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

[armoredman]

Original Poster, WHICH Charter? Charter Arms, CharCo or Charter 200? I would be happy with an ORIGINAL Charter Arms, ( like someone already said, my first "Roscoe" was an Off Duty snub 38Spl, back about 1984, IIRC. Good solid little revolver), absolutely, but CharCo or Charter 2000 I wouldn't walk across the street for.

[jetinteriorguy]

I’ve always been interested in a CA, but every time I pick one up and look it over and dry fire it I put it down and walk away. They just seem so cheap, which of course they are.

[dahermit]

RIA 1911s are clearly hit or miss by rep, as are apparently the current crop of C.A. wheelguns, judging by the online chatter.

A.K.A., anecdotes. How reliable are online anecdotes? They are not objective data, just a guy at the end of the bar blowing wind.

[JustJake]

RIA 1911s are clearly hit or miss by rep, as are apparently the current crop of C.A. wheelguns, judging by the online chatter.

A.K.A., anecdotes. How reliable are online anecdotes? They are not objective data, just a guy at the end of the bar blowing wind.

You mean like the guy's "anecdotes" in Post #64?

[dahermit]

Originally Posted by JustJake

You mean like the guy's "anecdotes" in Post #64?

No, more like the platitudes one sees, "...foreign junk...", "...hit or miss by rep..."etc.

[ViperR]

Been looking at this thread from the beginning and I have a correction for the OP SSS on his opening post line 3 about the grip frame (not main frame). Been around CA revolvers for years:

Yes, the grip frame is the exact same for any revolver no matter what model or caliber. And there are many sizes of grips to choose from in wood or rubber from small original wood, medium Hogue rubber, to large Pachmayr Gripper.

But, what is incorrect, is the material the stainless grip frames are made of.
Keeping plastic aside, there is no stainless steel available or ever made. It is aluminum, but in the stainless color to match the stainless model offerings. The blued model grip frames are an anodized aluminum in black. It's just the color. Not real stainless. Call CA and ask them.

But, on a side note, my carry is a CA. Ask me what model, caliber and why and I will tell you.

[Bill DeShivs]

Maybe now, but I have seen and handled an Undercover in stainless that had a stainless grip frame (and, I DO know the difference.)
Furthermore some CA grip frames are now plastic.

The original Charters and the new Charters are very good guns. I say this with much experience working on and shooting guns, including many Charters. They are solid frame guns, which makes then different, but not inferior to other makes. Action jobs can be done on them, they are as accurate as any other gun of the size, and they are less expensive than lots of other guns.

If 2 guns are the same size, same caliber-and one weighs less and costs less, but is just as reliable as the other...which one is "better?" And, "better" for what?

I have S&W "J" frames-642, 637. I have a Taurus 905, I have a Rossi 68, and a whole bunch of similar revolvers. My wife's bedside gun is the Charter pictured in this thread, and a nickeled Undercover stays by my front door.

[lee n. field]

Originally Posted by ViperR

Been looking at this thread from the beginning and I have a correction for the OP SSS on his opening post line 3 about the grip frame (not main frame). Been around CA revolvers for years:

Yes, the grip frame is the exact same for any revolver no matter what model or caliber. And there are many sizes of grips to choose from in wood or rubber from small original wood, medium Hogue rubber, to large Pachmayr Gripper.

But, what is incorrect, is the material the stainless grip frames are made of.
Keeping plastic aside, there is no stainless steel available or ever made. It is aluminum, but in the stainless color to match the stainless model offerings. The blued model grip frames are an anodized aluminum in black. It's just the color. Not real stainless. Call CA and ask them.

But, on a side note, my carry is a CA. Ask me what model, caliber and why and I will tell you.

I have, somewhere around here, a bag of Charter Arms parts. One of them is a steel grip frame. I can't tell if it's stainless, or plated, but it is steel. And, it doesn't quite fit on my Bulldog.

[JustJake]

No, more like the platitudes one sees, "...foreign junk...", "...hit or miss by rep..."etc.

A.K.A., anecdotes. How reliable are online anecdotes?

Dude, learn to use words correctly. "Platitudes" aren't "anecdotes."

Which is it?

[ME262]

Originally Posted by Bill DeShivs

Maybe now, but I have seen and handled an Undercover in stainless that had a stainless grip frame (and, I DO know the difference.)
Furthermore some CA grip frames are now plastic.

The original Charters and the new Charters are very good guns. I say this with much experience working on and shooting guns, including many Charters. They are solid frame guns, which makes then different, but not inferior to other makes. Action jobs can be done on them, they are as accurate as any other gun of the size, and they are less expensive than lots of other guns.

If 2 guns are the same size, same caliber-and one weighs less and costs less, but is just as reliable as the other...which one is "better?" And, "better" for what?

I have S&W "J" frames-642, 637. I have a Taurus 905, I have a Rossi 68, and a whole bunch of similar revolvers. My wife's bedside gun is the Charter pictured in this thread, and a nickeled Undercover stays by my front door.

"The original Charters and the new Charters are very good guns."


I haven't found that to be the case. See post #48. Maybe it's finally working now - that is spent shells might extract without a vicegrip and other tools - but i only tried it out rather briefly since its THIRD return from the factory, since both .32 longs and .32 H&R magnums are particularly hard to find now, and since Charter Arms expressly forbid me from using Buffalo Bore magnums AND longs which i do have.

[dahermit]

Originally Posted by JustJake

Dude, learn to use words correctly. "Platitudes" aren't "anecdotes."

Which is it?

When it comes to non-American made guns, both are frequently heard. "...judging by the online chatter." is a collection of anecdotes. "...foreign junk...", "...hit or miss by rep..." are platitudes.

[ViperR]

I meant the newer ones when the company was taken over. I should have clarified that. The OP said they can be had in plastic, aluminum or steel grips. You'd have to find an old one to get a steel grip. Looking for a new one with steel can't be found. Here is an article on wikpedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_Arms

[Super Sneaky Steve]

But, what is incorrect, is the material the stainless grip frames are made of.
Keeping plastic aside, there is no stainless steel available or ever made. It is aluminum, but in the stainless color to match the stainless model offerings. The blued model grip frames are an anodized aluminum in black. It's just the color. Not real stainless. Call CA and ask them.

Why don't you tell Nick that.

https://youtu.be/QTBI9UH3vg8?t=303

Fact is they have had steel grip frames and in the future all XL frames will come with steel. Or you can buy one and put it on any CA revolver.

[Super Sneaky Steve]

I haven't found that to be the case. See post #48. Maybe it's finally working now - that is spent shells might extract without a vicegrip and other tools - but i only tried it out rather briefly since its THIRD return from the factory, since both .32 longs and .32 H&R magnums are particularly hard to find now, and since Charter Arms expressly forbid me from using Buffalo Bore magnums AND longs which i do have.

Buffalo Bore 32 Mag ammo takes a 100gr bullet and pushes it 1300fps.

That's a 32 +P++

Factory ammo goes about 850fps. Handloaders can get it up a little more without going over specs.

You need to understand this ammo was made for Ruger single action guns that are heavily built.

They will also sell you .45 Colt ammo that sends a 325gr bullet out at 1325fps. That's well beyond what any single action army or S&W can handle. It was made specifically for Blackhawks and Redhawks.

Put standard pressure ammo in your aluminum gun and be happy or step up to steel that is only a few oz more and you can push it but know your guns' limits.

[ME262]

Originally Posted by Super Sneaky Steve

Buffalo Bore 32 Mag ammo takes a 100gr bullet and pushes it 1300fps.

That's a 32 +P++

Factory ammo goes about 850fps. Handloaders can get it up a little more without going over specs.

You need to understand this ammo was made for Ruger single action guns that are heavily built.

They will also sell you .45 Colt ammo that sends a 325gr bullet out at 1325fps. That's well beyond what any single action army or S&W can handle. It was made specifically for Blackhawks and Redhawks.

Put standard pressure ammo in your aluminum gun and be happy or step up to steel that is only a few oz more and you can push it but know your guns' limits.

What about Buffalo Bore .32 longs, not magnums? Charter Arms says I can't use that either.

Buffalo Bore themselves say:

"Buffalo Bore Premium Heavy ammunitions is considered safe to use in any newer 32 H&R or 327 Federal chambered firearm that is in normal operating condition. DO NOT use in older 32 H&R revolvers. This ammunition is new production, non-corrosive, in boxer primed, reloadable brass cases."

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1001520437

[dgludwig]

When it comes to non-American made guns, both are frequently heard. "...judging by the online chatter." is a collection of anecdotes. "...foreign junk...", "...hit or miss by rep..." are platitudes.

You used the words correctly, dahermit, and certainly didn't need some "dude" telling you how wrong you were.

[Super Sneaky Steve]

What about Buffalo Bore .32 longs, not magnums? Charter Arms says I can't use that either.

As long as you're under the max pressure for 32 H&R Mag at 21,000psi I doesn't matter what brand it is.

32 S&W Long has a max pressure of 15,000psi. Normally it sends a 98gr bullet out at 718fps. The Buffalo Bore stuff sends a 115g bullet out at 800fps.

I'm not sure what kind of magic powder they are using but that seems very spicy for a 32 Long.

[44 AMP]

Consider the actual language used.

"considered safe in..."

you might consider asking Buffalo Bore directly if they have tested their ammo in your specific make/model gun.

Also consider that "considered safe" doesn't mean suitable, it means not dangerous.

What about Buffalo Bore .32 longs, not magnums? Charter Arms says I can't use that either.

What exactly does Charter Arms say??

Do they say "DO NOT USE..." or do they say "we do not recommend..." or "we recommend not using...." ??? because those phrases don't all mean exactly the same thing.

Also consider that even an "bad" overpressure situation with too hot FACTORY ammo will still be below the failure point of your gun's steel..or should be...

[ME262]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Consider the actual language used.

"considered safe in..."

you might consider asking Buffalo Bore directly if they have tested their ammo in your specific make/model gun.

Also consider that "considered safe" doesn't mean suitable, it means not dangerous.



What exactly does Charter Arms say??

Do they say "DO NOT USE..." or do they say "we do not recommend..." or "we recommend not using...." ??? because those phrases don't all mean exactly the same thing.

Also consider that even an "bad" overpressure situation with too hot FACTORY ammo will still be below the failure point of your gun's steel..or should be...

When i last spoke with the people at Charter Arms by phone a couple of months ago, at the time i sent back my pink .32 H&R Magnum revolver for repairs for the third time, I spoke first with their repair man (who was different than the repair man the earlier times - they said that the old one was gone and replaced), and i also spoke with some lady on the phone when i called yet again to specifically ask if i could use the Buffalo Bore .32 longs - and i don't know their official titles, but the repair man seemed to be the man in charge of repairs now since he replaced the former one. I don't remember the exact words, except i do remember that i was told in no uncertain terms that using Buffalo Bore ammo OF ANY KIND can - and i do remember these words - "cause CATASTROPHIC FAILURE".

Now here is the quote and link directly from Buffalo Bore's own page:

"This [.32 S&W long] ammunition is safe to use in ANY [their caps not mine] solid frame revolver that is in ordinary shooting condition. “Solid frame” means any revolver that is not a top break frame. “Ordinary shooting condition”, means ANY revolver that is in condition to fire any modern factory, 32 S&W LONG ammo, without malfunction. Have a competent gunsmith check your revolver for “ordinary shooting condition” if you have doubts, as many of these revolvers are very old and some imports were made of questionable quality as manufacturing techniques and materials were not advanced ten or so decades ago. Take your gunsmith a copy of this press release so he will understand the context of your questions.

To add versatility, this ammunition can, of course, be fired in ANY/ALL revolvers chambered in 32 H&R Magnum and 327 Federal."

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.ph...t_detail&p=345

Who to believe? I can't trust the Charter Arms revolver, plus it has already been returned twice due to malfunctions, and the first time they sent me a new gun because they said they found something - i forgot what - drastically wrong with the barrel in the original one...quality control?!

[JohnKSa]

...i do remember that i was told in no uncertain terms that using Buffalo Bore ammo OF ANY KIND can - and i do remember these words - "cause CATASTROPHIC FAILURE".

First of all, if you're sending them broken guns on a regular basis, they may just be trying to get you to stop doing whatever it is that's causing the problem. It's not clear that the guy at CA has any clue about the BB .32 S&W Long specs--he may just be assuming that's what broke the gun and is saying whatever he thinks is the most likely to get you to stop doing what you've been doing.

The way you describe the interaction, that seems a very likely explanation. I think that it's not too hard to understand how they might be getting a little frustrated with the situation at this point.

That aside, while an unsafe failure would automatically be a catastrophic failure, a catastrophic failure isn't necessarily unsafe.

The common usage of 'catastrophic failure' is when there's a failure that actually requires repair work to remedy--generally some kind of actual breakage.

So if the recoil breaks a part resulting in the cylinder failing to turn and the gun requires gunsmith attention to get it working again, that's a catastrophic failure--but it's not necessarily unsafe.

A jam in a semi-auto isn't a catastrophic failure if you can clear it and no parts are broken. If the frame cracks and ties up the gun, that's a catastrophic failure even if there was no point where the shooter was ever in any danger.

If the ejector rod unscrews in a S&W revolver, that's not a catastrophic failure because you can screw it back in and the gun will work. If the ejector rod breaks off, that's a catastrophic failure even though it's not dangerous at all.

Who to believe? I can't trust the Charter Arms revolver.

Here's what I'm getting out of your posts:

"I broke my gun 3x using BB .32H&RMag +P ammo. The last time I called CA and pressed them for details about what ammo from BB I could use, he told me not to use anything from BB. So now CA is telling me I have a worthless gun and I don't know what to do!"

You don't have a worthless gun and I think it's really very clear what you should do.

1. Stop doing whatever you've been doing that breaks your revolver. I think at this point you have a pretty good idea what might be the problem based on the fact that you've been through the cycle 3x, CA has given you some hints, and there's been some decent advice provided here.

2. Don't pretend that a CA customer rep's frustration at having to repeatedly fix your revolver is the same thing as a rigorous evaluation of a particular loading of ammunition from BB. I don't think that anyone here, INCLUDING YOU, really suspects that the hot .32S&W Long (which is still well below .32H&RMag performance) is what has been breaking your revolver.

And, by the way, just as a sort of FYI before anyone starts speculating, I don't own any CA products. I will never own any CA products. I don't hate them and I don't have any bad experience with them, they just don't interest me in the least. When I have had in the past, and when I will have in the future, money I want to spend on a revolver, CA hasn't ever and won't ever be on the list to consider. Not because I actively avoid them but rather because I have never and will never have enough money to spend on guns to buy all the revolvers I want that aren't made by CA.

[ME262]

" they may just be trying to get you to stop doing whatever it is that's causing the problem."


________________________________


Here were the problems, the reasons that I returned the gun(s) three times, what i was doing that's causing the problem, as you put it:

The original gun I ordered was a Charter Arms Pink Lady 5RD 32H&R 2" barrel. I had both Buffalo Bore and another brand, both in .32 long, only the BB in magnum. All shot fine, and there was no problem ejecting the longs of either brand. But the BB magnums stuck tight. I needed tools and a long struggle to remove the spent shells from the cylinder with the magnums. Otherwise it was good. But then what I did - yes, i did this - was unscrew the magazine release screw in order to put locktite on it as i always do on other revolvers. That was a mistake. A lot of little parts sprang out and try as i might i couldn't put it back together. I called them and asked if they could fix it under their warranty. I'll say this for them, they answer their phones promptly and politely, unlike S&W, at least in recent times, and they did accept it for return and repair free postage paid both ways.

After they received it they called and said that they are replacing the gun with another one of the same type but a six shot (a good thing!) because they found a serious defect in the barrel - which i wouldn't even have known about had i not returned it for the screw!

They are quick too, again unlike S&W, and i received the new gun. This one also shot fine but not only the BB magnum shells jammed tight in this new gun, but in this one the longs did as well! I was only able to get the spent shells out using tools including a vice grip.

I called them back again and asked it it would be OK if I tried polishing the inside of the cylinders to see if that would loosen it up so that the shells might eject normally. I was switched to their repair dept. and told not to do that as they have special tools for such a thing. I was told to return it a third time, again postage paid.

They returned the gun very quickly - just a couple of days - and this time it was just left by my door like an ordinary amazon package! I tried it out - i forgot, maybe 30 or 50 shots - using only non Buffalo Bore S&W.32 long ammo, the two brands that i now have (I found a box of an off brand in a store). Both shot and ejected fine. The only .32 magnums I have are Buffalo Bore and since i was now strictly admonished not to use them i didn't and so i haven't tried it out with any .32 magnums yet. They are almost impossible to find.

Maybe it's as perfect as it's going to get now, but it took three returns. The people on their end of the phone were all polite and their repair service was amazingly fast with free shipping both ways. But can i trust a gun like this, even if i find it does shoot non-Buffalo Bore magnums normally? The defective barrel was disturbing. And i don't understand why BB longs are forbidden. I will see if i can find contact info for Buffalo Bore and ask them about that. Their website makes it quite clear that it should be good in ALL [sic] modern guns...and also that they don't want phone calls.

________________________________


"The common usage of 'catastrophic failure' is when there's a failure that actually requires repair work to remedy--generally some kind of actual breakage."


That would be a malfunction or breakage. "Catastrophic failure" sounds more like a gun blowing apart.

[dgludwig]

Not because I actively avoid them but rather because I have never and will never have enough money to spend on guns to buy all the revolvers I want that aren't made by CA.

Boy does this bit of brilliant insight ever reflect my thinking on which firearm I might never give any serious consideration to for purchase. Gifts, of course, would be a different matter.

[44 AMP]

"Catastrophic failure" sounds more like a gun blowing apart.

A gun blowing apart is a catastrophic failure. So is failure of major components, without blowing apart. Cracked frame, barrel, cylinder, something like that.

I think calling every failure that prevents normal function and require tools to repair "catastrophic failure" is using the term too broadly.

An individual part can catastrophically fail, after all any complete breakage would be that, but to say the entire gun had a catastrophic failure when only a specific part or two did, is going too far.

I thing "needing tools to repair" = catastrophic failure is too broad a definition.

I can even think of one possible situation where the gun is rendered inoperable until tools are used, and no part of the gun has failed.

And that would be getting cases stuck in a revolver and not being able to get them out by hand alone. No part of the gun has failed, but you will need tools (a rod and maybe a small mallet) to remove them. And that situation may not be an ammunition failure, either. Could be, but could also be the failure of the operator to properly match gun and ammunition.

Gun rendered completly inoperable until tools are used, but no catastrophic failure of any parts. Indeed possibly no failure of any kind of any parts of the gun.

Its a catastrophic failure in the functional sense, the gun can no longer function, but not in the mechanical sense, no parts failed catastrophically.

I'm sure there are other situations, even less likely, that would also fit that criteria.
language is a wonderful thing words can be stretched to cover a lot of things, though when stretched too much, they tend to wear thin...

[ME262]

I messaged Buffalo Bore. I'll post their response here.

[JohnKSa]

I thing "needing tools to repair" = catastrophic failure is too broad a definition.

I think the same thing. I would define it as:

"When there's a failure that actually requires repair work to remedy--generally some kind of actual breakage. "

Like a frame cracking or a revolver ejector rod breaking off as in the examples I gave.

An individual part can catastrophically fail, after all any complete breakage would be that, but to say the entire gun had a catastrophic failure when only a specific part or two did, is going too far.

I think if there's a catastrophic failure in the gun then that's a catastrophic failure.