The OP asked, "reliability of CA 44 bulldog
Have read or heard that some of the Charter Arms are better made than other ones due to dates made ect. Would like to get information on this before buying one. Any valid information welcome. Thanks"
This was linked earlier by "lee n. field" (see below) which answers the op's question. the 2nd Generation are the ones to avoid that have the worst reputation and the most problems. I like the finish of the 1st generation better than today's 3rd generation. But, some of the problems of the 1st have been corrected in the current 3rd. Buying older models sight unseen on line is very risky. I've done it twice now and both need work which starts at $49.95 + shipping costs. One common problem with the older models is that the cylinder will slide back along the ejector rod when play has developed in the crane and the cylinder will slide past the stop in the frame put there to not allow this. Newer models include an O ring to prevent that. Newer models also incorporate a better front frame pin so that it doesn't back out so easily after a long range session. They also seem to keep the front crane screw tighter. I don't know how other then I think they use a thin plastic washer. There may be more to it then that. I like the older front sights better then the new design.
I've actually had more Rugers and Smith & Wesson revolvers break or stop functioning then I have my Charter Arms. I had to keep tightening all the screws and pins on my Stratford 3" Bulldog after each range session until I sent it in for repairs for that issue and for shooting left. Now it has remained tight for multiple sessions. But I had a model 19 S&W that needed the ejector rod tightened often also. I had a Ruger Blackhawk break a transfer bar. I've not had either CAs stop functioning yet.
As has been said already, do not try to shoot hot loads in these lightweight guns. You will shoot them loose and they will go out of time. But even a S&W all steel 3" model 36 with a pinned barrel shot loose after less then 50 rounds of +P were fired. When I foolishly traded it off years ago, there was a gap showing between the frame and crane when closed. I doubt that would have happened with only std rounds. They were not +P rated in those days. From what I hear and read, that will still happen even with .357 J frames obviously rated for magnum usage when used often with magnum loads.
I currently have an older Stratford 3" Bulldog .44 spc and an older Stratford Stainless Undercover. At the range the Bulldog works flawlessly. If I put it away clean and oiled I expect it to still be reliable when I carry it. I don't try to make a pseudo magnum out of it with handloads and consequently I'm not shooting it loose to where it will fail.
Now the Undercover is another story. It will either be pawned or sent back to CA service to be tightened back up. It was also bought used and is in need of repairs. It shoots to poa perfectly with wadcutters or 158 gr loads and I'm very tempted to keep it and have it repaired. It fits my hand well with the new classic grips or the older Bulldog grips and the stainless is perfect for edc especially during the hotter months.
If I had it to do all over again, I'd probably just buy new ones and treat them properly and not abuse them with hot loads as many of the older guns may have been. I'd expect them to be reliable once they proved themselves with a few hundred rounds threw them. Remember, back in the early days of CA many in law enforcement carried these as back ups for years. They weren't range toys but were carried and qualified with along with enough range time to keep you familiar with them.
This is the link posted earlier:
"I've been researching the Charter Arms Corporation - 1st Generation revolvers for a couple years now.
This is the updated serial number info that I have - based upon around 800 data points
The earliest 1st Gen - ~0 to ~19,000 have NO barrel ADDRESS and s/n is on lower right corner on right side of frame. CA company founded in 1964, first production pieces of the Undercover model produced in 1965
Bridgeport CONN address - ~19000 to ~315,000 1967 - 1973
Stratford CONN address - ~316000 to ~1,090,000 1974 - ~1991
All marked as Charter Arms Corporation
2nd Generation - CHARCO, Ansonia Conn adress - 1,090,000 to ??? ~1991 - 1999
3rd Generation - CHARTER 2000 - Shelton Conn - 0 to where ever they are today.
From the 26 pieces in my collection (all 1st Gen) and from dozens more that I've had the opportunity to observed and fondle, I'd say that around s/n 600,000 the finish was made a lot finer - although the integrals (lock work, action) was at least as good as the earlier ones. I have or have read magazine articles that cover pretty much of the production life of the 1st Generation, and during that period (around late 1980, early 1981) it seems that CA attempted to capture more of the market by doing so, also in April of 1981, they introduced Stainless Steel revolvers into the mix, for the first time.
Some of the articles lamented that the earlier pieces, although rough finish, were rather inexpensive (~60-65% of S&W) and when CA began their "modernization" process, the finishes got better but the prices increased to about 85 to 90% of the S&W line for comparable models.
During the 2nd Generation, the CHARCO (Charter Arms COMPANY), under new management and reorganized, the quality was definitely more spotty and haphazard. I've seen CHARCO produced guns with Stratford marked barrels, obviously using up old stock.
The earliest CHARTER 2000 pieces I had the opportunity to handle (some fairly early 4 digits s/ns - were uniformly, poorly fitted and finished and had some horrendous and gritty actions.
That seems to have been rectified under MKS's (circa 2008) new leadership and the most recent pieces I've handled - s/n's in the high 100,000 range have been "decent" but not as fine in finish and action as the mid years of the 1st Generation. This is simply my studied opinion based upon experience."