Charter arms

[gray1]

Those of you that are charter arms aficionado can you expect to be able to fire one of them thousands of rounds?
I have wanted a cylinder that would fit my Blackhawk haven’t been able to land one.Then I saw some charter 9 mm revolvers and looking at them and some 44 spec target editions .Just curious about how they hold up.

[jeffh]

Feb 13, 2023 12:59:59 GMT -5 gray1 said:

Those of you that are charter arms aficionado can you expect to be able to fire one of them thousands of rounds?
I have wanted a cylinder that would fit my Blackhawk haven’t been able to land one.Then I saw some charter 9 mm revolvers and looking at them and some 44 spec target editions .Just curious about how they hold up.

Charter Arms' design is sound.  There is considerable innovation behind the design and a swing away from 19th century design before Ruger started making DA revolvers too, and we all know Ruger DA revolver design is sound.  Ruger copied Charter design features as surely as Charter copied High Standard and Iver Johnson design features.  This is not a knock on Ruger.  Old Bill knew good design when he saw it.  He beefed it up alright, and maybe even more than needed, but the Charter revolvers' design  for 38 Special, 357 Mag and 44 Special will not blow up in your hand, and they will hold up to quite a lot of shooting.  Oh, and now Smith AND Ruger are doing things Charter was ridiculed for, like "barrel sleeves" or "barrel shrouds," separate grip frames,...  No Charter didn't necessarily perfect the "barrel shroud" on the old Target Bulldog, but green Loctite was their only oversight.

I've had several 44 Special Charters of Bridgeport and Stratford production, which shot more rounds than I ever cared to try to count.  Can you ABUSE one like you could a Ruger?  I don't know, but I've put about every BOOK load through mine and later learned some of those loads were stouter than they were supposed to be.

The tired old saw of "meant t be carried a lot and shot a little" has been issued often regarding Charter guns, by some who were trying not to overtly demean the guns' durability, but the very same can be said today for ANY of the lightweight revolvers everyone else is making, particularly if one is referencing the SHOOTER's durability.  They can be a handful.  My usual session with the Bulldogs in 44 Special was 50 rounds, sometime a hundred.  They're really not that bad, but it surely isn't like shooting a 22 in a 2+# pistol.

I am quite fond of the design.  They can be a pain to put back together, unlike a Ruger, but how many times does one NEED to completely disassemble a revolver?  Once or twice if you decide to do some trigger-work, which isn't always needed.  The trade-off is less weight, bulk and moving parts.  When they advertise how strong the frame is, compared to a design with a side-plate, that has to be considered within the context.  It doesn't mean it's stronger than a Smith or Colt, but that it can be made with less weight and bulk and still be as strong as it needs to be. 

I've read stories of Charters "shooting loose," locking up," etc., but no more than I've seen with the other brands.  My own single most horrific out-of-the-box, brand new gun for defects was a brand new Smith.  I've returned ONE Charter to the company for repairs, but have sent back numerous Rugers.  This is not a slight on Smith or Ruger, but that my personal experience does not match the conjecture of many who've never owned a Charter revolver.

There was a rough patch when their QC was not good, but that was corrected.  They don't look nearly as nice as a Smith, but they work and they work well.  Most of them have shot decently, giving 2 1/2", five shot groups at 25 yards - back when I shot more and could shoot better.

My most recent one from a couple years ago had some issues.  I sent it back and they took care of it pretty quickly and they are very nice people.  I e-mailed a question once and the president, Nick Ecker called me to answer my question.  Nice guy, by the way.  The new one isn't as nicely finished as the older ones and is the first I've ever had to return and I bought my first one in 1982.  I've owned several others which were older.

This fella has a pretty good rundown on them up to a point:

unblinkingeye.com/Guns/CAR/car.html

I'm very fond of Charter revolvers.  There was a time when I could only afford one revolver and that was a 3" Bulldog.  If I wanted to shoot, that was what I shot, so it saw a lot of rounds.  I just wish I'd kept all of the ones I'd bought and let go over the years.  When you can  pick them up for $150, lightly used, you kind of take them for granted.  My mistake.

OK, I'll shut up now...

[gray1]

Thanks

[needsmostuff]

I have a love/hate relationship with Charter Arms,,,,,, but I don't rule them out. Sometimes they have just the gun you are looking for when nobody else does.
The main thing I would add to Jeffs through thoughts is to lay hands on your chosen gun before buying. NO INTERNET ORDERING. The difference between each gun is that apparent ranging from decent to heinous.
As mentioned, the finish will always be behind the rest, they just spend little time on it. Look for grittiness, timing and barrel alignment plus often they feel over sprung.

[Lee Martin]

I own a Bulldog from 1984 and a stainless Bulldog from 2009. Both are loose on cylinder fit (lots of side play). But that doesn't seem to effect how they shoot. Just load them light. I use 5.0 of Green Dot with a 250 gr Keith. The older of my two Bulldogs was pretty smooth from the factory. As needsmostuff noted, the newer ones are pretty gritty. I took mine apart and polished the internals. That helped a lot.

My 1984 Bulldog:



My 2009 Bulldog:



For the money, they're good little guns.

-Lee
www.singleactions.com
"Chasing perfection five shots at a time"

[gray1]

Thanks

[wpeel]

I was given a Charter Arms Bulldog Pug in .44 Special. Haven't been satisfied with it, yet. Action is heavy and unpredictable. Been back to Charter, where they discovered a bent ejector rod, burrs on the star, and they supposedly brought everything up to spec. Action is still heavy, with a decided hitch on a couple chambers. Shoots about 4 inches high and nearly six inches left at maybe 15 yards. Haven't tried creating any handloads for it, with lighter bullets. I refuse to carry it until I can find loads that will shoot to the sights, and I get that action smoothed a bit.

[Encore64]

I can't directly answer your question about durability.

But, I bought the 4.2" Bulldog Target Stainless in 44 Special some years ago.

I've been very pleased with it. Refined, not so much. But, at 22 oz it's a near perfect trail gun.

I load the GT 220 grn HP Bullets over Power Pistol. Surprising performance for a 15k Factory Equivalent Load...

[jeffh]

Note that when you inspect a Charter revolver, do not just wiggle the cylinder and deem it unfit.

The design is such that the hand/pawl bears against the ratchet while the trigger is being pulled.

Check to ensure it is unloaded, hold the gun "backwards," point the muzzle in a safe direction and pull the trigger and HOLD IT BACK.

THEN, twist the gun around and look down the bore with a strong light to see how the chambers align with the bore WHILE THE TRIGGER IS BEING HELD BACK.

This is also when you try to wiggle the cylinder. They tend to lock up tight right when it matters.

Do this for all chambers.

The current-production Mag Pug I have has a slight misalignment between the cylinder and bore, such that the chambers are all slightly low, but the only consequence is some leading on the bottom side of the of the bore. It still shoots well.

The SA and DA pulls are light and smooth - WAY better than the current small-frame Taurus revolvers, which are quite stiff.

Ideally, find a Strattford or Bridgeport gun. I believe there is a much lower chance of getting a turd. I've not personally gotten a turd, but most of my Charters have been older production.

Many parts still interchange between many models from 1964 to present too, which is a bit comforting, because some of the parts are very small and easy to lose if you take one apart.

"Trail Gun!" I agree on the point of them being perfect for that. I've carried a 3" Bulldog concealed for years, carried a 4" Target Bulldog in the woods while hunting, hiking, woodland restoration and cutting firewood for years too. I'm carrying a 3" Mag Pug 357 for that now and any of the three never intrude upon any endeavor I've pursued "out there," being compact, LIGHT and capable.

[parallaxbill]

I've been very happy with the way my Bulldog Pug 44 shoots even though the bore of the barrel seems offset a little. It hits point of aim out to 15 yards so I trust that it'll hit anything dangerous within that range if I do my part. Mine too has a loose feeling cylinder but seems to have no negative effects on accuracy.
But I did have to replace a broken transfer bar on it a couple years ago.
Mine is a Sheldon built example.

[jeffh]

mk70SS posted a beautiful High Standard Sentinel here:
singleactions.proboards.com/thread/35922/looks-good-58-years-old?page=1&scrollTo=459074

Note the crane design and its simple lockup of the cylinder/crane - the spring-loaded sleeve, which slides into a recess on the front of the frame, locking the works up much closer to the cylinder. Charter copied that, because it's simple, cheap and a good design, especially with the front lock being closer to the cylinder instead on on the end of the ejector rod. Materially, it probably makes little difference, but in theory "better." Ruger eventually copied the crane design on the LCR/LCRX, but stuck their lockup at the far end of the ejector rod.

I've seen it noted that Charter finally addressed the "wobbly cylinder," which I've never experienced personally, in a couple different reviews/critiques. These comments are made bade on conjecture and poor observation. It wasn't a problem, even if the cylinder was even a little "wobbly" when open. They don't "wobble" when closed - when it matters. It was/is perceived that the narrow dimension of the crane, where the ejector rod goes through, doesn't offer enough bearing surface to keep the cylinder from "wobbling." My take - less bearing surface = less friction, for one thing, and the crane does not support the cylinder when closed anyway. The cylinder rotates on the front locking sleeve and the rear pin, both of which are frame-based supports. The cylinder is supported in its closed position by the frame (ONE PIECE) on both ends, independent of a separate moving part, making all the fitting and alignment of the moving part less relevant.

The "improvement" was a small extension of steel on the crane, which fills the gap in the frame ahead of the crane. It is purely aesthetic on the Charter, but Ruger DID widen the bearing surface by making that little extension fill the gap - all the way to the back of the mortise and then boring through the whole thing for the ejector rod. Why bother? Because they support the front of the cylinder with the crane, not the frame.

Also note the separate trigger guard/grip-frame similarities between the Sentinel and Charter. This answers Bill Ruger Sr's cost issue on the Security Six line grip frame, which had to be (fairly) precisely finished, and which he answered with a "peg," much like a fake tooth might be mounted to. Just as viable a solution regarding cost, and certainly does not detract from function or quality - just different. The separate grip-frames can be made of a material less costly to cast and finish like aluminum and, ummm, OK, plastic, as is the case with some of the Charter 38s of today. My current-production 357 has an aluminum grip frame, but both my old stainless Bulldogs had stainless steel grip frames. If you find one of those, GRAB IT. I wish I still had one, because I'm not sure everyone believes that, but magnets don't stick to aluminum.

All Charter grip frames are the same shape/size and any Charter grip fits any Charter revolver, yet the selection of aftermarket grips is not terribly abundant.

That said - if any of you have tried the "NEW Compact Rubber Grips" offered on Charter's site? Anyone know if the back-strap is exposed? I just bought a set of their walnut "backpacker grips," which I find to be an abomination to hold the gun right, and have started filing material away to get rid of the gargantuan "wings" on the sides and reduce the front-to-back dimension so I can wrap my grubby little mitt around the thing. I have yet to see a grip to fit a Charter which does not cover the back-strap, thereby making the trigger too far away for my stubby digits - except for the scant wooden slabs they used to put on the 38s.

Contrary to conventional (and once my own) wisdom, a BIG grip is supposed to mitigate recoil better, but I've found that (for ME) a smaller grip I can wrap my hand around does WAY more to mitigate recoil, because I can hang onto the gun better. When I shot my OM SBH with heavy loads, I used the grip frame off my SS Old Army, not the SBH grip frame. The Bisley NM SBHs were even worse. Even the Pachmyer Compact grip is too big for me on a Bulldog.

Sorry about the deluge, but I don't often get to share some of this. Since it seems there some here who are not repulsed by the sight of a Charter revolver, I figured someone might get something out of this.

And,.... NO. If the gun is not executed as well as it is designed (yes, this has happened) NO "better" design makes a whit of difference. Charter HAS done well with it, and sometimes they haven't.

[needsmostuff]

Feb 15, 2023 17:38:50 GMT -5 jeffh said:

I have yet to see a grip to fit a Charter which does not cover the back-strap, thereby making the trigger too far away for my stubby digits - except for the scant wooden slabs they used to put on the 38s.
Contrary to conventional (and once my own) wisdom, a BIG grip is supposed to mitigate recoil better, but I've found that (for ME) a smaller grip I can wrap my hand around does WAY more to mitigate recoil,

Hey Jeff , bit of a construction thread drift but why not.
For what you seem to want you may have to make um yourself. Good news is if you cheat a little, they're not too hard to do. I have no proper skills to inlet grips on most double actions when not a single plane flat panel, so I often employ this little workaround.
I cut and fit a layer of contrasting micarta of the proper thickness. This will contain the pin locating holes, screw holes and the upper half circles fit very snug. Then you simply laminate on whatever skin you want to use. Then you simply shape to what you want.
In this case it was some vintage dog chewed bone from a friend's yard, but spiffy wood or stag also works just as well.

Sorry, gun is grubby, but you can see the red liner micarta doing the work.
Grips this size (a little thicker and less radius than factory) work well on 32mag but I don't know if they would mitigate a 44 spl. well.

[jeffh]

"GRUBBY" GUNS ARE BEAUTIFUL!

It means they're more than just pretty!

This is cool, because at least twice in that past, you and I have come up on the "same page" regarding working on Charter Arms' revolvers.

I had the same idea! It would save time, be quicker/easier to inlet" (so to speak) and it would look cool without looking odd.

TIME is my problem. Even that would have ended up being a weeks-long project, so I also "cheated" by buying the wooden grips as seconds so all I would have to do is shape the outside - pre-inletted, so to speak. One minor glitch is that in the square corners of the machine inletting, they "cheated" too by rounding the corner out beyond the square edges, leaving a few gaps I'll have to fill with epoxy or Acraglass. No big deal, as I need functional. I can always start a new set for looks, using a piece of some of the cool, gnarly woods I have saved for decades - for when I have time.

Those grips look great, both aesthetically and functionally. I agree with not rounding entirely, like the slim little scales on the older 38s. You cannot "index" the gun radially in your hand when the grips are too round, so the square(ISH) grips are a huge improvement. I's shot a Bulldog with a more square(ISH) set of Undercover grips with the 3" Bulldog. You won't break your wrist or lose a finger and you can shoot WELL with them. I need to get my fingers around the grip, so the gun won't move in my hand. That makes a lot of difference when shooting something which can be pretty lively when you drop the hammer. You may not want to shoot a hundred of them that way at the range, but they are not so gawdawful as one might think.

The fact that you used a dog toy to make those grips is the coolest thing yet. The idea of backing them with Micarta will also assure they won't split under recoil. You're going to make me make a nicer set for this gun, but I'm going to finish these so I can ditch the hideous rubber.

I want to add a quick note to other too, on a complaint some have with Charters - ALWAYS get a magnifying glass (I use a 10X loupe) and look for the knurling on the pins BEFORE driving them out! The will be loose afterwards if you don't. When putting them back in, make sure they go in the right way and just before the knurling enters the hole, put a really teeny dab of BLUE Loctite on the knurling and in the hole on the other side. Drive the pin in and wipe off the little excess of Loctite. Either you and I have discussed this or maybe it was Petep? Wonder where that old boy has gotten to?

[JSutter]

I like my 3” blued Bulldog, but the recoil is more than my hands enjoy these days. A 3” 44Special sounds good to me. Just have to find an easy handload…

[jeffh]

Feb 17, 2023 20:56:01 GMT -5 JSutter said:

I like my 3” blued Bulldog, but the recoil is more than my hands enjoy these days. A 3” 44Special sounds good to me. Just have to find an easy handload…

5.2 grains of W231/HP38, behind a 240 grain lead bullet is not bad.

There are lighter bullets, but they'll shoot 3" to 4" low at 25 yards.

I tried the old "round-ball" load and may as well have just thrown the gun at the target.