couldbeanyone
Member
Taroman, although the 696 is a nice gun, it is hardly what I would call a Bulldog equivalent. The 696 is both big and heavy. A bulldog is not much bigger or heavier than a 5 shot 38.
S&W needs a Bulldog
- Thread starter Sox
- Start date
- Status
Yes but "heavy" is good when you shoot "heavy" weight bullets. I love the way mine recoils. I wouldn't change anything about it. Wish I had bought more of them in 96. I have a Charter built in 86 and while I love it to death and carry it once in a while I know for a fact it's not going to last as long as a S&W if it gets a lot of use. They are built for carry - not heavy range use. My S&Ws get heavy range use (with sensible loads) and they are all still as tight as when they were made. You really can't compare Charter with S&W in any way. That would be like comparing Snapon tools to Harbor Freight tools. Not the same. Just cheaper.
Last edited:
K or L frame, or for that matter, a Ruger Speed Six converted to .44 Spl appeals greatly to me.
Love my Bulldog.
Would really love it if it had the trigger and durability of a K frame.
The Bulldog weighs the same as a steel frame .38 snub. 21 ounces.
Great gun, but I'd like it better if I could shoot it more.
K frame weight/strength would be ideal.
Love my Bulldog.
Would really love it if it had the trigger and durability of a K frame.
The Bulldog weighs the same as a steel frame .38 snub. 21 ounces.
Great gun, but I'd like it better if I could shoot it more.
K frame weight/strength would be ideal.
Catshooter
Member
Sure they kick. It's just the price you pay for the power. Toughen up. 
Cat
Cat
tahoe2
Member
Model 69
I didn't read every post, but did notice a 5 shot 44 mag in stainless with an "L" frame and a 4" barrel on the S&W website.
I like it
I didn't read every post, but did notice a 5 shot 44 mag in stainless with an "L" frame and a 4" barrel on the S&W website.
I like itkilibreaux
member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2014
- Messages
- 115
S&W just introduced a 5 shot L frame in .44 magnum which is a follow-on to the same gun rated for the .44 spl.
However, Charter Arms has held the corner on the .44 spl market for decades because they have the right formula. CA builds the .44 splt to "compete" with .38 spl revolvers which places it at the top of its food chain.
As much as people love S&W...the fact that they can OWN a .44spl from Charter Arms for half the cost or less of any S&W is what keeps CA in business.
However, Charter Arms has held the corner on the .44 spl market for decades because they have the right formula. CA builds the .44 splt to "compete" with .38 spl revolvers which places it at the top of its food chain.
As much as people love S&W...the fact that they can OWN a .44spl from Charter Arms for half the cost or less of any S&W is what keeps CA in business.
Realistically I have never quite figured out exactly how Charter Arms has
"stayed in business". They have gone under at least three times but just keep coming back. The design is pretty innovative but the execution leaves a lot to be desired. Their trigger pull can be smoothed up some but the geometry is such that it will never be as nice as a S&W. There is a lot of stacking as the hammer comes back. They truly are a "carry a lot - shoot a little" kind of revolver. I still love my little Pug though. The older ones with the alum. shrouded barrel weigh in at 19 oz. unloaded. That's pretty darn light for a .44 revolver. And it's noticeable when you shoot 240 gr. loads. I shot mine with the factory wooden grips just one time and then bought some Pachmayrs for it.
"stayed in business". They have gone under at least three times but just keep coming back. The design is pretty innovative but the execution leaves a lot to be desired. Their trigger pull can be smoothed up some but the geometry is such that it will never be as nice as a S&W. There is a lot of stacking as the hammer comes back. They truly are a "carry a lot - shoot a little" kind of revolver. I still love my little Pug though. The older ones with the alum. shrouded barrel weigh in at 19 oz. unloaded. That's pretty darn light for a .44 revolver. And it's noticeable when you shoot 240 gr. loads. I shot mine with the factory wooden grips just one time and then bought some Pachmayrs for it.
moxie
Member
I've got a 1988 Pug and love it. Still like new. Its duty load is Speer/Blazer 200 gr. GDHP. Used to be Silvertips a long time ago. At the range I shoot light SWC reloads I make up just for it. I did have the trigger smoothed up a bit and it is nice.
My Pug is a 1987 (bought new). I did some trigger work on it and it's been fed medium handloads most of its life. The Gold Dot 200 gr. was MADE for these guns. A 200 gr. RNFP "cowboy" load also works very well in a Pug. Good accuracy and recoil I can deal with. I can literally strap it on and carry it all day and forget it's even on my belt. I found some factory hammers on Fleabay years ago and bobbed one down. It has been stone cold reliable and still looks like new. It can't hold a candle to my 696 but for the price it's awfully practical. I have looked at the new ones but they just don't seem as good as the old ones.
Drail, as much as I love Smiths, we have to be honest.
J frames aren't known for having fantastic factory triggers.
I love my Chief's Special, but the trigger on my old Bulldog is better.
Now, compared to my 586, 66, 15, or 10s? Yeah, the Smith has it beat.
I won't own any of the MIM/IL Smiths.
J frames aren't known for having fantastic factory triggers.
I love my Chief's Special, but the trigger on my old Bulldog is better.
Now, compared to my 586, 66, 15, or 10s? Yeah, the Smith has it beat.
I won't own any of the MIM/IL Smiths.
Jaymo, you are right about the J frames. I only own one (bought for the wife you know) and absolutely hate the trigger on it. But to be fair, whenever a medium frame revolver gets scaled down to the size of a compact snub the trigger geometry just gets ridiculous. You either have some leverage over the mainspring or you don't. The Charter design has a longer arc of travel for the hammer than most other snubs so you get a longer DA stroke. But you are absolutely right.
Catshooter
Member
The new L frame Smith isn't in any way competition for Charter's Bulldog. Too big, too heavy.
ZVP you're right about the power of a short 357. However, they have (for me) one huge drawback: noise. I fired one without ear muffs as a test once, in the middle of a large field and it hurt so badly I damn near dropped it. I was expecting the report too. No, not for me.
Cat
ZVP you're right about the power of a short 357. However, they have (for me) one huge drawback: noise. I fired one without ear muffs as a test once, in the middle of a large field and it hurt so badly I damn near dropped it. I was expecting the report too. No, not for me.
Cat
moxie
Member
ANY revolver makes a lot of noise, including the .44 Spl, including even the .22LR. Try either one without ear protection and see/hear for yourself.
Catshooter
Member
Now there's a news flash. Yes, even though I haven't been shooting very long, only 45 years or so I do realize that almost all firearms make a lot of noise.
There is however, a world of difference between calibers as anyone who has served should know.
Cat
There is however, a world of difference between calibers as anyone who has served should know.
Cat
moxie
Member
Why so sarcastic?
I was simply making the point that all revolvers are noisy, including the subject of this thread, the .44 Spl. And I made the point for those who might not know that even the little .22LR is very noisy when fired out of a revolver.
And yes I did serve, but only for 23 years, and I've only been shooting since 1956, so my experience is clearly limited, but I do not think there is a "world of difference between calibers." Revolvers are all too loud when fired without ear protection.
I was simply making the point that all revolvers are noisy, including the subject of this thread, the .44 Spl. And I made the point for those who might not know that even the little .22LR is very noisy when fired out of a revolver.
And yes I did serve, but only for 23 years, and I've only been shooting since 1956, so my experience is clearly limited, but I do not think there is a "world of difference between calibers." Revolvers are all too loud when fired without ear protection.
Catshooter
Member
You're right, I apologize.
I guess I failed to get my point across or we have widely differing experiences. Yes all revolvers are loud but in my experience some are louder than others.
I was trying to point out to ZVP that the 357 would be a wonderful candidate for a carry revolver, except for the sound. The load I was firing was a full house one and out of a 2.5 inch Smith 686. Lovely weapon.
I have fired 45s from sixguns and they were nothing at all like the 357. A tiny bit of ringing that faded to nothing in a moment or two compared to me literally almost dropping the 686 it hurt both ears so much.
I thought maybe it was just me or just those loads but I told a friend about it and he tried it with his 2.5 inch 66. Different load, same result. He now hates me because he used to love that sixgun but had never fired it without protection before.
Pity too because the 357 just has so much going for it. But not for me.
Cat
I guess I failed to get my point across or we have widely differing experiences. Yes all revolvers are loud but in my experience some are louder than others.
I was trying to point out to ZVP that the 357 would be a wonderful candidate for a carry revolver, except for the sound. The load I was firing was a full house one and out of a 2.5 inch Smith 686. Lovely weapon.
I have fired 45s from sixguns and they were nothing at all like the 357. A tiny bit of ringing that faded to nothing in a moment or two compared to me literally almost dropping the 686 it hurt both ears so much.
I thought maybe it was just me or just those loads but I told a friend about it and he tried it with his 2.5 inch 66. Different load, same result. He now hates me because he used to love that sixgun but had never fired it without protection before.
Pity too because the 357 just has so much going for it. But not for me.
Cat
moxie
Member
No problem Cat. Be safe.
Deaf Smith
Member
Yea the 696 but....
It should have been a 2 1/2 inch barrel and fixed sights WITHOUT the full underlug.
With round butt it would be the cat's meow.
Deaf
It should have been a 2 1/2 inch barrel and fixed sights WITHOUT the full underlug.
With round butt it would be the cat's meow.
Deaf
Catshooter
Member
Correct answer.
Now why in the world don't you run S&W?
There ain't no justice.
Cat
Now why in the world don't you run S&W?
There ain't no justice.
Cat
- Status
