Charter 2000 Bulldog or Taurus 650 CIA?

C

catmath 1911

New member
Hello All,

I am trying to decide between these two revolvers for carry, and I am interested in hearing feedback from members who have had any experience with either one. Also, could you possibly give a report on accuracy of these two snubbies? I am not looking for a tack driver (Although Taurus's ad seems to state so :confused: ), but I would like to see how they group at say 25 yards? www.gunblast.com States the Bulldog will do 1" at 21 yards, which I find Intriguing. All responses are welcome and appreciated!

catmath 1911
 
Greeting's Cat,

I have no experience with either one; but I have read various
write-up's on the Taurus. Looks to me like Taurus has improved
somewhat, from the day's of the old model 82. I would be very
interested to know myself which is the better gun? When the
Charter's first came out, I owned a "Off Duty" 2" barrel .38
Special. It was very inexpensive, and rivaled the Smith model
36 "Chief's Special". While I still preferred the Smith, the little
Charter was a good gun, with a great value. I understand that
Charter Arms has since changed hands several times; so to
truthfully answer your question, I just don't know.

Follow Up: I did have a LEO partner onetime, that carried
the Charter Bulldog .44 Special for a while. I never heard
him complain about it.

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
 
Compare them side by side if you can before you buy.I wasn't impressed at all by the Charter 2000's i've seen.I'd love to see them make it,but i'm wary.
 
I have pondered the same question...throw in the S&W 340/360, Ruger sp101 etc....I got to shoot a CIA 650 a couple of days ago..
I was impressed. The DAO trigger was actually better than my old sp101. Its heavy enough to actually shoot 357 loads and not
kill your hand/wrist. I only put 20 rnds thru it but it seems to be as accurate as any other snubbie I have shot.
Charter Arms guns have a good rep., but I question the "rough" stainless finish on the ones I have seen....I just looks cheap to me and hard to keep clean. Anyway...the CIA is probably next on my list for a summer CCW.....Shoot well
 
I have a Charter Undercover from the 80s, it is a nice little gun, shoots where you point it, even handles full .357 loads pretty well, tho I usually stoke it with .38+P. I don't know anything about the new Charters tho. I do have a Taurus Tracker that is a fine revolver, still, not a Ti model. I'd say, if you can't shoot both and compare, go with the Taurus.
 
Thanks to Tropical Z, Eric Larsen, and Prodigalshooter for your replies.

My local gun store doesn't have either one in stock, and would have to order them. That is why I am trying to get everyone's advice on which would be a better carry gun. To tell you the truth, I am kinda partial to the Bulldog, I guess it's the thought of a .44 caliber snubbie that weighs 21 ozs, and won't break the bank. But, I am also tempted to get the taurus do too ammo versatility, and aesthetics. :D Keep up the excellent replies.

catmath 1911
 
Hey Cat-

Have you tried Simmons Sporting Goods in Bessemer, AL?
Really nice folk's to do business with, + they usually have
a large selection of fine firearm's. Drop in and ask for Dale,
Ray, or Clay; and be sure to tell them I sent you. PX #=
(205) 425-4720.

Good Shooting,
Ala Dan, Life Member N.R.A.
 
A couple of questions arise from your posts..........

1. How are you going to carry either of these revolvers? The Taurus CIA weighs in at a hefty 23 oz empty; the Charter Arms .44 not much lighter. There are lighter revolvers out there if you are interested. The CIA is built on the same platform as their Mod 85 .38 spcl or the Mod 605 .357 magnun. It has been around for a long time and is a proven shooter. I own the Mod 85 ultralite and it is a sweet shooting gun. I believe the Charters are not true enclosed hammerless models but simply have a bobbed, concealed hammer. Me? I'd go with the Taurus CIA......OR........have you checked out a used Smith and Wesson mod 642 or 442?? They weigh a lot less and are also a proven design.

2. If your primary reason for carrying is self-defense, why are you concerned with accuracy at 25 yards? I would be more concerned about how quickly you can draw/acquire/fire out to about 7 yards at the most. Think about it; when are you going to be firing in self-defense at 75 feet?? When I go to the range, I'm practicing for speed and accuracy at 5 yards - 10 at the very most. When I'm just having fun, I'll run the target out to 25 yards. Just my take on it. Have fun in your search.
 
Ala Dan, thanks for the info, I'll check it out.


22lovr,

Question 1: Probably pocket carry, or maybe IWB. I mainly want this for a car/easily portable defense gun.

Question 2: I like to know the limits of a firearm. I agree with you completely in close range practice, but gunblast's test results of 1" at 21 yrds with the bulldog got me wondering about the accuracy of a snub nose revovler. I know 2-2.5" barrled pistols aren't match grade pistols, but that is pretty good in my book. The only other two firearms I own are a Springfield Loaded 1911-A1, and a Ruger MK II Bull Barrel. Both of which I Shoot regularly at the range. I also just enjoy shooting for the fun of it, which probably would also classify these revolvers as occasional range plinking guns.

Thanks for the replies,

catmath 1911
 
A Ruger SP-101 with a 3" barrel in .357mag would be a better choice in my opinion,as would an EAA Windicator-4"-.357mag.CDNN however in my last catalog has Taurus 41mag-2.5 inch barrel-stainless 5 shot for $249.99.Your dealer should be able to put it in your hand for no more than $280.00.
CDNN 1-800-588-9500
Ask for Tommy;)
 
Tropical Z,

It just so happens that I just got back from the gun store, where I fondled a 3" SP101, and I have to agree with you. It just feels like the right one. Does anyone know if it can take full power .357 loads? Thanks to all who have responded to this post.

catmath 1911
 
.357 loads

Yes, the SP101 handles the .357 magnum loads with no problem to the pistol, but if you are recoil or blast shy, stick to the .38 load. The little gun is built like a tank and the somewhat heavy weight helps control the recoil of the .357, but it still kicks some. It is not enough to bother me a great deal, but others who have shot mine have complained about it.

Still, a good deal would be to practice mostly with .38, just enough with .357 to be confidant of it, and then use the magnum load when carrying.

BTW, I changed grips from stock to Eagle Secret service grips -- gives more control (fills my hand better), but the shape makes it point a little higher for me -- had to get used to it.

If you decide on the SP101, I think you would be happy -- I like mine.
 
I used to have a Charter .44 Spl, 3" tapered barrel. This was in the 1980's and as I recall Charter originally made them for use by Sky Marshalls. They were the gun many credit for saving the .44 Special round from practical extinction. One of the appealing things about it was it was just slightly larger than the small frame .38's, but ballistically similar to the .45 Auto - and in a simple & reliable revolver package.

At 21oz. I found it very comfortable to carry and it was well balanced in the hand. While muzzle blast was fairly mild, I found the recoil to be similar to a medium frame (about 10oz heavier) .357. I ended up putting larger rubber grips on it (it came with small wood ones) and that helped. In terms of accuracy, it was very accurate to about 15 yds for about the first 15 shots. That thin tapered barrel would really heat up though and after that accuracy dropped off. So for defence purposes it was fine - for target shooting it was lacking. I sold it to a friend several years ago - and may even try to get him to sell it back to me some day. Again, it was very handy to carry around.

I currently have a Ruger SP101, 2.25" .357. At 25oz it's not a lot heavier and roughly the same size as the Charter .44 Spl. The SP101 is generally regarded to be the strongest of the small frame .357's (about on par with the medium K frame S&W's) , and in my opinion is the smallest or lightest of anything you would want to do any amount of .357 shooting with. Accuracy is very good for a short barrel (out to about 15yds) - and accuracy doesn't drop off with extended shooting. Also, you can shoot .38's to your hearts content too. I replaced the factory grips with Hogue rubber grips. There is enough of a gap between the factory grip and the trigger guard that my middle finger really took a beating with .357's (no problem with .38's). The Hogues fill that gap behind the trigger guard, and are a bit longer than the factory grips so I can get my pinky finger on it.

So between the two I guess I'd have to say the less expensive Charter is one to be carried a lot and shot little. The Ruger SP101 is a bit more expensive, but can be shot a lot and is handy enough to carry a lot.
 
Last edited:
For a pocket/IWB gun....I would still go with the CIA. The bulldog is a 44 special and frankly is a wonderful caliber, but you get energy very close to a 38 +P....not nearly the energy of a .357.
The Taurus 415 41 mag at 30 oz or the Ti at 19 oz is a great carry gun....YOU WANT POWER? HA! But they are truely a med frame gun and are just too big for pocket carry. If it were a IWB only
gun I would own one right now! I am looking for a summer" gun
and will end up with a CIA....dealer on them is 250.00 $ for the blue model. There is one at a local store for 279.00.....but I will have my dealer order me one from Jerrys.....
The sp101 is the cadillac of 5 shots....just a little bigger and heavier than the CIA...and you can get a recessed hammer model.
I want the same thing you do....pocket/IWB carry and CarryItAnywhere sounds like the winner for me....Shoot well
 
Taurus makes a very good pocket-size .44 Special, the Model 445. I have one in bright stainless with bobbed-hammer, and it carries very well in a blue jeans pocket for me--better than the published weight would indicate. I was really surprised about how well it did carry.

I haven't shot the Charter 2000 Bulldog, but I just traded-off the bobbed-hammer version of the Undercover (.38 Special). It was more than a little chinzy (though considering the price I shouldn't complain to much), had a few sharp edges (a problem), but the major problem it was unreliable--I had a lot of light primer strikes (not something I want in a carry gun). Again, this was not a Bulldog, but it was a new Charter 2000.

I've had a Ruger SP-101 which as somebody said is the Cadillac of the 5-shots--very accurate, easy to clean, and a good trigger pull (both DA and SA). It is definitely a holster gun though--it's just not meant to be carried in a pocket. I've also decided that for me the .357 Magnum is not viable choice for self-defence with short barrels. The muzzle blast and recovery time will be problem, but I could deal with that. What turned me off the .357 in this format were my perspective uses of the gun in the dark, in small enclosed spaces, etc. where the blast and flash would probably be debilitating to me and any of my family with me--picture yourself shooting one these INSIDE the cab of a pickup truck (car jack scenario) or in the stairwell of your home (home defence scenario).

As for the remark one poster made about energy levels, for these weapons at their velocities, at your talking about making holes not "transferring energy." Five (or ten with good penetration) .429 calibre holes are better choice than five .357 calibre holes--don't forget the .44 Special will deliver about a 60% larger crush cavity than a .357 round.
 
I own neither of these runs, but based on the ones that I have handled recently at shops and shows and the past experiences that I have had with the two different manufacturers, I would go with the Taurus 650 CIA. I really like the enclosed hammer design, and you know that Taurus will be here later on if you need parts or service. Charter has been in and out of production more times that I can remember in the past 10 years.

Taurus revolvers have generally been a very solid product for quite a few years now. I have owned 3 good and one bad. The 3 good were very nice little guns, and I regret letting them go in trades over the years. In fairness, the bad one could have been fixed but I got feed up with it and took it back.

Had two Charters Arms, the .44spl Bulldog worked fine, but the .38spl Undercover actually started dropping parts while i was shooting it. Most people that I know of have had better luck with the old ones than I did. The newly made ones that I have looked at lately seem to range from fairly well put together to extremely loose and poorly adjusted. I just don't see getting one for the prices that the Taurus or a decent used pre-agreement S&W can be bought for.
 
As for "Chrono'd" results from various snubbies. Including the Bulldog, CIA 650 and 850, Sp101 and the 41 mag 415 Taurus

The 357 CIA and Sp...average energy levels are 375-425 FPE

The CIA and other 2" snubbies with 38 spec with +P averaged 200-210 FPE

The Bulldog with 44 Spec averaged 240-250 FPE, Corbon 165's
did do 400+ FPE which is very respectable from a 2.5" barrel.

The 415 had the mother load of 680 FPE..with a 210 gr.

As far as tranfered energy being an issue, not just making holes from .357" to .429". Many have tested JHP's in many medias from snubbies and all come up with, needing at least 1000fps to get effective expansion. Without full expansion you dont have = transferred energy. This rules out the 44 spec and lower level 38 spec +P's, just IMO. I like the 357....it just makes sense to me.

Shoot well
 
I own and carry a Charter 2000 Bulldog. It packs nice with a Galco high ride belt holster (Silhouette - SIL100). But the exterior finish is poor. Really poor. Tamara claims to have experienced the "falling parts" syndrome with a Bulldog at the range. I haven't yet. I just love the thing. However, I will have the Taurus 445 because I am convinced it is higher quality. The one Taurus 445 I have handled (not shot) was heavier than the Charter, but waaay better quality in every way I could eyeball. I like revolvers for carry because of reliability. That's just me. For a carry .38/.357 platform, I'd really check out the SP-101. If Ruger made a short barreled, medium-framed, DA .44 Special, I'd be on it like the flu.
 
I own one of these Charter 2000 .44 Bulldogs and it is a nice gun, especially for the money. I tend to shoot lighter loads in it and haven't had any problems out of it yet. However, I'm currently looking for a .44 Magnum with a 2.5 or 3 inch barrel because I like the increased weight, plus the ability to shoot heavier and/or faster loads in it if I choose.

As some of these other guys have said, the finish isn't that great, but it is a rather dependable gun. Having said that, I'd still prefer a Ruger for primary CCW.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top