The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Josh17 · May 28, 2012, 03:14 PM

Of these two Revolvers, I'm wondering which of the two is "better". By better I really mean in terms of reliability. From what I've read when the .38 special is loaded with +P it can match the "power" of a .44 special. That's at least what I read. I'd assume that a .44 special though being a heavier grain would win. But I don't know. What I'm mostly looking for is a home-defense weapon, that can be counted on to work at any moment in time. So reliability is the main factor.

So two factors.... Reliability and power.

#1. Is a Charter Arms "Bulldog Pug" .44 special. I don't know how old it is, but it has some wear. How old it is, and how many rounds have been fired through it are unknown. The seller didn't mention how old it was/amount of rounds put through it. From what I can tell though, everything seems to be working fine. You can tell it has some wear, but it seems to be functioning fine. Here is a link/picture of a brand new one: http://www.charterfirearms.com/produ...ldog_14420.asp

#2 Smith and Wesson Model 642, snub-nose, .38 special + P. This one, I also don't know how "old" it is, but the owner said it only has about 80 rounds through the life of the gun. Here is a link/picture of it: http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/w...layErrorView_Y

Of the two, which wins in terms of reliability? Both of them are used and not new. The bulldog seems to have more use and wear than the S&W does. And how about overall powerful? My guess is, the S&W wins in terms of reliability, but I'm not 100% certain. I've heard some people say the .44 special Bulldog is amazingly reliable. Yet I've heard it also had some issues with certain models/years. So I don't really know, nor do I know the date the Bulldog was made. I do though like how the .44 Bulldog is SA/DA. I feel like cocking the hammer manually adds to the "reliability" if you need to get a shot off. To me it seems almost impossible for the gun to not fire if it's loaded, and you manually cock the hammer back and fire. To me it seems like the force of the hammer falling down would "force" the chambered round to fire, regardless of the condition or reliability of the gun - at least for that 1 shot.

May 28, 2012, 03:14 PM	#1
Josh17 Senior Member Join Date: February 26, 2012 Location: Colorado Posts: 196	S&W .38 special vs BULLDOG .44 special Of these two Revolvers, I'm wondering which of the two is "better". By better I really mean in terms of reliability. From what I've read when the .38 special is loaded with +P it can match the "power" of a .44 special. That's at least what I read. I'd assume that a .44 special though being a heavier grain would win. But I don't know. What I'm mostly looking for is a home-defense weapon, that can be counted on to work at any moment in time. So reliability is the main factor. So two factors.... Reliability and power. #1. Is a Charter Arms "Bulldog Pug" .44 special. I don't know how old it is, but it has some wear. How old it is, and how many rounds have been fired through it are unknown. The seller didn't mention how old it was/amount of rounds put through it. From what I can tell though, everything seems to be working fine. You can tell it has some wear, but it seems to be functioning fine. Here is a link/picture of a brand new one: http://www.charterfirearms.com/produ...ldog_14420.asp #2 Smith and Wesson Model 642, snub-nose, .38 special + P. This one, I also don't know how "old" it is, but the owner said it only has about 80 rounds through the life of the gun. Here is a link/picture of it: http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/w...layErrorView_Y Of the two, which wins in terms of reliability? Both of them are used and not new. The bulldog seems to have more use and wear than the S&W does. And how about overall powerful? My guess is, the S&W wins in terms of reliability, but I'm not 100% certain. I've heard some people say the .44 special Bulldog is amazingly reliable. Yet I've heard it also had some issues with certain models/years. So I don't really know, nor do I know the date the Bulldog was made. I do though like how the .44 Bulldog is SA/DA. I feel like cocking the hammer manually adds to the "reliability" if you need to get a shot off. To me it seems almost impossible for the gun to not fire if it's loaded, and you manually cock the hammer back and fire. To me it seems like the force of the hammer falling down would "force" the chambered round to fire, regardless of the condition or reliability of the gun - at least for that 1 shot.