In 1989, Lexus trimmed its slogan from “The Relentless Pursuit of Perfection” to “The Pursuit of Perfection.” I reckon Lexus made the change out of sheer exhaustion. Manufacturing perfection is like trying to get the last word on the Bill O’Reilly show: it’s only possible in theory. I bet the head of the japanese luxury carmaker placed his briefcase on the desk one day and said screw it. Bling out a Camry, slap a Lexus badge on it and call it good. So what happens when a manufacturer can’t aim high? Ask Charter Arms, a gunmaker producing products whose potential perfection is restricted by the prices set by Smith & Wesson. As a result, Charter Arms makes most of its money selling brightly colored .38 caliber snub-nosed revolvers for women shooters more intent on style than marksmanship. And sells a Charter Arms .357 Mag Pug. Or not.
It’s shame. A shame that Charter Arms can’t show the world what [another] storied revolver maker can do when customers demand the very best—and pay for it. A shame that a customer who buys the .357 Target Mag Pug revolver in question has to aim a foot above what he or she wants to shoot. At five yards. After said owner has adjusted the rear sight to its maximum height, the point immediately before a screw smaller than an anorexic tick files off into the ether the moment you pull the trigger.
If we operate from the basic premise that a perfect handgun would do no such thing, that it would let you hit your target exactly where the sights indicate with every crisp, clean, predictable trigger pull, the Charter Arms .357 Target Mag Pug revolver is as far from perfect as you can get without wandering into the realm of perfect imperfection. Which, strangely, I did—by not using the Target Mag Pug’s sights at all. Point and shoot. Bullseye! What are the odds?
I had high hopes for the Charter Arms .357 Target Mag Pug. It’s an American-made handgun fashioned from American parts by an American-owned company staffed by documented American workers living in America paying taxes to an American government propping-up socialist countries whose inhabitants spit on our flag and mock our way of life.
Second, the Target Mag Pug is a gorgeous gun. At the risk of sounding like an oxymoron, the revolver is distinctively generic. With a four-inch barrel and a full-sized grip, the perfectly-proportioned weapon isn’t as massive as the big-ass L-framed .357 Smiths. But it’s equally appealing. To my eyes, the Target Mag Pug’s relatively compact dimensions make the handgun dainty in a macho sort of way, like, dare I say it, a certain NRA-loving martial artist from The Lone Star State I could name (but don’t have to, now).
Lastly, the target Mag Pug is not a Smith & Wesson. Don’t get me wrong: I’m a big fan of most of Smith’s 4,564 products. I traded-in the Charter Arms Target Mag Pug for a Smith & Wesson 686 this very day. But I’d like to own a wikkid Yank-built revolver from someone other than “the” name in revolvers—just to be able to say, “Actually it isn’t a Smith & Wesson. It’s a Charter Arms. Best revolver money can buy.”
Only the Target Mag Pug is not even the best revolver that $533 can buy. Or $480. Again, not if you’re looking for a gun that can hit what you’re aiming at.
“Sharpen your shooting skills with the Target Mag Pug,” the Charter Arms website urges, implying that the longer-barreled weapon’s better in the hitting shit department than their more popular (by a factor of a thousand) snubbies. TTAG’s in receipt of a Charter Arms .38 snub-nosed testing and evaluation model. We shall see. But if this is better than that, then that, and this, suck.
I’d like to point out that it wasn’t just me who found the Target Mag Pug one of the most ironically-named revolvers extent. The name redacted gentlemen firing .38 specials in the video topping this review is a seriously proficient law enforcement professional. Wayne from American Firearms also did the honors. The combat vet’s groupings are normally tighter than an X-rated threesome. And so they were—positioned well south of center.
As far as I can tell, there’s only one way Charter could “fix” the Target Mag Pug’s mission critical sighting problem: file down the gun’s front site. Unfortunately, it’s part of the frame. And what of the trigger? A none-too-inspiring scratchy sound accompanies the Target Mag Pug’s initial pull. Then, as the trigger reaches its final destination, there’s a bit of play in the action. That’s what we gun writers call “not good.” I mean “trigger creep.”
The Target Mag Pug’s action reminded me of taking off in the Concorde. When the plane was safely off the ground, the pilots would kill the afterburners. It felt like they’d shut them off. It was such a scary sensation the trolley dollies warned you about it before take-off, in their all-too-jocular sort of way. “Don’t worry, the engines won’t have failed . . .” Once over sea, the guys in the front would light ’em up again. Bang! Like hitting a wall.
It’s an excellent way to limit political fallout from an airplane that’s so loud you can hear the air ripping to shreds from several miles away. It’s a lousy way to rig a trigger. A revolver’s bullet button should feel more like driving a car into a wall. In the nicest possible way. For the shooter, anyway.
The Target Mag Pug costs less than a Smith, and slightly more than a Taurus. Whadjya expect? Which highlights a difficult problem for gen-you-wine American-made weapons.
As many U.S. gun makers have discovered, going toe-to-toe against similar weapons made with cheaper foreign parts and labor puts them on a hiding to nowhere. A “value-priced gun” is good value—but it’s not as desirable as the best and not as affordable as the cheapest. Call it the Buick conundrum. Competitors reaching down from above (BMW) AND reaching up from below (Toyota) kick your ass. In this case, used/lower priced Smiths and less expensive Taurus are squeezing Charter Arms’ positioning until it hurts.
As I mentioned before, Charter is keeping the pain at bay with its Pink Lady, Lavender Lady and new Cougar snub-nosed .38s. But color will only take them so far; there’s nothing to stop their competitors from brightening up their revolvers (or semis). As Devo might have said, crush that niche!
Charter could avoid destitution by building a small line of American-made, top quality, price-no-object weapons. Yes but . . . they wouldn’t sell. Not for a long, long while. Thanks to several disastrous administrations (not including the current one), Charter Arms has a widespread rep for low-quality workmanship (putting it nicely.) Customers are no more likely to buy a thousand dollar Charter Arms revolver than a $106,880 Chevrolet.
And yet, what about the Corvette ZR1?
True dat: the road from hell is paved with product. Charter has to claw its way into Smith territory with guns that are better than the market leader’s, at a lower price. How Charter Arms could finance a decade-long Lexus-like product push with a brand-building campaign, without a deep-pocketed Toyota backing them? What am I, a marketing maven?
I’ll tell you something for nothing: the Charter Arms Target Mag Pug represents the pursuit of de-evolution. In today’s import-laden handgun market, a good enough revolver isn’t good enough, for either it owner or its manufacturer. Perfection comes at a price. As does its opposite.
SPECS.
Model: 73540
Finish: Stainless
Frame: Stainless steel
Grip: Full
Barrel length: 4″
Capacity: 5-shot
Caliber: .357 Mag
Hammer: Standard
Weight: 25 oz.
Sugg Retail: $533.00
RATINGS
(Out of five stars)
Style * * * * *
We’ve seen this classic a million times. And for good reason.
Ergonomics (carry)
Too big too carry. And if you wanted to, you’d have to have a holster made for it.
Ergonomics (firing)
Useless sights and trigger creep do not a pleasant experience make.
Reliability * * * * *
No hitches in 200 rounds. It probably would keep going, but I gave up.
Customize This
Nada
OVERALL RATING *
Kept firing bullets in the approximate direction at which it was aimed, but I wouldn’t bet my life on one. So . . . what’s the point?
S&W isn't the only American manufacturer of quality .357s. Don't forget:
– Colt Python – Dubbed "the best revolver in the world." Hey, if it was good enough for Elvis…
– Ruger GP 100 (my favorite)
I was thinking the same thing through the whole article. The author is so Smith-centric as far as revolvers, that it was hard to even focus on the Charter, which the article was supposedly about.
Smith never even made a single action revolver that I am aware of, an area where both Colt and Ruger have made some beauties through the years and Smith does not even exist. On the DA revolver front, Smith has some great guns, but Colt has made some even nicer ones, and no one beats Ruger reliability, durability, and value.
Smith is far from alone as far as US revolver makers.
Good points all, Robert. I'm not sure if Charter's biggest competition is Taurus or the used S&W market. As a confirmed S&W bigot, I'd say the latter but that's just me.
The used market for guns is even more devastating to the up-and-coming manufacturer than the used car market is for similarly situated cars. Cars wear out, and are constantly being improved/upgraded. A revolver, OTOH, is a revolver. Unless it's used for competition or treated carelessly, it will last a hundred years (my brother has an S&W .38 that is old enough to collect Social Security and it still shoots fine.)
Speaking of planned obsolescence, am I the only one who sees the introduction of new calibers (like the .327 Federal Mag) as a lame attempt to sell old wine in a new bottle?
Robert……Loved your writing. Anything you write, I'll read; I don't care what's it about! Thanks for your research. You saved me from making what looks like a costly mistake. Although I too think the Charter Arms .357 Pug is so good looking, had I bought it, I could have hung it on the wall as decoration. David Buckwitz,Hazel Park,Michigan,USA.
Will you read this?
No.
I’d hoped to find an informative, unbiased review. Unfortunately I found this.
For the life of me, I cannot see what the problem is here other than Robert feels some need to crucify this piece –“shoots a foot low at fifteen feet, terrible trigger, etc., etc.” My reaction was “So file the front sight down a bit.”
Robert tells us, “but the front sight is PART OF THE FRAME”.
What? I AM perplexed. I looked at the photos just like the rest of you and darned if the front sight doesn’t appear to be mounted in the usual place on the muzzle end of the barrel. Even taking into account the utter irrelevancy of this fact, why, I wonder, does this preclude filing the sight? Take a friggin’ file to it for thirty seconds and watch the groups move up to the level of the bull! Sure, this should have been done at the factory but is it really a reason to drop the gun from consideration. He says that overall, the piece looks very nice but… it shoots low, so let’s throw the baby out with the wash water for the sake of a moment’s kitchen table gunsmithing.
At an MSRP a bit over four hundred and a real-world price HALF that of a five inch, adjustable sight, .357 model 60 Smith, it’d seem worth a serious look.
We watched one shooter drop three rounds into a nice, tight cloverleaf with two others close-by — not a bad group — about two inches low and a similar number left (hardly “a foot low”). This was double-action (which most shooters find far more difficult than thumbing the hammer back first) AND in spite of a trigger that we are told is possibly the worst since the invention of the trigger. If we’re evaluating accuracy, why not shoot single action and see what this arm is really capable of? But then, clearly the point to this “review” was to trash the piece. Since this gun seems cabable of fairly decent accuracy I don’t understand the point of… Hell, I’m just wasting more time here. I already wasted enough reading this “review” in the first place.
Would you like to write your own review of the gun? ping me guntruth@me.,com
that was one of the most biased ” review ” and summation I’ve ever seen. Its a rare day that any weapon can be as bad in all aspects as you suggest. Even worse, you poison the waters so that if on the chance you simply received a bad gun. (Gee, how about returning it to the factory for repair ? And then maybe write a review based on how CS was, the repair and then write a review ? ) Your viewers will spread the word that its scrap, junk, trash don’t even think about it… when in reality it may not be the case. It almost seems that because you didn’t get a free gun to test you……………………………….. ??
And if you want a second opinion send it to me and I’ll put it through its paces. If I agree… good for you. If not would you actually print what someone else’s opinion is ?
i’m glad you addressed this review the way that you did. this author makes strong points to justify this weapon as a strong value only to trash it in the end….very unfair. I’m sure the workers in the Shelton factory really appreciate this unfair review Most reviewers of even the snub nosed versions find it acceptably accurate out of the box.
Tom
Robert was overly kind to the gun he reviewed.
I tested the 9mm and .40S&W versions of the Charter Arms Pitbull, and documented the shoddy workmanship with photos. Also have pictures of the way-too-large groups. And a video of one of them jamming up completely.
The Charter people are good people, who swapped out the first gun I tested when it experienced problems. But the replacement gun had all of the same issues. There’s nothing that being “good people” did to fix the inherent problems with the guns. If you are going to trust your life to a revolver, buy a S&W or Ruger.
http://www.yankeegunnuts.com/2015/07/03/charter-arms-pitbull-update/
I purchased 2 of these to accompany my many other revolvers in my collection. Even purchased some expensive side holsters for them. My wife and I went to shoot these 2 at a cardboard box about 25 feet away. the box was 3′ tall and 2′ wide. Mind you I have hunted with revolvers throughout my 45+ years in the field, Have bagged many deer, coyote, and Moose. I can keep an open sight 44 mag full load’s at 100 yards on a rest in a 12″ pie plate.
My wife shot the first few rounds out of her 357 PUG with 38 loads and was all over the target box. I discounted her accuracy as her not being familiar with the gun, so I try on a REST to hit the 8″ center of the box at 25′ and missed the box! I was so confused I opened my wheel to see if the bullet actually exited! I was stunned so I locked up the wheel and fired another shot. The round hit the bottom of the box but the bullet entered sideways!!! I fired several other rounds and bullets were sideways and in no particular order. I would have expected a 2″-3″ spread to be the maximum error on this gun. I currently hunt with a S&W 460. Have no fear when walking in my Alaska woods with this gun. The two 357 Charter Arms revolvers were sold at $200.00 each to get rid of them.
Dan
EXCELLENTLY STATED , Larry ! I know this reply is 8yrs later but your “Comment” is SPOT-ON ! I’m no special pleader for the Charter Arms Company but I do own one , a .45acp Pit-Bull which is absolutely a great problem solver for me . It’s a 5 shot , 2 1/2″ barrelled S/S Revolver that delivers 230 grains of “woop-a$$” at a moment’s notice . It’s my only Charter Arms out of 34 handguns but it won’t be the last . I have nothing but great things to say about this fine weapon . Anyhow , your reply to the gentleman that wrote the Article was perfectly precise ; “File the damn thing down if it’s such a problem” . Good show my friend.
I have to agree, I have one in the titanium frame and it puts together 1-2 inch groups at 14 yards. I hand load and use hornady 158gr XTP so granted I was able to tinker and find a really accurate load and I always roll back the hammer first anyways, as for shooting low, easily fixed
Some folks like a “6 o clock’ hold”. If you have one and like it, leave it be. If you don’t like it, the file is in order. Be sure to do something to the open wound if blued steel, or rust will start there.
I was considering purchasing a pug may have to reconsider my future purchase.
Money is tight here so possibly a rossi…thanks for the review.
theres no diffrence dont believe this guy
I bought a Charter Arms Mag Pug. and it don’t shoot correctly by the sites. My Python and and my Dan Wesson are perfect. But I use my Charter Arms .357 is my carrie weapon. Having shape shooter staus. I adjust my aim and find it eazy to make the shot count. I shoot better adjusting with it than I do with my Air Weight S&W .38
What “shape” do you shoot at? I ask in case I inadvertently wander by. BTW, I am in shape. Round is a shape.
i have the mag pug not the target but the short barrel. i could not be happier with the firearm. as far as accuracy i can hit a beer bottle at 15 feet EVERY time with no effort and im not a professional shooter just a hill billy with a hobby and a desire to be safe. i have shot several diffrent makes and models of snub nosed 357 including the s&w 640 the rugar 101 and many others and have found the mag pug to fulfill my every desire in a firearm so to bash a company like charter for being an American civilian priced firearm opposed to a s&w (which i own several) which are little pricey and being no diffrent i question the shooter and hope everyone else does the same
I guess the best way to sum up charter arms is that final inspection lacks,if they would spend just a little more time on buffing out machine marks ect. The guns would not get such a bum rap.but they are not trash guns and are miles above some of the imported guns that use cheap metals and plastic………
I have a C.A. undercover 38 stratford I have shot many many rounds through it and still functions after all these years.
My next purchase will be a C.A. pug .357 I’ll take my chances with an American made before foreign firearms.I have read many good reviews on the pug.Can’t afford a smith or ruger and do not want to purchase used.
Born in the USA and gonna spend my cash on American made.
is the sight picture described in the owners manual unachievable in reality???
a gun maker (people who know how sights are supposed to work on 4″ barrels) who makes deliberaly faulty or inoperable sights??? would they really do that???
and even be a real company or just a collection of frauds????
sight adjustment of sights knowning ly desinged to fire way off of sight picture isnt a prerequisite of a lower priced revolver.
so you are either a liar yourself ( a malicious one at that…if you lied about family probelms because you were molested or something i could understand) or charter arrms is a deliberatly fraudulent company…they are liars, iow.
if for some strange reason the front sight needed to be filed could one just find a another 4″ 357 revolver (smith or ruger, etc) with adjustable rear sights and measure the height of the front sights on those revolvers and adjust the rear sight accordingly???
I just wanted to share my opinion of the Charter Arms 357 mag pug ss 2″barrel.
I just bought it on 11/24/2011 for $325 otd. I was actually very excited about my first revolver. I cleaned it and took it to the range today and my first impression was pretty good, yes it shot about 8″low at 21 feet, so I lined up the rear sight in about the middle of the front sight and (boom!) hit right where I wanted to, that was until i got to about round 12 fired, then, the cylinder acted like it was gummed up and would not rotate. It would open but not rotate with either form of action. After close inspection and a few bad words I was wishing I would have just saved up and got a Ruger. My Ruger SR-9c has never missed a beat in a thousand rounds. I was very dissapointed, I was shooting Blazer 38 special 158 grain lead nosed rounds. While cleaning it at home I noticed alot of lead shavings/dust and powder build up, after cleaning it like it was a Ferrari, the cylinder rotated like new. hmmm, so, back to the gun range I went. I bought some Remington 38 special UMC Target 130 grain fmj’s. The peaple at the gun range said that the Blazer ammo was junk. And to my delight it shot perfect through 50 rounds. I was having a blast with it, I was killing the head and center mass of my target like I was a pro or something, flames and report where show stopping. FUN!. I am now a fan of Charter Arms. I even tried some +p 38’s and a couple of 357 Mags. Can you say HOLLY FLAME THROWER with the 357 Mags. Recoil wasnt bad at all, I couldnt get enough. So, lots of fun, and instead of saving up for the next 6 months I was out laughing, loving this little cannon.
Fit and finish are not perfect, but, it does what it is inteaded for and does it well. My trigger wasnt bad at all, not as buttery smooth as a Smith but acceptible. I hope this review helps.
I shot my 500th round today from my CA .357 MAg PUG, and it hasn’t missed a lick. I’m very happy with the gun. It is my 7th revolver, and tenth hand gun. And I wouldn’t trade them for 100 Auto’s. I guess I am just old school.
Ok it a P.O.S what’s the deal with the whole car report??
I have a Mag Pug (2 1/2″), and had to machine down the front sight (on my milling machine) to get it to shoot accurately with a normal sight picture. Clearly, Charter has some problems responding to users, because this situation has existed for years. I didn’t care because I have machining skills. But others?
Gee Here in the real world….say it’s the middle of the night & you are awakened by intruders in your home, are you really gonna try to line up sights or are ya gonna point & shoot, gun a blazing?????? Point is this….. this gun gonna be a target pistol or put it all on the line & save you & your families butt gun?
This seems like a pretty convoluted bash/review… #1) the adjustable sight won’t, and #2) the trigger’s like a Concorde SST (HUH???). Oh, and previous corporate iterations had mediocre reputations. Yet the gun functions, and apparently hits consistently and intuitively, at a bargain price.
It seems to me that the distinctions of this Charter in the market are the strength of its solid (no flimsy sideplate) frame, its reasonable weight (no one who’s fired one believes a 12 ounce .357 is reasonable), its “unbreakable” beryllium firing pin, and the steadiness and full velocity of its duty-length barrel. Those features are not addressed in this review. Seems like a good kit gun, non-bruin class, or a less-punishing small antipersonnel gun. If you want to compare it to S&W, compare it to a 3″ or 5″ .357 J-frame, at near twice the price. Compare it to a Ruger 3″ 101, at about a half-pound more. Or bring in the South Americans. BTW, what kind of warranty comes with a used S&W?
Also, I’d be interested to hear what the factory said or did about the “sights-are-off” complaint. Guns are complex little precision devices, and it doesn’t take a huge screwup to release an occasional funky item. Does the manufacturer fix it, or didja just buy a five-C-note paperweight?
I’d like to know if the below-the-sights loads were all light bullets… heavier (say, 158 grain) bullets might be what this thing was built for. Which might be a bad design decision, or should be made clear prior to purchase.
In the same vein, I’d like to know more about the “why” of light bullets shooting below the sightline: I’ve variously heard that it’s because light bullets shed momentum sooner; the ballistic factor of the heavier/longer bullet doesn’t slow down and drop in the air as quickly; the heavier/slower bullet takes longer to get out of the recoiling/climbing barrel; the heavier/longer bullet has more bearing surface gripping the bore and so shoves the recoiling barrel higher… Each version smells okay, but which of these are really true?
P.S. I like the Charter frame concept, and its rubber grip fits my large hand better than a J-frame with Hogues, but chose the (maybe) milder .44 Special Target. I got off exactly five shots, then the cylinder locked up. I never did find out why… but it really put the “funk” in “functional.” And, my fixed-sight two-ported-inch Taurus in the same caliber has always proven esier to hit with. Go figure.
Reading the responses is so much more informative than the review itself, it shows to what depths of mediocre the state of the country is in. These new Charter Arms products are not just unadulterated garbage but are an absolute insult to American manufacturing and ingenuity, the fit and finish of the revolver is like that of every other union owned manufacturer in the country, pure and utter trash, and the fact that some of you consumers are actually quite happy to accept this just goes to show how low this once great nation has sunk on the “striving for perfection scale”
I bought one of the new Pugs in 357mag and could not believe my eyes when it arrived, the gaps in the seams of the revolver joins were so bad, so obvious and flawed I could not understand whether CA was using blind, stoned, or ex Chrysler drunk union workers in their QC department, the front sight top was so badly finished that it was angled to the side at 30 degrees, the cylinder walls were so bad that they acted as vice jaws and ejecting the spent cases without force was impossible. The overall finish was so atrocious one would have to be vision impaired or cerebraley challenged not to see it.
I have been a gun dealer for over 30 years and have seen all comers and the way quality has gone on both CA and Taurus (which is not as bad) is truly a sad eppi for the American manufacturing heritage, but the fact that we are prepared to accept it and justify it through every form of excuse makes this position all the worse. Its sad to say that even STI has followed suite since being taken over by its union workers.
Reading this review and its comments is an eye opener to just how much trouble this nation is truly in.
I’ve carried Charter pistols since the early 70’s when as a child of 8 years old I fired my first Bulldog. Though crudely made, I’ve never stopped carrying their pistols. Each version I have purchased over the last 30 years has worked. Was it the most accurate gun I owned, not by a long shot. I will never forget the piece of mind I had traveling MARTA in Atlanta during the 80’s knowing I had a Charter .44 Pug under my waistband. Would it have worked- damn right it would have. As I got older and more advanced in my career, I bought better guns, but still carried a Charter. Let’s remember what they are…. A small, lightweight, easily concealable revolver packing a ridiculous punch. I bought a new Target Bulldog .44 in 2012. It ended up having a frame issue after 210 rounds fired. I contacted Nick Ecker at Charter. Mr. Ecker and his team stand behind their pistols. I was sent a new pistol in short order. First firearm of hundreds I have ever had to send back. I believe in Charter for what they are. I feel really safe having one next to me when I sleep, though I own choices double in value. Is it really a range gun, ummmm, probably not. Would I bet my life on it…. Yes, and have for years. I once read a quote about Charter, and perhaps it holds true for me… “carry it a lot, and shoot it a little”. I think this old man is better armed with 5 shots from my Bulldog than any modern day thug carrying a pocketful of glock magazines. All I need is 1 shot, and may God himself have mercy on the fool suffering the receiving end.
I have since replaced my CA 357 Pug with a S&W Mod 60 357mag, and for the $100.00 difference in price, there is a $1000.00 difference in product and quality, the S&W finish is excellent and the guns is dead on accurate at 20 meters, it is like day and night in comparison, the CA may go bang if you are lucky, but you would be better of taking it by the business end and using it as a blunt instrument as apposed to shooting it, this is how bad the CA is in comparison to any other product on offer out there.
I was also very fortunate to pick up two brand new unfired medium frame oldies recently, a S&W 686 6″ combat special and a Ruger GP100 6″ stainless, now if you want to know how guns should be made, take a look at these bench mark firearms, its at this point you may come to understand just how low quality standards in the USA have sunk, I guess this is the Obamanation of the Americas, freedom has approached its twilight years and just like our education system, our soon to be health care system, and our governing system, we are pretty much done, so hang on tight to your bible and your guns, its going to be a rough ride, O’h and good evening to you gents in the NSA, I hope you are having a pleasant night.
I did a post on my bunch of Charters a few months back as I figured you were knocking some really decent revolvers for those that want something on the cheap. I have owned well over 250 firearms most of which were handguns. I do a lot of shooting as I can afford to. I have sold off some really nice S&W, Colts, Dan W, and such, but I keep my Charters!
Anyway, I just read your last post for 2015. I like what you say, and would add this. Being a shooter from age 12 (younger but 12 was when The NRA attracted me into shooting). To bad The NRA has long ago sold out their roots. As for me, Draft #252 in 1970, same year I registered to Vote. I have been a Register Independent ever since, so about 49 years. I have voted left and right, and I do not remember ever voting a Straight Ticket.
Today it seems you have to be right or left, but the middle won’t work. Sad Stuff. And as long as we let Them tell us what to think we are in big trouble. Free Your Mind! Be Party Blind.
I have had 2 Charter Arms Bulldog .44s, for a year now. I like them. They do shoot low, but it depends on the ammo. I just shot some 200 gr Cowboy Loads, little bit to the right, not bad. Same day I shot my Single-Six with .22 win mag, Shot high. I recomend the AGI video by Bob Dunlap. I was having trouble with light strikes from the Cowboy ammo gumming up the Firing Pin Channel. Got in there and cleaned it up. I really like shooting those guns. I have a Ruger LC9, now that shoots low. I shoot at silouhette targets 15-21 ft. Now if you want to spend $990 On a S&W, it is a free country. I was looking at 5 reviews on a 625(which I would like to have.) 3 of the 5 had problems, but they all gave 5 stars.
So you didn’t file the front sight. Did you try adjusting the rear sight all the way up?
I just read this article again for I do not know how many times. Excuse my lack of knowledge on the subject, I am basically new to the sport. I would also like to state that I prefer non-adjustable sights on a handgun, possibly due to this inexperience. Can someone explain the issue regarding an adjustable rear sight. If it is raised up, (higher is how I understand), when you aim, the barrel would have to be raised to be in the sight picture. If the rear sight is lowered, the barrel sight will then be lowered to be in the sight pictured. Am I just misunderstanding this.
I should have got back to you the last time I re-read this article and posted. As for your idea on the rear sight adjustment you are 100% correct. Now if you don’t have an adjustable rear sight you would need to file the front of the rear sight, or if shooting low you can paint out the top of the front sight instead of filing it down. To be 100% honest I cannot shot good enough standing with no rest to really warrant an adjustable sight. They can be nice, but they can also get knocked out of alignment. Good Luck to you.
I recently bought a brand new 2015 model back in january 2016, thing is perfect. Right from the dealer the sights were good for shooting cans at 25-30 ft. I haven’t had any of the problems that you seemed to have; the trigger pull and site problem. It seems that they have fixed the said problems. Only paid 478 for the revolver, box of .357s, and a box of .38s. I’ve shot a S&W .357, and i would still rather keep mine. Best revolver I have ever shot.
I look at this so called gun writers review from time to time. Actually whenever I buy another Charter I look this guy up. See I am a shooter, and I don’t mind tuning a handgun to my liking. I own a number of Charter’s, 357, 4 total, 1 each in 9, 40, 45 Colt, and they are all good shooters. Very light weight, the one this writer was shooting is 25oz unloaded. Wonderful trail gun, but some guys as this writer just cannot figure out how to shoot em.
I agree it’s funny that the writer comments about shooting at 5 yards a bit high. He/she clearly needs to take some shooting lessons and consider moving to a more realistic distance.
In an effort to keep this So Called Review Alive I will comment again. I like Charter Arms. I have had as good a luck with them as anything other brand. Now they are not fine firearms, but I do not care as they are the lightest most compact Trail or Defense wheel gun out there, and they can be had new for half the price. As I said before I own 4 or more in 357 (I have one that I have never shot which might be #5) which include a 2, 4, & 6 inch. I shoot them a bunch and no complaints. I have a 9mm, a 40, and a 45Colt all of which are just fine by me. Had the 45 out and I was hitting fine at 15 yards standing, and a guy I was with popped off a couple and then he was hitting at 45 feet. What more could I want?
The author obviously has a Smith & Wesson bias. Between his cutesy descriptions of the gun and non sequitur comparisons his review is just not professional and not nearly as funny as he intended it to be. He would starve to death as a comedian and probably as a gun writer too since this is one of the worst reviews I have ever read about anything. It sounds like he wrote it after having a bad argument with his wife that he lost. I’ve had a CA Bulldog 357 made in Stratford CT since the 1980s and it has been an accurate and reliable gun. I used it for backpacking, fishing and hiking where I wanted a reliable gun that I wouldn’t care if it got beat up a bit, which it did over the years and as it was a blued model I eventually had it parkerized and still carry it outdoors a lot. I did put a Bullseye spring kit in it and that was all it needed. It is not a range gun and I don’t put a lot of rounds through it but it always works perfectly when I do. I have many other handguns but when it comes time to put one in a backpack , a boat or a gear bag, this is the one that goes with me with a box of ammo. A Chevy will get you there just as well as a BMW often times. The Truth About Guns just lost a lot of credibility with me.
Well one thing is for sure, what you write will stick around for forever. Thus be careful to at least try the gun out. This is my 3rd time around posting, and like I said I re-read this review every time I buy a new Charter Arms Wheel Gun. Now I am getting up there and have been shooting since I was about 12 as my dad was not much for guns. My Draft #was 252 in 1970 so do the math. Back in those days The NRA used attraction, education, and teaching to bring me into the world of guns. Now I am still here, but I ain’t so sure about The NRA, but I digress. I do see folks talking about S&W, Colt, Ruger, and Charter Arms. Now I bought my first Ruger Single Six in 1970, and since then I have been lucky enough to own a bunch of guns. Even the first Colt 357, called Colt 357. I still have a 1907 Colt Army in 45 Colt, and a 1917 S$W Army is 45acp. They don’t get shot much as they need to be passed along. I use my Ruger Redhawk in 45Colt, 45acp with a 4″ but mainly only with Hot Hot 45 Colt. It is way to heavy for carrying unless ur in Big Bear Country. Most of the time I carry one of my 357 in 5 shot super light weight 2″ Taurus, and my Fav is The Charter Arms 357 in 2″, but 4 and 6 inch are nice guns. Yes I have a Ruger new style, LCR I think they call it in 357, 2″ which is a nice revolver, just as nice as my Charters maybe even better. I say Shoot What You Got, and don’t believe all the so called experts all the time. They can be a good resource at times. Go back a ways and read which Charters I own & of course shoot. Now I do work them in a little to smooth out the operation and triger, and it never hurts to learn were they hit, but they all hit consistent and close to point of aim. Thus this writers work will be around 4 forever, and maybe he has decided to review firearms in what they call Fair & Balanced in this 21sr Century.
I’ve got 3 Charter Arms pistols.
A Bulldog in 44spl with the 2 and a quarter inch barrel that I bought new back in the early 80’s. One of the most accurate pistols I’ve owned. (I also have a Dan Wesson in .357, so I know what good pistols shoot like).
I bought a 38 special undercover light last year out of curiosity. Also it’s small so easily concealed. It shoots quite well at at 6 yards, haven’t tried it anything further than that yet, but your claims of them being wildly inaccurate aren’t true.
I just bought a 357 pug revolver with the 3 inch barrel. Like yesterday. Haven’t shot it yet, but I haven’t seen any of what you claim on trigger pull at all. I have an S&W police 38 special from the 70’s that I just put new springs in and it shoots like a dream, but a 4″ barrel is a lot harder to conceal than a 3 inch. The pug will also allow +p’s as it’s made for magnums. The pug’s pull is a little bit heavier than I like, so I’m going to change the spring on it.
Now, until I shoot it, I won’t know just how accurate it is, but honestly I think you’re shoveling it here. Yes, revolvers with heavier springs are hard to shoot accurately for lots of folks. Yeah, CA are not Dan Wessons, and in a lot of cases they’re not even S&Ws. But they’re a lot more in the price range of most people’s pocket books and to be honest, I find a LOT of the Smith & Wesson revolvers to be heavier than I prefer for my carry piece. Colts are nice, I admit, but I find the prices on a lot of them to higher than the value they’re giving.
I own and use a bunch of CA and I have found the trigger smooths out with use. I suggest dry-firing it a lot and of course, shooting it a lot before you decide to change out the spring. My last CA is an odd short-run in 45 Colt which is a real nice but larger handgun. CA still makes this big frame in 45, but it is only in 45ACP which is a great round, but the 45 Colt will out do it hands down.
I carry a S&W 340 which weighs 12 oz, and it is doable with softer 357 rounds. I use softer as the CT Laser gets knock out of aim with full boat 357. My lighter load 357 is well proven. I also run a Ruger LCR 357 at about 18oz, so I cover most anything in 357, and yes I have owned a few DW. Now if I am going in the woods I will carry one of my CA with full house 357 rounds. I could carry my CA in 40S&W as it is just as small, but I enjoy 357 more. Main thing is my CA have been a joy to shoot at a decent cost. Enjoy Your Charter Arms!
I’ll shoot it a bunch before I change the spring, but odds are I’ll still put a lighter one in it. The trigger pull on mine is really quite smooth, I just tend to like a lighter trigger on my double action pistols.
I forgot my biggest improvement to the trigger pull, and you might try it. I used a fine Dremel grinder to remove 80% of the Combat type grooves in the trigger face and rounded the edges and the nose just a little, and man that made a huge difference. Enjoy your shooting, and I need to get out and do more myself.
Comments are closed.