Agree! Nothing like the 8 3/8 inch barrel on an N-Frame for a handle when someone needs to be pistol-whipped!My only real issue with Charter Arms is that they are all too small!!
11 Reasons My Charter Arms is Better Than Your Smith & Wesson
- Thread starter Super Sneaky Steve
- Start date
!!
"My only real issue with Charter Arms is that they are all too small!! "My only real issue with Charter Arms is that they are all too small!!
Entirely too small. Unless you have hands small enough to operate it. And I don't. Same with a J frame. Oh, you could put a big grip on it..and then that pretty much does away with the primary reason (and pretty much, the only reason) for their existence... pocket carry.
I actually got tempted by a Charter .44 "classic" the other day. It's cool and all, but... I just would not really be able to shoot it.
The itsy bitsy guns are cute, but entirely useless for me. A full size, six shot gun with a man sized handle serves me far better.
As to the other things that make a Charter Arms "better"... well... most of my S&W's are older than I am.
Bob Wright
New member
I'm not a big fan of the double action revolver, but this is one of my pet DA revolvers, 5" full lug, .44 Magnum:
Bob Wright
Bob Wright
BourbonCowboy
New member
All this is nice, but there's a reason I own two Charters and no S&W revolvers: S&W doesn't sell a left-handed version.
I know that S&W quality will surpass that of CA, but my Southpaw is small, accurate, and goes bang every time I squeeze the trigger. That's enough for me.
Super Sneaky Steve
New member
Check out the grip I put on the one I reviewed. It's fat. There's nothing below or behind the grip frame so it stays compact, but it's fat enough that you'll like gripping it with big hands. There are several other grips available. I'm sure you could find one that you'd like.
For me, it has little to do with the grip size. I'm the "odd duck" here, I don't have much interest in belly guns or concealed carry "pocket" guns.
I have a couple (taken in on a trade) but I've never bought one, and don't plan to. Colt Cobra .38Spl and Mauser HSc .32acp and .380acp. They meet my needs for that size gun just fine.
And, I'm also a subscriber to the theory that when everything goes completely wrong, your pistol IS an impact weapon, and as such, I want something steel and preferably at least moderately heavy.
And yes, I'll pay the price of it feeling like a brick in my pocket. I take the "viking" point of view, if an all steel full size gun is to heavy for you, grow stronger!
I have a couple (taken in on a trade) but I've never bought one, and don't plan to. Colt Cobra .38Spl and Mauser HSc .32acp and .380acp. They meet my needs for that size gun just fine.
And, I'm also a subscriber to the theory that when everything goes completely wrong, your pistol IS an impact weapon, and as such, I want something steel and preferably at least moderately heavy.
And yes, I'll pay the price of it feeling like a brick in my pocket. I take the "viking" point of view, if an all steel full size gun is to heavy for you, grow stronger!
Bought a Charter Arms pink .32 H&R Magnum a few months ago. It has already been back to the factory for repairs three (3) times. They completely replaced the gun once. I'll say this for them, they answer their phone promptly, as opposed to S&W, but in my experience their quality is Saturday Night Special.
I have a bunch of Buffalo Bore ammo - and new .32 revolver ammo is very hard to find - but they strictly forbid using Buffalo Bore whether .32 long or .32 H&R magnum. Their repairman told me that doing so can result in "catastrophic failure".
No comparison qualitywise with S&W - except for that stupid hillary hole - and why does S&W continue to do that!?
I have a bunch of Buffalo Bore ammo - and new .32 revolver ammo is very hard to find - but they strictly forbid using Buffalo Bore whether .32 long or .32 H&R magnum. Their repairman told me that doing so can result in "catastrophic failure".
No comparison qualitywise with S&W - except for that stupid hillary hole - and why does S&W continue to do that!?
When the British company that owned S&W made the deal with the Clintons (and no other gunmaker did) that put the lock in S&Ws, lots of people were upset. S&W stock tanked and the company was sold, for a loss (7million I heard).
The group that bought S&W was either run by or included some of the people who designed and made the lock that S&W used. Obviously they think its a good idea, and so they kept it in S&W guns since they now owned the company.
I can't state this as absolute fact, but its the story I heard. Perhaps someone else here knows the actual details???
Super Sneaky Steve
New member
The light weight Charter guns are made from 7057 Aluminum. They have limitations just like the old S&W and Colt aluminum frames. These are much cheaper than aluminum scandium alloys but can't take as much abuse.
Their stainless steel guns are obviously much stronger and are still very light for what they are. If you like to push the limits I would stick with SS.
The Undercoverette is only 16oz in all steel.
Their stainless steel guns are obviously much stronger and are still very light for what they are. If you like to push the limits I would stick with SS.
The Undercoverette is only 16oz in all steel.
Driftwood Johnson
New member
Have you ever actually counted the rifling grooves in a Smith & Wesson barrel? They all have five grooves, not six. Both antiques and modern, all have five grooves.
One of the ways I know this is that it is difficult to get an accurate groove to groove measurement when the barrel has an odd number of grooves. Easy with an even number because when you slug the barrel you are measuring from high point to high point on the slug. With an odd number of grooves you are measuring from groove to land on the slug and you have to try and measure the depth of a groove, which is not particularly easy.
Every Smith and Wesson barrel I have ever slugged has had a five groove barrel.
Sorry, I don't have any Charter Arms revolvers to compare, all I have is dozens of Smiths.
Regarding better accuracy with more grooves, I have no idea.
Driftwood Johnson
New member
As several have pointed out, Smith and Wesson revolvers do not have transfer bars, they have hammer blocks. A hammer block works the exact opposite of a transfer bar. A hammer block blocks the hammer from moving forward enough for the firing pin to contact a primer unless the trigger has moved back, withdrawing the hammer block and allowing the hammer to fall all the way.
The thin, slanted piece in this photo is the hammer block. S&W began using this style hammer block in 1944. Remind me again when Charter Arms made their first revolvers? 1964?
Previous to 1944 this was the style of hammer block used inside a Smith and Wesson revolver. The hammer block was a piece of spring steel peened into a slot in the side plate. Spring tension kept the hammer block extended between the frame and the hammer. When the trigger was pulled, the ramp visible on the hand pushed the hammer block back into the frame, allowing the hammer to fall all the way. This is the type of hammer block that failed in 1944 in a ship board accident when a sailor was killed, prompting the 1944 redesign that has been inside S&W revolvers ever since.
Going back even further, this is the first style of hammer block that S&W used. I have placed the hand in its groove in the side plate to show how it worked. When the hand rose, it pushed a tapered pin sideways that withdrew the hammer block, allowing the hammer to fall all the way. I do not know exactly when this style of hammer block was introduced, but I do know that this S&W left the factory in 1920.
As I said, I do not know exactly when S&W first started putting hammer blocks in their revolvers. This one was made prior to them having any hammer blocks inside at all. I would have to look up exactly when this one was made, I'm guessing probably around 1910 or so.
This is a Transfer Bar, not a Hammer Block. As its name implies, a transfer bar transfers the blow of the hammer to a frame mounted firing pin. It does not block anything. This one happens to be in a Ruger New Vaquero.
This is a photo of the parts in a modern Ruger single action revolver. The transfer bar is the long thin part attached to the trigger.
Iver Johnson patented the transfer bar in 1896. Here is the patent drawing of their transfer bar. Ruger first began installing transfer bars in their revolvers sometime in the mid 1970s.
Pardon me for making a snide remark, but perhaps if you owned a few more you would not make erroneous statements about them.
OK, so a couple of others have chimed in here, but let's take it point by point:
Sorry for the guffaw. Charter Arms triggers are universally bad. Lots of guns come from the factory with bad triggers, but most of them can be fixed. Not Charter Arms, those are just bad.
OK, so as to not totally tick you off, I will say CA is an OK gun, but just OK. In my 50 years as a shooter, I have owned a Charter Arms revolver. They're not a BAD gun, they are so-so, and they are NEVER going to win awards as the BEST guns on the market. They are a low-cost entry point firearm, and realizing that they are cheap guns for people who can't or don't want to spend a lot of money on a firearm, you should understand that many gun owners will laugh at you outright if you try telling them a Charter Arms is better than a S&W or Colt or CZ or Ruger or just about any other gun other than RG or Armenius.
But, hey! If it's what you like, more power to you!
1- No frame lock, so when you shoot the crane can flex and the gun will shave lead. Ooookay. No one likes a frame lock? Then why is it a HUGE selling point? Someone must want them!
2- Only 1 grip style, fits everyone as poorly as possible. Shoot a 44 Bulldog or a Tracker in 357 and you'll get rapped on the knuckle of your middle finger. Hard. So, no thanks, don't like getting smacked on the knuckle.
3- And this makes a difference how? Oooh! I can buy a CA with aluminum grip frame and shed 1 oz! Woohoo!
4- The best target barrels in the world come with 6-groove rifling, so how is 8 better? It's because they use shallower rifling that is cheaper to make and doesn't deform the barrel as much during rifling, that's about the only advantage.
5- So, hold on. First you say CA is better because it doesn't lock the crane, and now all of a sudden a crane lock is an advantage? No. CA started putting crane locks on because the earlier 357s would shoot loose really quickly. So, a frame lock is a good thing.
6- Weeeell, sorta. Simple design? Sure. Reliable? No. Easy to work on? No. Smooth triggers? No. Cheap to make? Yes. And forged frames are stronger than cast and pinned metal, by the way.
7- And so we get down to the crux of the matter. Low cost/price. Price point sells a lot of guns. Not because they're better, because they're cheaper.
8- CA has been making guns for a long time, since way back when the 38 Special waas considered a big gun. They made a lot of 32s as well. variety is the spice of life, until you can't find ammo for your oddball gun, then it's a pain in the rear pocket where your wallet lives. And BTW, S&W and Ruger make a 44 Special, along with Taurus, but most of the industry no longer makes one. Not sure who makes a 32 Magnum because, quite frankly, no one cares about 32 Magnum except a small niche of shooters.
9- Oh, yeah! All those shooting pros could have had a better trigger if they had just chosen a Charter Arms!
Sorry for the guffaw. Charter Arms triggers are universally bad. Lots of guns come from the factory with bad triggers, but most of them can be fixed. Not Charter Arms, those are just bad.10- Be sure to mention that to Jerry Miculek. Guess he never knew Charter was better.
11- Well, you got me on that one. Sure wish some other manufacturers had guarantees. Like Ruger, who will work on a Ruger no matter when it was made. But yeah, CA will guarantee their stuff for life. Just like Taurus. It's a selling point, and they understand very well that most people will never shoot their guns enough to need the warranty.
OK, so as to not totally tick you off, I will say CA is an OK gun, but just OK. In my 50 years as a shooter, I have owned a Charter Arms revolver. They're not a BAD gun, they are so-so, and they are NEVER going to win awards as the BEST guns on the market. They are a low-cost entry point firearm, and realizing that they are cheap guns for people who can't or don't want to spend a lot of money on a firearm, you should understand that many gun owners will laugh at you outright if you try telling them a Charter Arms is better than a S&W or Colt or CZ or Ruger or just about any other gun other than RG or Armenius.
But, hey! If it's what you like, more power to you!
Driftwood Johnson
New member
Just for the fun of it:
After patenting their transfer bar design in 1896 Iver Johnson ran their "Hammer the Hammer" advertising campaign for many years, to demonstrate the safety of their revolvers with transfer bars inside.
I only have one Iver Johnson revolver, this safety hammerless chambered for 38S&W, not 38 Special.
After patenting their transfer bar design in 1896 Iver Johnson ran their "Hammer the Hammer" advertising campaign for many years, to demonstrate the safety of their revolvers with transfer bars inside.
I only have one Iver Johnson revolver, this safety hammerless chambered for 38S&W, not 38 Special.
I've got a 70s Charter Pathfinder .22, with I think a 3 inch barrel and adjustable sights. It's fun to shoot shorts and LRs in, but that's about all I'd use it for. I bought it because it was, yes, inexpensive used. Got it in a parking lot, if I remember.
I just have so many .38 Smiths I don't really need another Undercover. I've tried buying, but those for sale seem to go quickly, and it hasn't been a priority. I haven't any interest in a new one.
I just have so many .38 Smiths I don't really need another Undercover. I've tried buying, but those for sale seem to go quickly, and it hasn't been a priority. I haven't any interest in a new one.
arquebus357
New member
Years ago I owned one of the CA bulldog 44 spl. "son of sam" edition. Strictly for emergency self defense as I didn't find it much fun to shoot. (16 oz !!!)
I pretty much lost respect for CA upon viewing the recent CA gun store display. Leopard skin, pink, aqua, baby blue, purple etc, etc. BARF.
I was going to say that the transfer bar was a Iver Johnson perversion but Driftwood did an awesome job of making that point.
I pretty much lost respect for CA upon viewing the recent CA gun store display. Leopard skin, pink, aqua, baby blue, purple etc, etc. BARF.
I was going to say that the transfer bar was a Iver Johnson perversion but Driftwood did an awesome job of making that point.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"I do not know exactly when this style of hammer block was introduced, but I do know that this S&W left the factory in 1920."
As best as I can determine, S&W started adding hammer blocks to their revolvers right after World War I, probably 1919 or 1920.
As best as I can determine, S&W started adding hammer blocks to their revolvers right after World War I, probably 1919 or 1920.
Mike Irwin
Staff
As for the "8 is better than (other lesser number of grooves)...
You've made a dramatic, all encompassing statement.
Now you need to provide dramatic, all encompassing PROOF.
Your 5-year-old, while probably a cute kid, he/she likely still believes in Santa and a bunch of other wonderful myths that can't be backed up with anything concrete.
Is that proof that a fat guy with aerial reindeer actually does the Christmas shopping in your house?
You've made a dramatic, all encompassing statement.
Now you need to provide dramatic, all encompassing PROOF.
Your 5-year-old, while probably a cute kid, he/she likely still believes in Santa and a bunch of other wonderful myths that can't be backed up with anything concrete.
Is that proof that a fat guy with aerial reindeer actually does the Christmas shopping in your house?
As far as I can tell, the Ruger transfer bar showed up with the New Model Blackhawk lockwork, about 1973.
Ruger redesigned the mechanism of the Blackhawk, creating the New Model Blackhawk as the result of a lawsuit settlement which also including converting any and every Blackhawk they got to the new transfer bar system, a requirement Ruger is still following to this day. Ruger was not required to recall the guns and convert them but any "old model" Blackhawk sent to Ruger (for any reason) will be converted, whether the owner wants it, or not.
I've had some experience with a few Charter Arms revolvers (admittedly none recent) and none of them were as good as any of my S&Ws. You're welcome to your opinion, and so am I.