I'm of the same mind. Will be sticking to my Kuna and Scorpion. I'm definitely not a Taurus fan, although I will admit that I was impressed enough by my 1st gen TX22, that I bought a TORO version when they came out so I could install an optic.
With that said, I too am curious about the need for the rolling block swap. I've only seen one review video so far, but it clearly demonstrated that his example wouldn't run suppressed until he swapped the parts out. My Kuna, on the other hand runs flawlessly, naked or with my Rugged SUB9, using either 124gr NATO or light 147gr subsonics running around 950fps. During a range trip I often swap my can around between the Kuna and a couple of other PCCs, and I alternately run them all with various ammo, suppressed or bare. I can get tuning a gun to run optimally, but for my uses, I don't want to deal with having to open the gun up and swap out oily, sooty internals several times during every range session. I mean, it is what it is, and I'll remain open minded. But, I would like a better understanding of why exactly this parts swap is necessary... My totally uninformed hypothesis is that while "roller locked" the Kuna still uses a pretty high mass bolt. This means that while the roller does mitigate recoil, the gun is still relying on bolt mass for a lot of it's reliable functioning. And along with that line of thought, PERHAPS the Taurus uses a significantly lower mass bolt, which is more sensitive to pressures and recoil impulse. If that is the case, then perhaps also, the Taurus has lighter recoil than the Kuna, but also has a smaller window of operating parameters, thus necessitating different roller lock timing depending on the ammo and backpressure. Just a thought... Which is why I said I will remain open minded. Just haven't seen a direct side by side comparison between the two platforms yet....
