11 Reasons My Charter Arms is Better Than Your Smith & Wesson

[Bill DeShivs]

My wife's Charter Undercover.They aren't hard to disassemble. I did an action job on it and gold plated the trigger. I also engraved the gun and shaped the grips. It has been plated in industrial hard chrome.

https://thefiringline.com/forums/att...1&d=1590616919

[HighValleyRanch]

Very nice Bill, I like the engraving. Envious of your skills.

[CajunBass]

That would be the current Model 19. Putting it there is how they fixed the need to have a flat spot on the forcing cone, which was a weak spot. Prior to that, there was nothing like this on a factory K frame, to my knowledge.

No, you're correct. Before the -9, the front lockup was at the end of the ejector rod.

The Charters I've owned, 38's and 44"s did lock up tight. Good guns, I just don't have any now. Maybe another 44 some day. I've got a bunch of reloading stuff for the 44 special.

[muzzleblast...]

In the immortal words of Grady on Sanford and Son... "Great Googly Moogly!" No way a Charter Arms is better than a S&W. LOL! I do own a .44 S&W Spl. Charter Bulldog, however, and am keeping it...

[Super Sneaky Steve]

My Model 19-9 has a ball detent on the crane. That's a K-frame.

It's nice to see big blue following in the footsteps of Charter Arms. Like when they copied their internal transfer bar.

[Super Sneaky Steve]

I do own no less than 8 S&W revolvers so they aren't bad. I could also make a list of why S&W revolvers are better than CA but I'm not sure I could come up with as many reasons.

The point of this thread is to make people aware of the advantages and not to write them off as an inferior brand just because the previous owner of the company made some crappy guns a long time ago.

It's like saying Harley Davidson makes a bad motorcycle because they made crappy bikes back in the AMF days. The jokes about them leaking oil and breaking down still persist today even though quality has gone way up since then.

In recent years I've seen the quality of S&W go down while the prices seem to clime even higher. I took a chance on an alternative and I'm really glad I did.

[bamaranger]

My stance on Charter revolvers is that they are suitable, but intended to be ready or carried, more than they are shot. In other words, given steady shooting, a 'Smith (or Colt, or Ruger and possibly others) will hold up longer and give less problems.

I base that opinion on the two Charters I had in the mid '80's, a .38 Undercover, and a .44 Bulldog. I was fascinated with the Bulldog and shot it regularly, reloading 240 & 250 grain slugs. I did not keep records on the gun, but it went out of time in what I'd estimate less than 1000 rds. In retrospect, I was loading the little gun too heavy. No records of my loads, but they were certainly at minimum the equal of the factory 246 grain slug of the era.

The Undercover went the same route. The load for it was the old 2.8 Bullseye/148 WC, or a 158 SWC. Again, no records, but I'd estimate the .38 went 1500 rds.

[Jim Watson]

It's nice to see big blue following in the footsteps of Charter Arms. Like when they copied their internal transfer bar.

I have not seen a Smith and Wesson with a transfer bar like a 1900 Iver Johnson. Even now that they have gone to frame mounted firing pins, the hammer still hits the firing pin. The internal bar is a hammer block.

I don't know what Charter is doing now, but my friend D's Undercover is a serviceable purse gun and my late Uncle's Pathfinder .22 is a fair plinker, but they are not fine revolvers.

[74A95]

Originally Posted by Super Sneaky Steve

4. 8 grove barrel.
8 is better than 6. Even my 5 year old knows that. Less bullet deformation and better accuracy with the CA.

Evidence for better accuracy? I have a 8-groove Ruger and it is not as consistently accurate as my S&W.

My S&W Models 637, 67 and 686 have 5-groove barrels not 6-groove. I think my other S&W revolvers do too (too many to look at now).

Originally Posted by Super Sneaky Steve

5. Lock up.
The CA will lock up on the crane. S&W will put a ball detent on some of their fancy N frames but not on any of their J or K fames. CA does it better.

False. Previously noted for the Model 19, and their Model 66 has the ball-detent lockup too.

https://www.smith-wesson.com/product/model-66

Originally Posted by Super Sneaky Steve

11. Lifetime Guarantee

False. See their website.


Lots of blatantly false information here. That doesn't help your credibility.

[CajunBass]

Originally Posted by Super Sneaky Steve

It's nice to see big blue following in the footsteps of Charter Arms. Like when they copied their internal transfer bar.

Let me know when you find a Smith and Wesson with a transfer bar. I'd like to see it.

[wild cat mccane]

GP100 transfer bar breaks are a real thing.

[lee n. field]

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

GP100 transfer bar breaks are a real thing.

Ditto Charter.

[dgludwig]

I was just looking at a Charter Arms "Professional" for the little lady in 32 cal. The review that gun rags and internet spotlights are giving this thing make me want to just (forgive the pun) pull the trigger on the purchase.

Once you've "pulled the trigger" on the "Professional", you might rethink your forgiving nature. Terrible da pull; way too heavy, imo.

[Mike Irwin]

"It's nice to see big blue following in the footsteps of Charter Arms. Like when they copied their internal transfer bar."

I missed this comment my first go around this thread.

Smith & Wesson revolvers do NOT have, nor have they ever had, a transfer bar.

If you don't understand how S&Ws function, how can you claim that Charters are better?

[44 AMP]

My only real issue with Charter Arms is that they are all too small!!

[ballardw]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

My only real issue with Charter Arms is that they are all too small!!

Agree! Nothing like the 8 3/8 inch barrel on an N-Frame for a handle when someone needs to be pistol-whipped!

[44 AMP]

8 3/8 inch barrel on an N-Frame for a handle

?? !!

clearly you have no idea of proper pistol whipping technique!

[Stophel]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

My only real issue with Charter Arms is that they are all too small!!

"My only real issue with Charter Arms is that they are all too small!! "

Entirely too small. Unless you have hands small enough to operate it. And I don't. Same with a J frame. Oh, you could put a big grip on it..and then that pretty much does away with the primary reason (and pretty much, the only reason) for their existence... pocket carry.

I actually got tempted by a Charter .44 "classic" the other day. It's cool and all, but... I just would not really be able to shoot it.

The itsy bitsy guns are cute, but entirely useless for me. A full size, six shot gun with a man sized handle serves me far better.

As to the other things that make a Charter Arms "better"... well... most of my S&W's are older than I am.

[Bob Wright]

I'm not a big fan of the double action revolver, but this is one of my pet DA revolvers, 5" full lug, .44 Magnum:




Bob Wright

[BourbonCowboy]

1. No frame lock.
No one likes a frame lock. They are ugly and useless at best. At their worst they can lock up your gun. Now this occurrence may be rare but it has happened before.

2. Only 1 grip style.
Grip frames are the same for every model of ever year. So if you want big grips or small grips, wood grips or rubber grips, they all fit. Try finding a rubber boot grip for your N frame. Can't do it! I tried. S&W decided to make all grip frames just a little different so you can't put your favorite grips on the gun you want. Lame.

3. Grip frame material.
CA offers polymer, aluminum and stainless steel. People make good arguments for all three. With CA you can get what you want, they are easy to swap out and replace, with S&W you get what they give you.

4. 8 grove barrel.
8 is better than 6. Even my 5 year old knows that. Less bullet deformation and better accuracy with the CA.

5. Lock up.
The CA will lock up on the crane. S&W will put a ball detent on some of their fancy N frames but not on any of their J or K fames. CA does it better.

6. Simple Design
CA revolvers have fewer moving parts and a solid frame without a sideplate. This allows lighter revolvers without using exotic materials or forged frames which are very expensive.

7. Cost
You can buy 3 Charters for the cost of 1 Smith in most cases. This is huge!

8. Caliber
Charter offers many models in 44 spl and 32 magnum. Two of the best calibers out there. Smith has a few big expensive 44 Magnums that run well north of $1000 that are too big and too heavy. They run on L and N frames. Charter makes them light and compact. Smith also has nothing in .32 and on the used marked these guns go for ridiculous prices.

9. Trigger
Charter polishes all their sears at no extra cost. S&W will only do this on their performance center line for extra $$$. I own many Smiths and my Charter is just better out of the box.

10. Lock Time
Charters have shorter hammer throws and decreased lock time which means you can shoot your CA better!

11. Lifetime Guarantee
Yes, I know Smith will most likely take care of their messed up guns but they don't have to. Charter puts it in writing. They slap a sticker on the box so you don't forget. American made, American parts, Guaranteed for Life!

All this is nice, but there's a reason I own two Charters and no S&W revolvers: S&W doesn't sell a left-handed version.

I know that S&W quality will surpass that of CA, but my Southpaw is small, accurate, and goes bang every time I squeeze the trigger. That's enough for me.

[Super Sneaky Steve]

Entirely too small. Unless you have hands small enough to operate it. And I don't. Same with a J frame. Oh, you could put a big grip on it..and then that pretty much does away with the primary reason (and pretty much, the only reason) for their existence... pocket carry.

Check out the grip I put on the one I reviewed. It's fat. There's nothing below or behind the grip frame so it stays compact, but it's fat enough that you'll like gripping it with big hands. There are several other grips available. I'm sure you could find one that you'd like.

[44 AMP]

For me, it has little to do with the grip size. I'm the "odd duck" here, I don't have much interest in belly guns or concealed carry "pocket" guns.

I have a couple (taken in on a trade) but I've never bought one, and don't plan to. Colt Cobra .38Spl and Mauser HSc .32acp and .380acp. They meet my needs for that size gun just fine.

And, I'm also a subscriber to the theory that when everything goes completely wrong, your pistol IS an impact weapon, and as such, I want something steel and preferably at least moderately heavy.

And yes, I'll pay the price of it feeling like a brick in my pocket. I take the "viking" point of view, if an all steel full size gun is to heavy for you, grow stronger!

[ME262]

Bought a Charter Arms pink .32 H&R Magnum a few months ago. It has already been back to the factory for repairs three (3) times. They completely replaced the gun once. I'll say this for them, they answer their phone promptly, as opposed to S&W, but in my experience their quality is Saturday Night Special.

I have a bunch of Buffalo Bore ammo - and new .32 revolver ammo is very hard to find - but they strictly forbid using Buffalo Bore whether .32 long or .32 H&R magnum. Their repairman told me that doing so can result in "catastrophic failure".

No comparison qualitywise with S&W - except for that stupid hillary hole - and why does S&W continue to do that!?

[44 AMP]

- and why does S&W continue to do that!?

When the British company that owned S&W made the deal with the Clintons (and no other gunmaker did) that put the lock in S&Ws, lots of people were upset. S&W stock tanked and the company was sold, for a loss (7million I heard).

The group that bought S&W was either run by or included some of the people who designed and made the lock that S&W used. Obviously they think its a good idea, and so they kept it in S&W guns since they now owned the company.

I can't state this as absolute fact, but its the story I heard. Perhaps someone else here knows the actual details???

[Super Sneaky Steve]

The light weight Charter guns are made from 7057 Aluminum. They have limitations just like the old S&W and Colt aluminum frames. These are much cheaper than aluminum scandium alloys but can't take as much abuse.

Their stainless steel guns are obviously much stronger and are still very light for what they are. If you like to push the limits I would stick with SS.

The Undercoverette is only 16oz in all steel.