Charter Arms - Any good?
- Thread starter pinetree
- Start date
GrantLee63
New member
Not Impressed
My only Charter experience was with a Pathfinder (basically an Undercover except chambered in .22LR and adjustable sights) that I bought in 1980. To say that I was not impressed would be a gross understatement.
I don't have any experience with the newer models made by Charter 2000 (and others), but my initail impression was bad enough to avoid getting another.
And I would REALLY like to have a Bulldog, but just can't bring myself to get one .....
My only Charter experience was with a Pathfinder (basically an Undercover except chambered in .22LR and adjustable sights) that I bought in 1980. To say that I was not impressed would be a gross understatement.
I don't have any experience with the newer models made by Charter 2000 (and others), but my initail impression was bad enough to avoid getting another.
And I would REALLY like to have a Bulldog, but just can't bring myself to get one .....
Edward429451
Moderator
Oh, yes they will! I own one of the older 2.5" Bull BBL models, and thats exactly what happens. Check these frequently at range. Loading mildish loads for them will pretty much alleviate this problem. As it is, Methinks they are to be carried much and shot little. Fantastic BUG though.
Everyone I've talked to who owns (ed) a barrel shroud version has had it shoot loose on them.
I wish my Bulldog (19 oz) had just a little more mass and weight and a 4" barrel. Does anyone know of a maker putting one out in the configuration I described?
Overall, I like my Bulldog. Mainly because I realize its niche and limitations. Its kinda like a Mini-14 in that respect, if you realize where it fits in to the quality/durability scale then you'll be satisfied with it. I don't recommend it as a primary piece, but rather a backup or deep concealment. If you dont reload light loads for it dont give it to a women to carry, recoil in the light piece makes women not like them...
I've had mine for 16 or 17 yrs now and have only had to replace the firing pin once recently, with no other problems at all beyond the pin and screw creep that was mentioned.
Going against the grain here a bit,
but I had an older model Charter Arms Undercover "Off
Duty" model that was a very decent gun. Grant it, I did
not shoot it too death; nor was it the quality of a Smith,
Colt, or Ruger but it was a good CCW piece that could
be relied on in times of danger. Too me, it offered better
quality than a Taurus; but so does original Rossi hand
guns.
Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
but I had an older model Charter Arms Undercover "Off
Duty" model that was a very decent gun. Grant it, I did
not shoot it too death; nor was it the quality of a Smith,
Colt, or Ruger but it was a good CCW piece that could
be relied on in times of danger. Too me, it offered better
quality than a Taurus; but so does original Rossi hand
guns.
Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
Mixed reviews.
My gunsmith keeps a loaded Undercover around at work, and I believe Jim March has an older Charter that's worked well for him. I had a nickeled Bulldog Pug that died an ignominious death at a surprisingly low round count; the nickel had flaked off the topstrap, cylinder face, and recoil shield, it was out of time and had developed a tremendous amount of endshake and runout in the cylinder; also, the cylinder release took to falling off. All this in less than 300 rounds of mostly PMC 240gr.
In retrospect, though, the gun was light; only an ounce heavier than a 296Ti. I wouldn't mind giving another one a try, and sticking to 200gr loads and seeing if that doesn't reduce recoil battering to a level where the gun can live a happy life (or maybe mine was just a lemon, who knows?).
My gunsmith keeps a loaded Undercover around at work, and I believe Jim March has an older Charter that's worked well for him. I had a nickeled Bulldog Pug that died an ignominious death at a surprisingly low round count; the nickel had flaked off the topstrap, cylinder face, and recoil shield, it was out of time and had developed a tremendous amount of endshake and runout in the cylinder; also, the cylinder release took to falling off. All this in less than 300 rounds of mostly PMC 240gr.
In retrospect, though, the gun was light; only an ounce heavier than a 296Ti. I wouldn't mind giving another one a try, and sticking to 200gr loads and seeing if that doesn't reduce recoil battering to a level where the gun can live a happy life (or maybe mine was just a lemon, who knows?).
Paul Fitz Jones
New member
Fitz 357 Bulldog grip
Years ago I made two prototype grips of my Smith J frame Gunfighter design for the 357 and 44 Charter Arms Bulldogs and decided to stay with only my traditional Smith, Colt, Ruger and High Standard grips production.
I sold the grip for the 44 but the Cherry wood grip for the 357 would like a good home. My Gunfighter grip was designed for officers undercover weapons that could orient by feel and be fired in the dark accurately right or left handed from the waist if need be. Paul "Fitz" Jones coffeyn1@juno.com
It is the bottom center grip design in this attachment
Years ago I made two prototype grips of my Smith J frame Gunfighter design for the 357 and 44 Charter Arms Bulldogs and decided to stay with only my traditional Smith, Colt, Ruger and High Standard grips production.
I sold the grip for the 44 but the Cherry wood grip for the 357 would like a good home. My Gunfighter grip was designed for officers undercover weapons that could orient by feel and be fired in the dark accurately right or left handed from the waist if need be. Paul "Fitz" Jones coffeyn1@juno.com
It is the bottom center grip design in this attachment
Attachments
I had an old Charter Arms Undercover that I had for many years. Had enough faith in it to keep under my car seat and/or in brief case (no CCW) ... it always went "bang" at the range.
That said, I traded it in on a old Smith & Wesson Model 66 ... (yes, I had to add a few bucks too) ... but I was glad I did. I love the Smith.
My recommendation would be to take the money you are looking at spending on the Charter Arms and get a good used Ruger or Smith & Wesson .. or hold it until you have the extra for a new .. "major league" gun. (My range has a Ruger .44 Mag for $350 used (great shape) or the same one NEW for $410.) A bit more than you were looking to spend on the Charter .. but the quality is so much better ... and the peace of mind is probably worth the little extra.
Rugers are build like tanks .. my C.A. was more like a V.W. Bug.
YMMV
That said, I traded it in on a old Smith & Wesson Model 66 ... (yes, I had to add a few bucks too) ... but I was glad I did. I love the Smith.
My recommendation would be to take the money you are looking at spending on the Charter Arms and get a good used Ruger or Smith & Wesson .. or hold it until you have the extra for a new .. "major league" gun. (My range has a Ruger .44 Mag for $350 used (great shape) or the same one NEW for $410.) A bit more than you were looking to spend on the Charter .. but the quality is so much better ... and the peace of mind is probably worth the little extra.
Rugers are build like tanks .. my C.A. was more like a V.W. Bug.
YMMV
After owning many bargain guns, I finally decided that owning them made about as much sense as owning a bargain parachute. Save a little more, or sell something, and get a used Model 29.
http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976252273.htm
http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976252273.htm
I once owned a nice looking little stainless .44 Bulldog. I guess you could call it an old one. It carried well. Unfortunately, it soon reached a point in its life where the cylinder would lock up after firing 1 or 2 rounds ... and then it took to locking up when dry firing.
After 2 trips back to the factory ... accompanied with long, detailed letters ... it still wouldn't work any differently than when I'd sent it back for repair. I got rid of it.
I once knew someone who claimed theirs fired reliably. I know for sure he actually fired it once.
Do the new ones work any better? I don't know. Are they made the same? On the same equipment?
I think among revolvers the Bulldog measured its service life in doggie years ...
Spend the extra money and buy one that works, unless you're into expensive paperweights. I'm still teetering on the brink of buying a new S&W 296Ti myself ... the .44spl has an allure.
Winchester .44 spl Silvertips seem a good choice. As do the soft lead federal LHP's. Or, if you prefer, Speer offered, and may still offer, some great 200 JHP .44 spl ammunition.
If you decide on the 296Ti, and shoot lead bullets, follow the S&W recommendations for cleaning the titanium cylinder. Don't treat it as a stainless steel cylinder when it comes to cleaning practices (meaning= don't be carelessly or casually abusive). Titanium is surface hardened.
Tamara has a very nicely done photo of her 296Ti ...
After 2 trips back to the factory ... accompanied with long, detailed letters ... it still wouldn't work any differently than when I'd sent it back for repair. I got rid of it.
I once knew someone who claimed theirs fired reliably. I know for sure he actually fired it once.
Do the new ones work any better? I don't know. Are they made the same? On the same equipment?
I think among revolvers the Bulldog measured its service life in doggie years ...
Spend the extra money and buy one that works, unless you're into expensive paperweights. I'm still teetering on the brink of buying a new S&W 296Ti myself ... the .44spl has an allure.
Winchester .44 spl Silvertips seem a good choice. As do the soft lead federal LHP's. Or, if you prefer, Speer offered, and may still offer, some great 200 JHP .44 spl ammunition.
If you decide on the 296Ti, and shoot lead bullets, follow the S&W recommendations for cleaning the titanium cylinder. Don't treat it as a stainless steel cylinder when it comes to cleaning practices (meaning= don't be carelessly or casually abusive). Titanium is surface hardened.
Tamara has a very nicely done photo of her 296Ti ...
The .38Spl Charter Arms Undercover was a wonderful design, and some of the early ones like I've got were damned good. But I must stress the "some". As that company declined, QA went into the toilet. Under "Charco", things were even worse.
The newest Charter 2000 company seems to have settled on "low end". Too bad. IF they'd realized that the design was first rate, and targetted the $300 price range (instead of $200) and done final polishing/tuning, they'd have had something, but the name had been dragged through the mud by Charco so they couldn't get $300 a pop, so...it's back to toilet-land.
That's the .38.
The .44Spl is another matter, the first ones were OK for a while, until they shot loose, the newer ones you couldn't pay me enough to test-fire. It's basically not enough metal for the bullet power involved.
If you know what to look for in a classic Undercover .38, and it tests good, cool. It really is an excellent design. Look for an open ejector rod, "Charter Arms" instead of Charco :barf:, a browned-steel frame, blacked-out aluminum barrel shroud and grip frame/triggerguard, and a case-hardened hammer. It has no sideplates - the lockwork and grip frame slip up inside the main frame just like a Ruger SA; the designer left Ruger in '64 and took that concept with him.
The .44Spl needs an L-Frame size range, and at that size you can get a 7-shot .357, so I don't see the point.
The newest Charter 2000 company seems to have settled on "low end". Too bad. IF they'd realized that the design was first rate, and targetted the $300 price range (instead of $200) and done final polishing/tuning, they'd have had something, but the name had been dragged through the mud by Charco so they couldn't get $300 a pop, so...it's back to toilet-land.
That's the .38.
The .44Spl is another matter, the first ones were OK for a while, until they shot loose, the newer ones you couldn't pay me enough to test-fire. It's basically not enough metal for the bullet power involved.
If you know what to look for in a classic Undercover .38, and it tests good, cool. It really is an excellent design. Look for an open ejector rod, "Charter Arms" instead of Charco :barf:, a browned-steel frame, blacked-out aluminum barrel shroud and grip frame/triggerguard, and a case-hardened hammer. It has no sideplates - the lockwork and grip frame slip up inside the main frame just like a Ruger SA; the designer left Ruger in '64 and took that concept with him.
The .44Spl needs an L-Frame size range, and at that size you can get a 7-shot .357, so I don't see the point.
I once looked them to.....HOWEVER...
One of the deciding factors against buying any Charter Arms revolver is the size of the ratchet wheel at the rear of the cylinder. Charter Arms advertises one of the shortest trigger strokes and I know the reason why. The ratchet wheel on all the Charter Arms revolvers is about HALF the size it is on any Smith or Taurus. You've heard or known about Charters that get out of time? That itty-bitty little ratched wheel is probably the culprit. It just looks too small and delicate to take the abuse that comes with heavy-duty revolver use. The frame is also two-piece; thus the malady of a Charter "shooting itself loose." Nice designs but a company has to put better workmanship and materials into their offerings to earn a reputation for quality.
One of the deciding factors against buying any Charter Arms revolver is the size of the ratchet wheel at the rear of the cylinder. Charter Arms advertises one of the shortest trigger strokes and I know the reason why. The ratchet wheel on all the Charter Arms revolvers is about HALF the size it is on any Smith or Taurus. You've heard or known about Charters that get out of time? That itty-bitty little ratched wheel is probably the culprit. It just looks too small and delicate to take the abuse that comes with heavy-duty revolver use. The frame is also two-piece; thus the malady of a Charter "shooting itself loose." Nice designs but a company has to put better workmanship and materials into their offerings to earn a reputation for quality.
I must disagree about the "two piece frame". What you mean is, there's a grip frame that forks into the back of the primary frame, in a fashion similar to (and probably borrowed from) the Ruger Single Actions. Especially since the grip frame is aluminum to save weight, which is straight out of the Blackhawk playbook.
The Ruger SA is the platform for custom loadings all the way into .454Casull/45-70 territory without "shooting loose".
Dunno about the ratchet wheel, but I would venture to guess the detachable grip frame (on a primary frame with no side plates) isn't an issue, unless they're being pounded apart worse than I thought with the .44Spls (which is admittedly possible). I'm not going to sweat it on my .38.
The Ruger SA is the platform for custom loadings all the way into .454Casull/45-70 territory without "shooting loose".
Dunno about the ratchet wheel, but I would venture to guess the detachable grip frame (on a primary frame with no side plates) isn't an issue, unless they're being pounded apart worse than I thought with the .44Spls (which is admittedly possible). I'm not going to sweat it on my .38.
Right U R, Jim M.
I stand corrected. Wonder why Rugers don't shoot loose where some of the Charters seemingly have that reputation?
The ratchet wheel IS miniscule isn't it?
Yes, I gave'em a serious look.....liking the price and weight of all their guns but again, I think materials and workmanship could be better, which spoils an otherwise clever design.
I stand corrected. Wonder why Rugers don't shoot loose where some of the Charters seemingly have that reputation?
The ratchet wheel IS miniscule isn't it?
Yes, I gave'em a serious look.....liking the price and weight of all their guns but again, I think materials and workmanship could be better, which spoils an otherwise clever design.
Mostly good
I have an older Charter Arms "Off Duty" .38 snubbie in SS. I love it! I have found it to be very accurate and fun to shoot. The workmanship is pretty good on mine, maybe I just got lucky.
I got it about 6 months ago for $200.00 used at a gun show so I probably paid too much but I am happy. I have put just over 400 rounds through it and it has no more wear on it than when I bought it. The sights are ideal for this type of gun and it only weighs 16oz.
The only problems I have had were some of the reloads would bind up in the gun due to high set primers. Not really a malfuntion since factory ammo works fine.
I have shot some +P ammo and it feels good, no real increase in recoil over the target stuff I had. In fact the snappy recoil of the +P allowed me to shoot FASTER with the snubbie!
I also owned a new Charter 2000 "Undercover" .38 snubbie recently. It was not as accurate and the quality was not as good. I sold it because it was a disapointment after my older Charter Arms .38.
If I were to rank these guns, I would rank my SS Charter Arms "Off Duty" as better than Taurus or Rossi, equal with some of the cheaper Colts that I have shot and a notch or two below a S$W or Ruger. The Charter 2000 was below most of the guns I have mentioned but still above the odd Rossi or cheap Colt that I have shot. I must tell you, I have seen some BAD Colts and some sub par Rossi's, most Taurus guns I have seen were pretty good.
I have an older Charter Arms "Off Duty" .38 snubbie in SS. I love it! I have found it to be very accurate and fun to shoot. The workmanship is pretty good on mine, maybe I just got lucky.
I got it about 6 months ago for $200.00 used at a gun show so I probably paid too much but I am happy. I have put just over 400 rounds through it and it has no more wear on it than when I bought it. The sights are ideal for this type of gun and it only weighs 16oz.
The only problems I have had were some of the reloads would bind up in the gun due to high set primers. Not really a malfuntion since factory ammo works fine.
I have shot some +P ammo and it feels good, no real increase in recoil over the target stuff I had. In fact the snappy recoil of the +P allowed me to shoot FASTER with the snubbie!
I also owned a new Charter 2000 "Undercover" .38 snubbie recently. It was not as accurate and the quality was not as good. I sold it because it was a disapointment after my older Charter Arms .38.
If I were to rank these guns, I would rank my SS Charter Arms "Off Duty" as better than Taurus or Rossi, equal with some of the cheaper Colts that I have shot and a notch or two below a S$W or Ruger. The Charter 2000 was below most of the guns I have mentioned but still above the odd Rossi or cheap Colt that I have shot. I must tell you, I have seen some BAD Colts and some sub par Rossi's, most Taurus guns I have seen were pretty good.
$200 is not too much to pay for a *good* .38snubbie that works for you, regardless of brand.
Basically, if you can check out a revolver and you find a classic Charter ARMS (not Charco!) that seems OK, they can be truly excellent .38s. .44Spls too, except don't figure they can be shot a lot!
Basically, if you can check out a revolver and you find a classic Charter ARMS (not Charco!) that seems OK, they can be truly excellent .38s. .44Spls too, except don't figure they can be shot a lot!
Prodigalshooter
New member
I have a Charter Arms Bulldog Tracker, in .357, from the '80s. I shoots ok, timing is fine, but screws and ejector rod tend to get loose after a hard range session. But after tightening, all is fine. However, I have no illusions about this gun , but I only paid $100 used; it's my beater.