jeffh
.375 Atomic
Posts: 1,630
|
Post by jeffh on Apr 1, 2022 15:43:18 GMT -5
I sure wish I could remember all the wise ones who trash-talked the Charter Arms guns with "two-piece" or "shrouded" barrels, like it was the greatest sacrilege and down and dirty, cheap trick to play on a revolver buyer ever.
Now, Charter makes one-piece barrels and Smith and Ruger are doing the old "down and dirty cheap trick" themselves.
Not exactly sure what I'm just sayin', but I'm just sayin'.
Never hurt my feelings on a $200 Charter, but I'm not so sure I'd buy into the concept on a $1k+ gun myself.
|
|
|
Post by needsmostuff on Apr 2, 2022 9:13:46 GMT -5
I sure wish I could remember all the wise ones who trash-talked the Charter Arms guns with "two-piece" or "shrouded" barrels, like it was the greatest sacrilege and down and dirty, cheap trick to play on a revolver buyer ever Maybe not so much the 2 piece design as the actual execution. Not my experience but a close Amigo at the time. I was not there , but he was rather excited and vocal about it . . Seems he was blasting away and off flew the shroud, barrel remained in the gun. Barrel had no shoulder to tension against the shroud ? It was only held on by adhesive ,,,,, which failed. But like I said , second hand story and a grain of salt kind of thing. But he was a rather gun savvy kind of guy so I don't think he would have misread the situation. Based on that I avoided 2-piece barrel Charters thereafter. And I LIKE two-piece barrel design when done correctly.
|
|
jeffh
.375 Atomic
Posts: 1,630
|
Post by jeffh on Apr 2, 2022 10:30:43 GMT -5
Maybe not so much the 2 piece design as the actual execution....
Yep, I get that, and trust that anyone here has either had the experiences of which they speak, or have it on a very reliable source. I too have seen Charter failures, but I've seen Smith and Ruger failures as well. Colt was always out of my price range, so I can't say. I think anyone here knows the type of guy I'm referencing - the ones who never owned, let alone shot what they disparage in order to rationalize what they spent on whatever they deem superior. There are those guys who berated Ruger for years for using cast parts without having a clue about the technology behind it. Many don't know that sintered, powdered metal has been used to make connecting rods for quite a while now either.
"Execution" has been Charter's main periodic downfall over the years, but the design is innovative, while not completely original. Ruger apparently agreed, because I can't see it as being a coincidence their DAs are beefier and improved copies of Charter Arms' guns. Bill Ruger Sr. was a wise and watchful man who capitalized on existing good design. I'm not fond of Charter's "one-piece barrels" myself, and especially dislike the shroud on the ejector rods incorporated in them. Execution is again the issue for me, but Mr. Eckert took enough crap over that "sleeve" that I doubt he'd go the other way again. Maybe - maybe not. I think it would open some possibilities to the "features and options addicts" of today's market.
Those shrouds, or sleeves on the Charters is/was a good idea and, first last and always, are cheaper to produce, which is THE reason we see them on anything (excluding the Dan Wessons with interchangeable barrels) way back when, or today. I've never had a problem with one myself, but my dad developed a habit of removing the sleeve, slobbering green Loctite on on the barrel and replacing the sleev. The last two I have/had were done this way AND a set screw underneath, through the front end of the ejector rod shroud. I tried to remove one once to realign the front sight. He didn't drink, so he must have been tired the night he did that one. I could not get it off using heat from a propane torch and chickened out before I ruined something.
These sleeves would allow someone to buy a section of barrel blank and have someone turn the OD to the old taper,no taper, a different taper, etc., to include a shoulder to bear against the frame, and one could solder or screw any sight/sight base onto it as desired. This is something I've always wanted to do with a Charter Target Bulldog, but never did. I doubt I'd do that to a $1k gun, but I'd surely not hesitate to mess with a Charter that way. I believe it opens a lot of possibilities to someone with a lathe and some specialized skill though.
I just don't see how revolver prices can be what they are with all the borrowed innovations being implemented to actually manufacture them cheaper. I could see a revolver costing $1k+ if they were still made without MIM parts and barrel sleeves, but all those "compromises" have been implemented to allow them to be made more "cost effectively."
Charter started out as being "cost effective" to produce. The same technology is being applied today, but I don't see the savings. No complaint about the technology - just wish I could rub it in a few blow-hards' noses, but I got to where there were so many that I ignored them.
|
|
jeffh
.375 Atomic
Posts: 1,630
|
Post by jeffh on Apr 2, 2022 10:41:53 GMT -5
***** aciera.... please explain. David Bradshaw I have a 480 cylinder I want a 480 Redhawk No one is reboring A two piece barrel would keep me from having to make mine a 2 piece Just much simpler.......
I get that.
It would be easier for someone to turn a parallel-sided barrel to fit the sleeve, which has all the complex stuff, like the ejector rod shroud, rib, ramp, etc.
That's a lot of sculpting on a chunk of steel you've bored a hole through and rifled. Mess up on the longitudinal hole and the whole thing is scrap. The sleeve could be a boon in that respect, but possibly not in others. Who knows? Someone out there may start making aftermarket sleeves with "rails" and integral dot-sight bases, USB charging ports, etc. People really go for "features and options" today, which is pretty much how they sell cars these days.
At the same time, I'm OK with paying a few hundred bucks for an old Charter Target Bulldog with a sleeved barrel. Not that I'd ever pay $1k for a revolver myself, but I'd surely experience serious pause if it were made like a Charter Arms, but priced like a Smith or Ruger. That's just ME, and not meant as a criticism toward what anyone else wants or is willing to pay for it. I respect all of your opinions on this board and enjoy a lot of stuff being posted, even if I wouldn't (or wouldn't be able to) buy it myself.
|
|
|
Post by ldmay375 on Apr 12, 2022 1:01:42 GMT -5
When did Ruger start putting 2pc barrels on Redhawks? Wow, this is my first awareness of this. Dang, I have not recovered from the pinned front sight models. I have one of those in a 4" 45 Colt Redhawk, Though I considered myself lucky to find a used 4" in the 45 Colt, so I somewhat accept the situation. The 2 piece Redhawk may work fine and be fine. I think I will stick with the older generations. I am fond of their looks, particularly the 4" models.
|
|
|
Post by savit260 on Apr 22, 2022 7:53:36 GMT -5
Haven't the short barreled Alaskans always had a 2 piece, barrel sleeved inside the frame set up? Haven't heard anyone concerned about those???
|
|