Is Charter Arms any good?

[32 Magnum]

MedWheeler,
Thanks for the photo and the additional digits - everything helps. I'm happy to get that s/n and date combo. Researching these guns is a bit frustrating - assumptions are only as good as the facts and data - and those have a tendency to dribble in a little at a time. Having spent about 16 years collecting H&R firearms of all types and working with Bill Goforth to research models, variations within models and try to come up with dates based upon catalogue entries he found, I thought 1st Gen CA guns would be a bit easier because the serial number ranges seemed linear with "batches" of pieces of one model made at a time. There is some small "evidence" creeping into the research that frames may have been made and stored, before being finished - don't know for sure when serial numbers were attached to individual guns, but I have assumed they were applied when the gun was in final finish and then logged for ATF purposes. Still lots of stuff to discover and threads like this one, with generous info from responders helps quite a bit.

 

[32 Magnum]

Remo 223,
My notes are written to jog my memory, not necessarily to be understandable. LOL
As to your 4 digit piece (have you alread or will you provide that s/n?) having markings on both sides of the barrel - that is good info, also. My notes are based upon the info that I've been given- obviously I can't own that many CAs. And although I do currently own 25 pieces - they cover the entire production span and in my mind are useful only as examples of what was being made at that particular instant in time. That's why research needs lots of info from many sources.
There are lots of contributions of data on this thread, but there are also quite a few who state ownership but don't provide any s/n, model or dating info - that is frustrating, but expected.

 

[303tom]

Wives , and she loves it ! .327 Fed. Mag. the Patriot .

 

[32 Magnum]

Coming to think that there should be 4 Generations considered. The 3 I mention: 1st - Original Charter Arms Corp - Bridgeport & Stratford; 2nd - Charter Arms Company/CHARCO -Ansonia; 3rd - Charter 2000 - Shelton and 4th Gen. the newest Charter Arms/MKS Marketing partnership.

 

[Castr8r]

I'm looking at my 1st Gen. .44 Bulldog with a 2 1/2" barrel, marked on the left side with "BULLDOG .44 SPL", and on the right with "CHARTER ARMS CORP. BRIDGEPORT, CONN." Ser. No. is 2581xx. After having it 35+ years, the bluing is worn in places, the bore still looks good, and although it doesn't lock up tight, it still doesn't spit, and shoots better than I'm capable of. I like my piece and would buy another if I felt I needed it and the same basic quality is there. No, it's not for sale or trade...

 

[dtalley]

My wife won a Bulldog 44 spc. earlier this year with a 2.5" barrel. Together we have put about 300 rounds through it and it has been fine. Don't get me wrong it is a cheaper revolver and you get what you paid for. I think she bought $100's worth of Raffle Tickets and I am pleased with it for that. I don't know that I would buy one on purpose though....

 

[Leathermarshmallow]

I have one made in 2010. It is the tigerstriped bulldog. I have put a couple hundred rounds through it. It has held up very well and I really like it.

I believe that the newer revolvers made by CA are much better than the mid-years revolvers (Charco, charter 2000)

It is my wife's favorite revolver.

 

[MedWheeler]

32 Magnum, I have a question for you.. Take a look again at my gun in the photo.. this is the one that had just cleared the million-unit mark (SN 10023xx). That places it just after the handsome specimen shown by Cocked-and-Locked, which you dated as also being from 1987. Mine has a gloss-finished (not blued) full barrel and ejector shroud, and I've never seen another one made before 2000 with that feature. His does not, and they were likely made within a very short time of each other. Have you ever seen one from that era with this feature? I'm curious as to how common it was, if it was a "special" feature intended for a specific market (mine was purchased at a LE-only supply store the day I was hired as an LEO, in 12/1987), or something else. I cannot even find a picture of a shrouded Undercover on the 'net other than one from the current line.
All this Charter Arms talk is making me Undercover-nostalgic.. think I'm gonna doff my PF-9 and go strap one of mine on..

 

[32 Magnum]

MedWheeler,
The simple answer is yes, there are others with the shroud made before the 3rd Gen. but I've not seen many.
My data includes an UNDERCOVER with s/n 10808xx with a shrouded barrel; a POLICE UNDERCOVER (6 shot on large "Bulldog" frame) in .32 H&R Mag. with s/n 1951121; the "BONNIE & CLYDE" sets made from 1989-91 with one piece (the Bonnie) in .32 H&R Mag and one (the Clyde) is .38 SPL. Also, the late production OFFDUTY (introduced in 1983 as a lower cost alternative to the UNDERCOVER pieces, with matte stainless or "oxide" black finish), and the BULLDOG PUG all had the shrouded barrels.
The "shroud" seems to have first shown up on the BULLDOG TARGET models (.357 mag and .44 Spl) with 4" barrels and fully adjustable rear sights. The shroud was made of black anodized aluminum and fixed over the steel barrel. This same concept, anodized aluminum shroud over the steel barrel, was then used on all the above mentioned 1st Gen pieces. The anodizing is why the barrel shroud looks to be shinier and blacker than the frame on your gun.

 

[kemper]

Compared to what ?

Short answer IMO = NO, but that's just my opinion.

 

[MedWheeler]

32 Magnum, thanks for the response regarding the shrouds. Just one other thing I've noticed is that my 1987 shrouded sample has a barrel exactly 1/8 inch longer than the barrel on my older 5-digit unshrouded model. I guess there was a two-inch-even version..

 

[32 Magnum]

Med,
It looks as though they went to the 2" barrel when they started adding the aluminum shrouds. All the other snubbies I have without shrouds measure 1 7/8". I've gotta dig out my catalogues - they're someplace in the stacks. Been working on the H&R stuff most recently and buried the CA stuff.

 

[thefamcnaj]

I can't say anything bad about them. My wife bought her self the pink lady and I guess we've put a couple hundred rounds through it without any failures or problems. It was the first revolver I've had in my house hold(I'm a semi auto guy) so I was unfamiliar with what to look for in a revolver. But after being shown to put it in full lock up and see how ever thing lines up on all 5 cylenders it passed all these checks I was shown to perform on it. So for me its a good first experienc with the company.

 

[KodiakBeer]

I know nothing about the "new" Charter Arms guns. I once owned a .44 Bulldog and it was reliable, but if you tried to use the front sight in the conventional fashion the slugs would land in the dirt in front of the target. It was strictly a point and shoot gun. I got rid of it.

I recently looked at a .22 mag Pathfinder identical to eastbanks, and thought it was just an outstanding little kit gun. The trigger pull was at least as good as a S&W and the owner said it was very accurate. I tried to buy it, but no joy...

 

[hardknocks!]

pathfinder

havent had this 22 magnum long but i like it.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[32 Magnum]

Dang,
I've got one just like it. I've found it to be pretty darn accurate and it hits a lot harder than a .22 lr. Good field gun, IMHO.

 

[Beached Yankee]

im not a big fan of revolvers, cant seem to fire them in rapid succesion, some people can. my wife has a ca undercover lite 38spec.+p i shoot it occasionaly not smooth like a ruger or s&w but very reliable descent lt. wt.conscealment piece

 

[Geezer Glide]

32 Magnum, here is my old Charter Arms Undercover .38 Special Serial # 206293 with Bridgeport on the barrel. Not very pretty any more but it has been a faithful companion for many years.

 

[32 Magnum]

Thanks Geezer. That one has seen some carry time.

 

[chubcobear]

32 Mag
I sent you a private msg, but in case, I have Stratford .44 stainless, 2.5"bbl, 823644, which was a gift, purchased in OK early 80's? (memory?). Fine gun, use it sometimes CCW when traveling, pocket carry (tall man). Thanks

 

[scythefwd]

I had one. It worked. I traded it for a rossi that was heavier. Mine was a .38sp undercover... bought it sometime around 2k3. Machining wasn't pretty, but for it to function it doesn't have to be.

 

[32 Magnum]

chubcobear,
Thanks for the info on your BD. Stainless Steel CA revolvers were introduced in April/May 1981, around s/n 625K. Your gun, probably, was made in late 1983.
I've got one just like yours - check the grip frame/trigger guard - it should be stainless and magnetic. All the CA 1st Gen. guns were steel "upper" assemblies and until the SS pieces most had anodized, aluminum alloy "lower" assemblies. Some of the SS pieces in my collection have stainless steel "lower" assemblies. Make sense?

 

[tinygnat219]

I own two (well, they're the wife's). One's a first Gen .32 Charter Arms Undercover revolver that's a solid little gun chambered in .32 S&W Long. LOTS of fun to shoot and one my wife named "Snubaluppacus".

The second is a current production "Lavender Lady" that was picked up b/c of its color and the .32 H&R Mag chambering. For the price, it's a surprisingly nice gun.

Neither one is carried or shot a lot. 32 S&W Long ammo isn't cheap to find anymore, but they're nice little guns. I don't know about the Charco or any of their guns made during that time period, but the two we own are nice.

 

[chubcobear]

Jim,
The trigger guard/grip frame piece is SS, not alloy. I checked. Thanks. If you wish, please contact me at [email protected] because I have a question about another SS CA I am thinking about buying. Long and involved. Thanks again. Great work on TFF also.

 

[rdrancher]

Since Mr. Hauff was kind enough to date my Charter (about 1977)...and this thread has morphed into a Charter Arms show-and-tell, I might as well show mine.