New Charter Arms

I wonder what Taurus gun you were checking out. I've carried the 85UL and 605 and never had issues with them and these were new production guns from 2015 onward. Charter felt a little cheaply made in my hands BUT they're serviceable lil things. I would take either but I prefer the Taurus of the two but I prefer a Smith to both.

It’s been a while since I looked at their website but I believe the frame is based on models with materials ranging from carbon steel to aluminum and stainless. They get very high marks for accuracy and customer service. I’m not sure they will hold up to the round counts that a Smith or Ruger will. I haven’t shot a new one. I carried a 1971 charter undercover for 4-5 years.

Blkhrt13 said:

It’s been a while since I looked at their website but I believe the frame is based on models with materials ranging from carbon steel to aluminum and stainless. They get very high marks for accuracy and customer service. I’m not sure they will hold up to the round counts that a Smith or Ruger will. I haven’t shot a new one. I carried a 1971 charter undercover for 4-5 years.

Click to expand...

It's a solid design with no side plate. I doubt you will wear it out with typical loads. It's not no Smith or Ruger but it doesn't need to be. babied either.

I'm a Charter convert. Now, I need to temper that with the fact I in no means feel that Charter Arms guns are made to better standards that S&W or Ruger. However, while not pretty in all aspects, the CA guns I have handled have locked up tight and have come in at very reasonable prices. I honestly think the $$ difference between a CA and a Smith or Ruger comes down to polish. I've not found anything that I feel would cause a CA to loosen up prematurely other than the screws tend to walk out a bit over time and with a lot of rounds, I've heard.

In all honesty, I probably like my Pitbull .45 better than any other revolver I own. It's such a handy gun that shoots an affordable yet potent round and can handle duties from Home/travel defense to protection on the hiking trails. It's light enough to wear all day yet robust enough to feel confident in its capabilities. The stainless build means it handles sweat and funk better than carbon and the sub $400 price means I don't feel the need to baby it.

My next revolver will be a CA. it may be a Boomer in .44 or their new .32 H&R offering. I maybe just pick up an Off Duty to keep stuffed in my pocket for times when I want a little .38.

The Evangelist Cowboy said:

It's a solid design with no side plate. I doubt you will wear it out with typical loads. It's not no Smith or Ruger but it doesn't need to be. babied either.

Click to expand...

The Evangelist Cowboy said:

It's a solid design with no side plate. I doubt you will wear it out with typical loads. It's not no Smith or Ruger but it doesn't need to be. babied either.

Click to expand...

I have seen it said the older ones were made to be carried often and shot less. I was making a mild assumption. I’d love to hear some numbers by someone who is really putting them downrange. The .38 seems to be about the same size it’s been but with a better design being fullunder-lug. I know the old girl I had carried so well it was easy to forget I had it at all.

Blkhrt13 said:

I have seen it said the older ones were made to be carried often and shot less. I was making a mild assumption. I’d love to hear some numbers by someone who is really putting them downrange. The .38 seems to be about the same size it’s been but with a better design being fullunder-lug. I know the old girl I had carried so well it was easy to forget I had it at all.

Click to expand...

Maybe the .44 spl bulldog, never had an issue with the .38s in fact I've read the opposite that the original designer wanted the solid frame construction specifically for hi speed loads. I don't purport to have put thousands through a charter. The last under cover I had saw about 700 rds through it mostly plus p. Held up just fine, traded it for Lord knows what this was about 3 years ago. I can say I've put over 6k through my Taurus 85 UL and definitely never had a problem shooting loose.

The Evangelist Cowboy said:

Maybe the .44 spl bulldog, never had an issue with the .38s in fact I've read the opposite that the original designer wanted the solid frame construction specifically for hi speed loads. I don't purport to have put thousands through a charter. The last under cover I had saw about 700 rds through it mostly plus p. Held up just fine, traded it for Lord knows what this was about 3 years ago. I can say I've put over 6k through my Taurus 85 UL and definitely never had a problem shooting loose.

Click to expand...

My first carry gun was an 85ti I wish I still had it.

Well on the high end Charter has the Professional.I recently bought a .45 Colt XL and am happy it has no aluminum shrouded rifled tube with crooked sights and the forcing cone and strap area are rugged and well gapped. I have a Bridgeport Bulldog which has been Superb in the 45 years I've had it, Also the early 80s stainless bull dog I picked up 10 years ago as new has proven better than my flirtation with an S&W 296 !

I have multiple examples of both Charter and Taurus. Both older and newer production. And in multiple calibers. None of mine have mega high round counts but all are fired fairly regularly. I don't have anything negative to say about either brand. I didn't buy them for their wonderful fit and finish and don't really care that they aren't perfect in that respect. I will say that the fit and finish and performance of my Taurus 85UL is equal to my S&W 642. My 85 UL is my constant companion. I don't think you can go wrong either way.

I have a CA 32 H&R and a 38 Undercover (steel frame). Both have worked very well. They are both from around 2015 vintage. A good thing to keep in mind is that Pachmayr makes grips to fit Charters in the Compac and Gripper series. The grips on all modern Charters are interchangeable. You can also get a laser grip for Charters from Crimson Trace (also on sale at the Charter website currently).

A Charter Arms Undercover was my very first carry gun when I got my concealed carry permit in Utah back in the late eighties. The guy at the LGS talked me into buying 500 rounds with it and assured me before I was done shooting them up I wouldn't need to use the sights and he was right.

That piece did indeed serve me well, through my experiments with hi-cap 9s and that atrocious Commander I often whine about here. Whenever I had another problem with the autos I wanted to carry, it served well as my fallback piece and finally I gave up bothering and just carried that because it worked better for the task I needed it for.

Only handgun I've ever owned that I could shoot better without using the sights than when I did, just like the salesman said. Shot other snubbies from other makers but for some reason, the geometry of that one just worked for me. Wish I'd have kept it, but was moving back home to New York and wasn't up for the hassle of storing, shipping, and permitting it.

The Undercover was a very popular back-up when I was a LEO in the 1980s. They were affordable on a cop's salary and were well thought of. A friend of mine recently bought an undercover as her first revolver, and I was pretty impressed with it- accurate and easy to shoot despite being very light-weight. It broke almost immediately, but this is the only case of this I've encountered or heard about. CA fixed it promptly- she was quite pleased with their customer service- and it has been fine ever since. Take this for what it's worth- it's one case, and I've seen the same happen with S&Ws.

Blkhrt13 said:

I have seen it said the older ones were made to be carried often and shot less. I was making a mild assumption. I’d love to hear some numbers by someone who is really putting them downrange. The .38 seems to be about the same size it’s been but with a better design being fullunder-lug. I know the old girl I had carried so well it was easy to forget I had it at all.

Click to expand...

I can't speak to all older Charter's, but I have in my possession two .357 Bulldogs (a 4 inch and a 6 inch I just picked up last weekend) made in Stratford, CT, which makes them Gen 1 Charter's; from all I've read that indicates they're well made. The 4 inch has been carried often (holster wear) and feels like it has been shot often, but it locks up super tight on three chambers, the other two having some end shake. Trigger is great, timing is spot on. Any issues I have with it have nothing to do with build quality.

The 6 inch I just got came with the original box and barely had a scratch line on the cylinder, it has not been shot much. After putting a few rounds through it, it is now my favorite revolver. The grips are a perfect fit for my hands, with 130 grain .38 and 110 grain Winchester .357, the recoil is minimal, yet the gun is as light as a feather. I need to get some 158 grain loads thru it to come to a definitive conclusion on that tho.

So, the comments others have made about the older Charter's made to be carried and not shot much is complete bollocks. Maybe that's in reference to snub .38's that have had one too many +P rounds put through them, IDK.

The Evangelist Cowboy said:

Maybe the .44 spl bulldog, never had an issue with the .38s in fact I've read the opposite that the original designer wanted the solid frame construction specifically for hi speed loads. I don't purport to have put thousands through a charter. The last under cover I had saw about 700 rds through it mostly plus p. Held up just fine, traded it for Lord knows what this was about 3 years ago. I can say I've put over 6k through my Taurus 85 UL and definitely never had a problem shooting loose.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I could see .44's that have been hot rodded having issues.

Since I have bought both a Taurus and a Gen 1 Charter this year, I feel I can say some things and speculate on current Charters.

I have the Taurus Public Defender, have shot it a few times since when I got it in March. For what it is, a .410 revolver, it's fine. The only issue I have with it is if I try to do DA trigger pulls to quickly, the cylinder will lock up. If I wait a fraction of a second for the trigger reset, it's fine and when I cock the hammer for SA, I have no issues. Idk how accurate the .45 will be, I haven't tried it yet, but the DA trigger issue has me more and more perturbed the more it happens.

The Charter is great, but it's not a new production one. I do plan on getting the .32 Professional tho and given the success I've had with the older Charter's, for the first time since I got into guns 5 years ago, I have entertained the thoughts of a .44 caliber revolver, namely the Bulldog. I'm a sucker for the classic Charters, but this .44 I see they make has my attention



That said, I am not a fan of the matte finish, I don't like it compared to the blued steel and normally I'm not a guy who cares about looks, but that matte sandblasted finish just screams cheap to me. Also, I've seen some of the new .22 Charter's and they do not look good at all, I'm talking barrel crowns that are off center with the bore. @aarondhgraham has a lot of positive things to say about his Charter .22, especially in regards to the price vs performance of it compared to S&W or Ruger, and I agree with him. I just wouldn't buy a .22 Charter sight unseen unless it's a vintage one made in Bridgeport or Stratford.

For a long time I feel Charter focused too much on concealed carry, coming out with snubs all the time, but recently they started doing 6 inch barrels for their .357's, 9mm Pitbulls... plinker calibers. To me that's a welcome sight because not every handgun has to be focused on self defense and concealed carry.

Revolvers are fun to shoot and they shouldn't all have to cost $500 to be good, reliable guns that people can enjoy.

So, I'm planning on buying more Charters in the future, thus I think highly of them. Does that mean I think Taurus sucks? IMO, I think Taurus is more questionable, but if they make something that's interesting to me and no one else does (or do but it's really expensive) then I'll buy Taurus. I am planning on buying that 7 shot ported .357/9mm in the future, because it's so unique, and I've seen the prices on some of their 5 shot .44 Mags and if I ever get the .44 Mag itch, Taurus will be scratching it.

However, given the choice between similar revolvers made by both companies, I'd go with Charter, hands down.

I carry 3" classic bulldog most days when working the dogs. I also practice with it about every other week using a 215 g swc. I have not had any issues and it is easy to carry.

Since I brought this up in another thread, I neglected to mention my .357 Pathfinder* I traded for. Both of my CAs came with factory Pachmaymr grips and fit my hand like they were made for me. The weight and balance of the old Pathfinder* was about perfect for a trail gun in my opinion.

*ETA: Before someone jumps, I got my models confused there, probably because I was just looking at a used Pathfinder at a little gun shop near work. Tracker is what I really meant, but it's been a couple decades now.

Can't speak to Taurus vs Charter comparison since I haven't owned a Taurus. But I can vouch for the durability of the newer CA Bulldog. Got mine back in 2014, over 4,000 rounds through it and counting. Mostly feed it handloads at listed power levels. I will not hesitate to buy another new CA.... now I just have to decide between .40, 45 ACP, 41 mag or 45 Colt. Decisions decisions...

The only Taurus revolver I've ever owned was a S&W Model 10 clone w/4" barrel in 38 Special. I couldn't get used to the dbl action it was so incredibly heavy. I sold it & later purchased a Charter 5-shot in 357 Mag/38 Sp. I've had that CA revolver for almost 40 years. It has a smooth dbl action, it's very accurate w/both 38 Sp & 357 Mag & I rely on it to perform as well if it were a S&W, Ruger or Colt.
I'm not saying all Taurus guns are inferior to CA's. I've read many good reviews on Taurus guns but my personal experience is different.

Charlie Martinez said:

The only Taurus revolver I've ever owned was a S&W Model 10 clone w/4" barrel in 38 Special. I couldn't get used to the dbl action it was so incredibly heavy. I sold it & later purchased a Charter 5-shot in 357 Mag/38 Sp. I've had that CA revolver for almost 40 years. It has a smooth dbl action, it's very accurate w/both 38 Sp & 357 Mag & I rely on it to perform as well if it were a S&W, Ruger or Colt.
I'm not saying all Taurus guns are inferior to CA's. I've read many good reviews on Taurus guns but my personal experience is different.

Click to expand...

I think your referencing the 82 model. I had the 65 (fixed sight .357 mag, basically a Taurus model 13 Smith) and while the gun was reliable the trigger was amazingly heavy, the newer ones are much better but man that old 65 must've been pushing for a 16 pound trigger at least that's what it felt like.

Have a Taurus 605 AND a C A undercover. Like both carry both, slight edge to Taurus

I own two CA handguns that are newer manufacture,,,
A 4" .22 Pathfinder and a .38 Undercover snubbie.

I've had no problems with either of the guns,,,
Both are breaking in nicely the more I shoot them.

One friend bought a .38 just like mine a year ago,,,
Unfortunately his was "bad out of the box",,,
The cylinder locked up after just a few rounds.

One phone call and a shipping label was on it's way.

Three weeks later he got it back from them,,,
Some piece of the action broke and they replaced it,,,
He's put a lot of rounds through it and it now performs perfectly.

Every manufacturer puts out a bad gun every now and then,,,
It's how fast and how well they deal with it that's important.

Charter Arms came through on his gun with good after the sale service.

Aarond

.

C A customer service is top notch. My wife inherited he dads old C A. Sad
, Tired , old and ugly!
Sent it off Charter and it came back looking geat, like New. buffed bright, new spring and grips .

I have owned 2 Taurus revolvers and 1 CA. The first Taurus was a 38 snubbie. It had a trigger return spring that was a coil spring between the crane and the trigger. Get it the least bit dirty and the spring froze up. No spring=no trigger return.

The second Taurus was a 4 inch barreled 22. Very heavy double action but nice single action pull. I could have lived with that but on extraction the star would often jump over the cartridge rim and leave empties in the chamber.

The CA was a stainless Mag Pug in 357. Excellent gun for the money. Never had a problem with it. Accurate and reliable.

I have also worked in a LGS that sold both brands. After handling multiple examples it was the general consensus of the staff that Charter Arms makes a better gun.

I would not buy another Taurus but I would gladly buy a Charter Arms.

Just my experience
IronHand

I purchased a used Taurus at a gun show, the tip up barrel semi auto 22 LR, took to the range and it was a jammer. Called Taurus told them the story, they sent me a prepaid mailer and just wanted the frame. Two weeks later got a new PT22 and it was either UPS or USPS paid to my door. New gun for the $90 I paid at the gun show.