Experience with Charter Arms? - Need Opinions

[Dragonfighter]

Hi all,

Here's the deal, I have a daughter turning 21 in a couple of weeks. For her birthday she's getting a CHL class and a handgun. Shooting with her in the past, she does not like my Glock, she's comfortable with my 1911 though thinks it's heavy. Her favorites are the Security Six and the S&W Model 36.

So, she who must be obeyed and myself were browsing the gun counter and saw the ''Pink Lady" which is a lightweight Charter Arms snubby. Normally, when i see "Charter Arms" I don't walk but run away. The reviews on this however seem to think its a good weapon and that Charter has reinvented itself. Now i intend to rent and have her try an alloy framed snubby before we buy but would like to know, if she is comfortable with the light weight recoil and all, what ya'll think.

Is Charter Arms now a reasonable quality manufacturer?

Anyone have any input, especially the ladies, concerning the lightweight snubbies?

Much obliged for any and all opinions.

[mr surveyor]

Give her the 36 and you get the CA, or any other light weight you may choose. If she decides she's comfortable with "your" lightweight later on, offer to "trade". I can't add anything constructive about the "third generation" CA handguns (wasn't impressed with a "second gen" I had a few years ago), but I can say without a doubt there is a pretty big difference between the steel framed j-frame style revolvers and their alloy cousins. I would give her options after a fair adjustment time if you do opt for a lightweight.

just my opinion.

JD

[couzin]

Charter has improved in their latest incarnation - but the original Stafford made Charters are very solid handguns. I would not get her an ultra lite to start with - she will develop a recoil flinch. The SW 36, a 637 with light loads, even an older Charter cast iron with 38s will be best. I just don't get the whole pink (and other colors/decals) thing...

[ELB]

Hi all,

... Now i intend to rent and have her try an alloy framed snubby before we buy but would like to know, if she is comfortable with the light weight recoil and all, what ya'll think.

...

Anyone have any input, especially the ladies, concerning the lightweight snubbies?

Much obliged for any and all opinions.

Sorry, no experience with Charter Arms, and I am not a lady, but when a recommendation when she tries out the lightweight (as well as any handgun) -- make sure she not only is "comfortable" with the recoil but that she can actually draw and repeatedly hit a man-sized target in a short time frame. I have the suspicion that the majority of lightweight snubbies riding around in purses and pockets are there because they are light and easy to carry, not because the carrier proved to herself or himself that it can be used effectively. (My wife qual'd with my Glock. She carries an Airweight. Yes we've practiced with it, but she is clearly much better with the Glock. But she likes the snubby, it fits in her purse, so... )

Good luck! At least you have a sensible daughter and she has a sensible old man!

[puma guy]

I was unaware that Charter Arms firearms had issues. I sold them when the Undercover first came out and they were solid little revolvers. While they were not S&W quality they certainly were well made and reasonably well finished. I shot a couple and found them to be very reliable. Can any one tell me when they began to falter in their quality? Was there a take over of the company or other factors? Just Curious as I have been looking at their .22 revolvers.

[JSThane]

I haven't heard of Charter Arms guns breaking or malfunctioning. I have handled a couple and fired one or two, and they were rough, but functional. I prefer the trigger on a S&W or Ruger, and wouldn't consider any CA I've coonfingered to have a "good" trigger, but they all turned the cylinder and dropped the hammer the way they were supposed to every time.

However, let me give a big +1 to the admonition against getting a lightweight pocket revolver for her, unless she chooses it herself after firing one. I'm a recoil junkie when it comes to the big-bore revolvers, but the second most painful gun I've ever shot is my S&W 442 with +P loads. (First was a Taurus Tracker .44, which I no longer own)
The small, lightweight revolvers, while seeming "ideal" for a lady, are some of the worst guns to get for a woman, unless -she- picks it out (case in point, my wife refuses to carry anything besides a 1911).

Edited to add:
I just re-read the OP's post, and he -does- state he intends to have his daughter try out a lightweight revolver first. If she likes it, and can handle the pistol well, by all means go for it.

[longtooth]

Early 80s I carried a CA as a backup while working as a Reserve @ Marion Co SO. Solid, reliable, just not a very good trigger. I understand they are much better today.

[couzin]

I sold them when the Undercover first came out and they were solid little revolvers.

The first (Stratford made) Charters Undercovers were produced in 1964. When they went bankrupt the company eventually became Charter 2000 and were made in Sheldon (or Shelton) CT. They had serious quality control issues and they also went bankrupt. The current incarnation is building good handguns for the price.

[The Annoyed Man]

Gun-Tests Magazine tested a couple of them in an article a while back comparing, within brand, 9mm revolvers to .38 Special revolvers. They looked at S&Ws and Charter Arms: http://www.gun-tests.com/issues/25_3/fe ... 023-1.html (requires paid subscription to read the whole thing)

March 2013

Boot-Gun Revolver Showdown: 38 Specials Take on 9mms

Like the 49er’s Super Bowl read-option offense, Charter’s 9mm Pitbull revolver is a new solution to an old problem. But can the 9mm wheelgun beat the proven 38 Special at crunch time?

Charter Arms Police Undercover No. 73840 38 Special, $402
The Charter Police Undercover almost matches the Pitbull, except for the chambering and the ejection system. And for much of the test, the Undercover seemed like it was headed for a strong showing.

Like the Pitbull, the Undercover’s large rubber grip and easy-to-reach hammer, along with the smooth trigger pull, made the Undercover a smooth-firing carry choice. The problem was accuracy.

We fired our first six shots at center mass on a standard silhouette target from 7 yards, just like the other revolvers in the test. Unlike the others, the Undercover consistently dropped shots 6 to 8 inches low. All of our shooters were having the same problem, so we took the pistol to Jack Everett of Jack’s Gun Shack in Tactical Firearms in Katy, Texas. Giving the revolver a thorough inspection, Everett discovered very shallow rifling grooves that were packed with brass, essentially creating a smooth bore revolver. We cleaned the barrel and cylinder very thoroughly multiple times, but we couldn’t solve the performance problem or improve condition of the grooves. The big groups — two to three times the group sizes of the other guns, and the low point of impact — eliminated it from consideration.

Our Team Said: As is, we wouldn’t buy the Charter Arms Police Undercover. However, we will return the gun to the factory because, in our opinion, the condition of the barrel is a manufacturing flaw that must be covered under warranty. If the “smoothbore” barrel was just a mistake that got through QC and Charter Arms rectifies the problem, then we’ll reshoot the Police Undercover and revise the final grade online and report the results in a future issue.

The magazine did like the 9mm Pitbull by Charter Arms. So it would appear that they are capable of making a good pistol, but that they have some production consistency issues.

[WildBill]

Our Team Said: As is, we wouldn’t buy the Charter Arms Police Undercover. However, we will return the gun to the factory because, in our opinion, the condition of the barrel is a manufacturing flaw that must be covered under warranty. If the “smoothbore” barrel was just a mistake that got through QC and Charter Arms rectifies the problem, then we’ll reshoot the Police Undercover and revise the final grade online and report the results in a future issue.

Charter Arms sends out a revolver with a smoothbore barrel to Gun Test Magazine and they will revise their final grade when they get the gun returned by the manufacturer? I feel a rant coming on about "just a mistake that got though QC", but I will restrain myself.

Hi all,
Is Charter Arms now a reasonable quality manufacturer?

Apparently not. Buy a S&W or Ruger.

[MoJo]

I had a Charter 2000 and traded it. It was an OK gun but had s horrible trigger and lousy sights. If the price of a Brand S or a Brand R snubby is too high look at the Taurus 85. I have one that I cut the hammer spur off to stop pocket hangups. Decent trigger the sights leave a bit to be desired, but nothing a coat of fingernail polish won't help. They average about $100-150 less than a J frame and have the Taurus lifetime warranty.

[TexasGal]

I do not have a CA, but I do often carry a S&W 642 Airweight revolver and a S&W Shield. Hands down, the Shield is far more comfortable to shoot and easier to get accurate shots at a greater distance. She might want to try one out. It just about the same size and isn't much heavier than the 642 Airweight which can be truly painful to shoot more than 20 rounds. Light weight small revolvers will encourage a flinch. It can help if she regularly practices a lot of dry fire. If the trigger is less than stellar on the CA, that only adds to the difficulty. It's smart to have her shoot the gun first and compare it to others.

[Jason K]

I carry a 1st Gen Stratford CA as my CCW. It's a handful to shoot, but it works every time. The 1st Gens and the current CA's are good guns. Stay away from the Charco's and Charter 2000's.

If she does go with a lightweight revolver, stick with standard pressure ammo. The +P ammo kicks like an angry mule...bad for follow-up shots. Hollowpoint expansion is iffy as well. I carry non-+P semiwadcutters and call it good.

[Rex B]

+1 on the taurus 85. I had a blued ultralite that I traded to my BIL as I felt it was a better choice for him.
Wish I still had it, looking for another one.

On a separate data point, my wife has a steel Colt Agent .38 spl from the 1970s. Nice gun, she likes it and shoots it well. I can't shoot it, the trigger guard smacks my finger every time. Some sort of ergonomics thing. So just because a given revolver is painful for you to shoot, don't assume she can't handle it.

[WildBill]

On a separate data point, my wife has a steel Colt Agent .38 spl from the 1970s. Nice gun, she likes it and shoots it well. I can't shoot it, the trigger guard smacks my finger every time. Some sort of ergonomics thing. So just because a given revolver is painful for you to shoot, don't assume she can't handle it.

Great choice if you can find one.