Bought a NEW Charter arms 44 special "target revolver" with out doing my usual research. I got it for concealed carry and knew it was not a target gun but the quality, craftmanship and materials realy is disapointing. First discovery of the roughness of the chambers came about after trying to extract CCI factory load Blazer casses. After whacking on the ejector rod several times the whole cylinder came out of the swing arm. The only thing holding it in place is a small spring ring in a groove and a little persuasion boots it right out. Next after removing the rubber grips I find the entire grip FRAME is imitation stainless PLASTIC ?? I was headed for the trigger to try to hone some of the dragging anchor roughness out of it and discovered it is press pinned together and you can not get to the trigger department. The bore / lands has plow marks like an old breaking plow was drug down it. I am VERY disapointed with it. It is nothing like my OLD charter stainless 38 snubbie!

Thanks for the heads-up on it. I'll have to look at some new Charters. My experience with them years ago was limited, but good. I've heard the new ones aren't up to the old ones.

Hard to beat a Rossi 720 if you're looking for a small 44 Special!

Jeff

It is unfortunate but this is the way the company has been since day one all through it's many owners. The real shame is they have such great ideas but just not the wherewithall to make a quality product..

I looked over their guns at the SHOT Show... Really great ideas poorly executed.

Bob

Wow! What a shame. I had a .44 Bulldog Pug that I have always regretted trading. It was bulletproof. A friend loaded me some hot .44 shotshells for woods carry. It was perfect with some hardcores, too. My "maybe favorite" handgun right now is a SS 3" Pathfinder that has been factory converted to .22mag. Toughness used to be Charter's claim to fame. "The times, they are a changing".

I had a .44 Bulldog in the early 1980s. I wish I still had it. Nothing wrong with the quality back then. It's a shame to hear how it's deteriorated.

I looked at the Rossi website. Apparently they don't make them anymore.

I've shot a lot of .44 Special handguns. For MY use the best has and is the 696 5 shot Smith and Wesson. Hard to find and expensive but I know why. They fill the bill. Next on my list is the model 60-10 Smith in .357 Magnum....

As I replied to this same complaint on another board, there have been four companies DBA "Charter Arms."

The original one made very good guns. I own one and it is indeed top drawer. Everyone mourned the passing of that company.

In the very late 1990s came a company that bought the rights to the name and called themselves Charter 2000. The guns were nowehere near as good as the original company, and the company lasted barely until its name date.

Then came an outfit named CharCo, whose guns could legitimately be called dreadful. Some of the "new in box" guns being sold today are leftovers from that debacle - and they remained unsold for excellent reasons.

There is now a Charter Arms again, and if John Taffin is to be believed (and he sure as heck is) they are once again turning out a decent product.

The moral is to read the maker's stamp VERY closely if you are considering a Charter gun of any kind.

I just looked over the paper work and found it is a Charter 2000. I think I will try to loose it at the next gun show. I have a safe full of Smiths and Rugers --don't know what put the bug in me to buy a Charter. DUMMYDUMMYDUMMY

Yeah I gotta agree with Rocky here. I owned an original Charter Arms Bulldog and it was a great gun. I have also handled the newest Charter Arms guns and they are every bit as good as the originals in my opinion.

The Charter 2000 guns I have seen around the shows here have all been really bad looking and feeling. I handled a Charter 2000 Bulldog at a show, and dry firing it literally felt like the action had been hit with 320 paper and left that way.

I wouldn't hesitate to buy a Bulldog by the new maker though.

I owned a Charter Arms Bulldog in 38Spl back in the late sixties/early seventies and it was a well put together revolver, I'm like RockyRaab I wish I still had it, it was a fine light weight revolver.

If memory serves me right it was recomended to me not to shoot +P loads in it though as it was designed to handle the +P loads, but my memory could be mistaken.

What markings should we look for if we only want one of the currently manufactured Charter Arms guns?

I believe on them where the maker is stamped on the side of the barrel it will actually say "CharCo", "Charter 2000", or "Charter Arms" along with where it was made.

Actually I see that they are or will be offering a 6" .327 Federal Magnum with adjustable sights.
I might give that a whirl. Seems it would make a dandy of a trail/small game gun. Heck I am sure my wife would be all over it too.

So if it says "Charter Arms" we are safe buying it?

I believe so....all the ones I have seen were marked either Charter 2000 or CharCo.
Maybe Rocky can chime in too.

I did have one of the oiginal .44 Bulldogs back in the 80s... It would handle the loads but turn the bullets sideways by the time they made the 25 yard line.. Seems that some of them had a flat spot on the botton of the barrel right at the forcing cone. It was very easy to see when you looked..the barrel was totatlly round and the botton it was just deadass flat... So some were good, some not so good.

I always thought the Pathfinder was a GREAT little gun... Never have shot one or handled one outside a shop. I remember an old article that Hal Swigget did..he had one of the really small pistol scopes mounted on one and it made a great pocket plinker... Can't remember the name of the scope but the original had the adjustments in the base...the second generation had internal adjustments...

Bob

If your going to bet your life on a wheel gun, make sure it is a Colt or Smith & Wesson. This was told to me over 50 years ago and I would bet money, things haven't changed much since.

I tend to agree.

50 years ago I would have agreed with that also...but the Ruger line of DA revolvers, especially the GP100 .357 Magnum will stand up to more abuse than many Smiths or Colts. I also have three .41 Magnum Taurus Trackers in Titanium and Stainless that are not exactly "unreliable" either.

50 years is a long time and a lot of new guns have come out since then. Look in a 50s vintage Gun Digest or Shooters Bible and look at one from this year...

Bob

The only "Charter" guns I've seen outside of my own and a few other original models were at SHOT or at gunshows, so I wasn't able to cycle or handle them much, much less shoot them.

From that cursory inspection, it did seem that the Charter 2000 and CharCo guns were of a different design, and if my memory serves, they were stamped with those manufacturing names. Keep in mind that I was looking the gun itself over, so the name stamping wasn't a major interest point; so I could be wrong. I haven't yet seen a current model at all.

Like I said I recall the same thing as to the names being stamped as to Charter 2000 or CharCo.


I have handled the current variety, but not shot them yet. Dry fired, and messed around with however not shot. The actions seem reasonably smooth, barrels look good not rough our buggered, cylinders look fine. I would looks wise the newsest ones are everybit equal to the originals varieties.

Cool. Might see if I can get myself a .44 Bulldog.

I bought a new Bulldog 3" .44 back in 1981. I find that it is relatively well made, nothing like a S&W though!

That's just about when I bought my 3" Bulldog .44 too. I sold it in the 1990s for a stupid reason. When firing it, after about fifty rounds, one of the cross pins would start sliding out. All I had to do was push it back in, and a smith could likely have corrected the problem permanently. Still kick myself, because I really liked that gun. Carried it a lot.

Thanks for the insight Rocky.

My only exposure to CharterArms has been an early 3in SS Pathfinder. Pretty nice pistol.

Charter is listing a 4 in Pathfinder with dual cylinders in .22 and .22 Magnum this year. They go for under $500.

I've gotten such mixed messages I had pretty much abandoned the idea. I think I will give one a try.

I would very much like one as I have long wanted a .22LR cylinder for my 651 Smith and couldn't find one.

I bought a 514 Rossi for $189.00 instead.

Wasilla,

Several things. On the Charters I have four, and have seen none of what you claim as accurate. The frame is of course aluminum alloy to keep the weight down; where did you get the plastic idea anyway? Contact the factory, tell them your problem and the Charter is guaranteed forever! They will fix it and fix it fast and for free if what you say (excluding your incorrect plastic example) is correct. It works better than griping on a blog and solves your problem.

Uh? I bought one of the .38's for my wife, IT DOES HAVE A PLASTIC GRIP FRAME.

I owned two original Charters. On in .44 which I foolishly let go, and one I curruently still retain in .38 Special. It's a nightstand/camp gun. But, since 1975 it's shot quite a few boxes of cartridges and the only complaint I have is the grip screws tend to loosen. It's an easy fix.

The original Charters locked up tighter than any comparable and contemporary S&W. My .38 still locks up rock solid when the trigger is back.

Dan

i almost bought a charter last yr,but a friend warned me not to. i bought a rossi 357 and really like it.

I recently bought an .44 Special Bulldog Pug (Three weeks ago) I read mostly good things about them and I love the .44 Special.
I looked it over at the gun shop and it was a bit rough on the finish and trigger, but figured on a $350.00 gun it was not going to be S&W grade. I got it home and inspected better than I could at the gun shop, looking down the barrel the first thing you notice was the chatter marks in the rifling, look a bit further and the chambers in the cylinder do not line up with the barrel! Looked like a crescent moon at each rotation of the cylinder.
I took it back to the shop the very next day and got my money back.

I thought that charter 44s had problems. They were not tough enough and would fail under ordinary use.

i know guys that have the older 44 pugs and they love them.