Charter Arms revolvers vs Taurus revolvers
- Thread starter bricz75
- Start date
roashooter
Moderator
Is this a trick question?
I'd go with Charter Arms. I have no recent experience with Taurus, but I've seen many complaints.
Charter Arms makes a good revolver. In fact, out of the .38 snubs I've tried made by Charter Arms, S&W, and Ruger in the last five years, the Charter Arms wins in the areas of:
1) barrel/cylinder gap
2) cylinder end-shake
3) lock up tightness
4) timing
For cylinder throat diameter Charter Arms and Ruger passed, S&W failed.
Charter Arms' CS is second to none. Ruger will be nice nice nice on the phone, but they don't fix anything. S&W's CS is about the same as Ruger's, except for the nice nice nice on the phone part.
Charter Arms's CS is polite and businesslike on the phone, and fast and efficient regarding turn around. You'll get your gun back quick, and it'll be repaired.
Charter Arms only falls short as far as the trigger, imo.
Keep in mind the .44 will cost you about $1 each time you shoot it.
Charter Arms makes a good revolver. In fact, out of the .38 snubs I've tried made by Charter Arms, S&W, and Ruger in the last five years, the Charter Arms wins in the areas of:
1) barrel/cylinder gap
2) cylinder end-shake
3) lock up tightness
4) timing
For cylinder throat diameter Charter Arms and Ruger passed, S&W failed.
Charter Arms' CS is second to none. Ruger will be nice nice nice on the phone, but they don't fix anything. S&W's CS is about the same as Ruger's, except for the nice nice nice on the phone part.
Charter Arms's CS is polite and businesslike on the phone, and fast and efficient regarding turn around. You'll get your gun back quick, and it'll be repaired.
Charter Arms only falls short as far as the trigger, imo.
Keep in mind the .44 will cost you about $1 each time you shoot it.
My father had a Taurus Judge... hated it, but did sell on consignment, and put the money on a H&K USP Compact in .40. Converted it to LEM for him.
Even though I prefer S&W revolvers, I do want to get a .44 Bulldog. Probably one of the older ones, in a 3" barrel. I know it is what the Son of Sam used, but still think it is a very utilitarian revolver.
Even though I prefer S&W revolvers, I do want to get a .44 Bulldog. Probably one of the older ones, in a 3" barrel. I know it is what the Son of Sam used, but still think it is a very utilitarian revolver.
That sums it up.
Leaving aside the "buy American" angle, (and the "Clint" comment) the Taurus is the better and more solid design (it should be, it's mainly S&W). But Taurus is too often the victim of sloppy workmanship while Charter guns are well enough made that the design defects can be overlooked in the interests of its advantages, mainly lower cost.
Jim
Jim
Not at all.
Thanks for the post. Yes, complaints with the Taurus.
I'm surprised Charter Arms beat Ruger and S&W in the areas listed.
I thought Ruger CS is excellent.
About the Charter Arms trigger falling short, can a 'smith improve it without doing something extreme?
A person can get range fodder ammo online for 50 cent/round.
JoeSixpack
New member
Im not sure about which is better, Never owned a charter I do want one of their rimless revolvers in 9mm & 45acp however.
When I took my CC class they had about 30 guns for us to try out (some people in the class did not even own a gun yet)
One of the instructors owned a Taurus 85Ultralite with Zero-Profile Hammer.
Man I loved that little gun, That particular specimen was excellent very smooth.
First and only one I've ever seen, not a new or used one in the shops.. they don't make that particular model anymore
I bought a 627 tracker about 10 years ago.. lock up is ok.. not vice tight, cylinder gap is a bit more then I'd like to see.. but then again gap's are pretty bad on a lot of new production guns these days.
Gun shoots fine though, no spitting, Trigger is heavy but smooth.
When I took my CC class they had about 30 guns for us to try out (some people in the class did not even own a gun yet)
One of the instructors owned a Taurus 85Ultralite with Zero-Profile Hammer.
Man I loved that little gun, That particular specimen was excellent very smooth.
First and only one I've ever seen, not a new or used one in the shops.. they don't make that particular model anymore
I bought a 627 tracker about 10 years ago.. lock up is ok.. not vice tight, cylinder gap is a bit more then I'd like to see.. but then again gap's are pretty bad on a lot of new production guns these days.
Gun shoots fine though, no spitting, Trigger is heavy but smooth.
Try one out first, you might not like it.
My limited experience was with one LCR, which turned into three LCR's because Ruger couldn't fix the problem and sent me a replacement LCR with a different problem, TWICE. I got fed up and sold LCR #3.
The one S&W was a 642 which came new with cylinder throats so small a .380 ACP lead bullet, which is .002" smaller than a .38 SPL bullet, wouldn't pass through. S&W replaced the cylinder. Then I discovered a broken hammer stud (I think it came new with a broken hammer stud), and S&W replaced the frame and used the replacement cylinder with the original barrel. I'm guessing their tech shortened the original barrel/forcing cone to get an acceptable b/c gap with the new frame, but got it where the b/c gap is .011" on one side and .005" on the other. S&W says that's close enough. That's a new 642, they replaced the cylinder, replaced the frame, and screwed up the b/c gap in the process.
I think their demand is so high they decrease quality in order to increase quantity.
There are plenty of people out there who are delighted with their 642s and LCR's. I was relaying my experience, and that's all.
If you do get a Charter Arms beware of the beveled trigger guard, it might bite you.
TruthTellers
New member
^Damn, I'm glad I didn't bother getting the Ruger .22 LCRx now. Sounds like quality is low across the board for the big wheelgun manufacturers and I concur it's due to demand being so high that quality is sacrificed.
Charter Arms is not as big and well known as S&W or Ruger, I've actually heard people at gun shows ask about Charter because they've never heard of them. I've spoken with my local gun stores and they don't stock Charter revolvers because nobody buys them because, since they're not names S&W or Ruger, they think they're like Rohm or something.
Charter Arms is not as big and well known as S&W or Ruger, I've actually heard people at gun shows ask about Charter because they've never heard of them. I've spoken with my local gun stores and they don't stock Charter revolvers because nobody buys them because, since they're not names S&W or Ruger, they think they're like Rohm or something.
I'm not saying all Charter Arms guns are better than all S&W's and all Rugers.
CA has not succumbed to greed, and imo they do win in the CS department.
CA actually gave me a refund for a gun. Try getting S&W or Ruger to do that. Ruger offered me my choice of ANY revolver during the LCR nonsense, but I declined. I should have taken them up on it, and sold it.
CA has not succumbed to greed, and imo they do win in the CS department.
CA actually gave me a refund for a gun. Try getting S&W or Ruger to do that. Ruger offered me my choice of ANY revolver during the LCR nonsense, but I declined. I should have taken them up on it, and sold it.
revolvergeek
New member
An important thing to remember is that "Charter Arms" revolvers cover a pretty broad range of variations and quality control over many years of production. Personally I have had MUCH better luck with Taurus than Charter Arms. One vintage Bulldog tumbled any jacketed bullets but generally worked ok with lead. I had a Police Undercover (the older small frame 6 shot) that lost a front sight while shooting one day. I have a friend who's father bought her a southpaw that had badly machined chambers (deep asymmetrical rings in them about halfway in) from the factory and two of the first three fired cases in it couldn't be pushed out and went back to the factory with the gun. It obviously had never been test fired with a full cylinder full. When they sent it have they had obviously hammered the stuck cases out because the crane was sprung and it shaved lead horribly. The second trip back they got it fixed. Another friend has a modern Bulldog that has had three trips back so far for timing issues and parts breaking. I have had two Taurus revolvers that had issues, one an old 85 and the other a 617, and both would bind up when they got hot. Multiple trips back and the factory couldn't seem to figure them out so I sold them to a friend who liked to tinker and he finally got them sorted out. A lot of the 90s vintage revolvers were very well made guns. Currently have two Taurus revolvers that work perfectly, and sold one of their .32 mags to a friend who loves it dearly. I gave up on Charter Arms completely. YMMV.
lee n. field
New member
Uhhhh.
I have direct experience with one Taurus .38/.357 snub, and one Charter .38 Snub.
There are some companies on the budget end that are notable for excellent customer support. Charter Arms is one of them. But, my Undercover broke a bunch of times, and then the replacement gun broke. <sigh>. Maybe they had a run of bad transfer bars.
I might try them again, some year.
No such problem with my Taurus, which I still own and won't get rid of unless I can finagle an upgrade. I just hope I never have to have the Taurus customer support experience.
Variations of quality for a given manufacturer during an era is something I believe many people don't realize. What are good eras or spans of years for Charter Arms and Taurus? What are bad eras or spans of years for both so a person can avoid them?
Is the 90s vintage revolver comment for Taurus?
I own two Charter Arms revolvers and own or have owned around eight Taurus revolvers. (I also have Smiths and Rugers and various others - I just like revolvers.)
My two CA are a bit light and cheap-feeling, but they both work well and I trust them. I've shot them both hundreds of times and neither has ever malfunctioned.
I had one Taurus revolver that was defective, but they fixed it for free (it took two tries). Most of my Taurus revolvers have worked reliably, but have mediocre triggers. A few have been completely reliable with very nice triggers. I trust the reliable ones just like any other reliable handgun that I've shot a lot of rounds through.
My two CA are a bit light and cheap-feeling, but they both work well and I trust them. I've shot them both hundreds of times and neither has ever malfunctioned.
I had one Taurus revolver that was defective, but they fixed it for free (it took two tries). Most of my Taurus revolvers have worked reliably, but have mediocre triggers. A few have been completely reliable with very nice triggers. I trust the reliable ones just like any other reliable handgun that I've shot a lot of rounds through.
I agree with roashooter on this one. If we're talking about a snubnose revolver made in the last five years, I actually feel that Charter has both Ruger and Smith beat (with the exception of smoothness in the trigger.) Let alone Taurus.
That said, Charter has a bad rap for some really crappy revolvers they produced in the past. But what they're producing right now is good quality stuff.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That said, Charter has a bad rap for some really crappy revolvers they produced in the past. But what they're producing right now is good quality stuff.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk