstrated the superiority of the 9mm over the .45s. I could fire 9 rounds onto 2 moving targets, whereas the .45 guys were having trouble getting one o two good hits. He did some testing and made the change. We carried MP5s at the time.
            We had trouble with SIG P220s, having TOO TIGHT of a chamber, and they were very ammo sensitive. SIG fixed them.
            I am quite familiar with the issues with Glocks. I do know my issued 17 was so reliable that I stopped keeping track of rounds at 22,000 rounds. I carried it for a couple more years always letting the young guys get new ones. Right before I retired the second time, I was issued a G34.
            S&W and Colts were worn out too fast. Revolvers or autos. Before using the SIGs and Glock 21s. they issued Colt Governments (1911). Those commercial guns, self destructed and gave very poor performance. Before those they tried AMT
            (I couldn’t believe it either). Those chewed up internal parts fast. They replaced them with Colt interiors, which failed and pushed them to the Govt’ Models. Contrary to myth, the Colt’s are not trouble free.
            My duty guns from 1969-2002 included S&W M10 HB, M19, Colt Trooper III, M67 (the M67 wore out fast), M66 (wore out in 2500 rds. almost all .38), M39-2 then to Glock 17 and 34.
            The S&W 539, 639, 59, 659 all showed poor performance. In the old-style only the M39 seemed to be OK. When the Sigmas showed up, well they were bad.

          • BigFED

            As to those S&W Sigmas, those “new” M&P models are just an iteration of the Sigma!!! Almost the same crappy trigger!

          • Kivaari

            After 25 years to fix them, they should be better.

  • Yimmy

    Will the new ones include a bottle opener?

  • FightFireJay

    Would this cover a PT638?

    It’s part of the PT609/PT640 family.

    • Cory

      What is the best handgun to carry?

  • robocop33

    Problem is, my 24/7 costs me almost $400 so why should I give it to them for only $200, and then hope they send me a check for the $200? What about shipping costs? No, my best choice is doing what I have been doing ever since I bought it and carry it daily. I load 12 in the magazine and one in the chamber and then use the decocker and place it on safety. It simply can’t go off because there is no pressure on the firing pin spring! All I need to do to fire my weapon is to draw, knock off the safety and fire the first round double action, which is what I do when I qualify. Carried in this condition it is as safe as a revolver with a safety that disconnects the trigger from the hammer! I always shoots and is very accurate and the .45 Hydro-shock I carry puts a very big hole that is pretty much non-survivable when hit in the torso or especially the head.

    • Geoffry K

      Same thing I do with my 24/7 Pro LS/DS 9mm.
      I dropped the mag, cleared the gun and tried and tried to get it to fire every which way and nothing happened. I will NOT deliberately drop a $450 pistol, though.
      Over 3000 rounds through it and the only thing that ever happened is a chipped extractor, which doesn’t even affect it.
      I’m keeping it. Not going to return it for UP TO $200 refund or a replacement.
      I like my 5″ barrel, good target pistol. Don’t want anything shorter.

  • Edeco

    I don’t think they’ll have to deal with too many claims, since many of the guns have probably been discarded in bodies of water or dumpsters.

    I keed, I keed.

  • John Lacher

    My concealed carry weapon (CCW) is a Glock 19, 9mm. I would not carry anything else.

    • Kivaari

      That’s an excellent pick.

  • BigFED

    At the shop where I used to work, we did sell several of the Taurus models because folks would ask for them. When a customer would ask about the latest iterations of the Bryco, Jennings, and other “Low (price) Point” derivatives, we would just respond that that brand took the pressure off Taurus for having some of the worst pistols. The Taurus revolvers were OK! And, ironically, those NOT Low Point pistol calibre carbines held up well. We had a couple of shooters that would run a couple of hundred rounds through their carbines almost monthly and those things just kept on chattering!!! Maybe if Taurus were to make a…. Naw, not likely…

    • Kivaari

      They can’t get past ugly. It must be something with the South American mindset. Like a bus in North America looks like a bus. In the south it looks like an import from Pakistan.