Charter Arms 22 revolver

miles71 · Oct 10, 2020

Well, I encountered one of these today, thought it might be a good teaching revolver. Let's just say I didn't buy it. Front sight canted to one side, trigger in DA was one of the worse I've ever encountered and 4 out of 8 times didn't drop the hammer with enough force to fire. Single action was better but still not great. Cylinder release was tough to use and lots of rattling loose parts.

Positive, grip was comfy.

Needless to say, I'm still in the market.
TD

TheOriginalMexicanBob · Oct 10, 2020

Brand new or used? If new...no excuse to leave the factory that way. If used...no excuse for the seller to offer it.

Rambler · Oct 10, 2020

To say that their quality control was iffy is being generous. I spent more money fixing one than I got for it. The basic parts were decently made. It was the fitting and assembly work that was awful. New springs, timing the hand and lockup etc.

miles71 · Oct 11, 2020

Was new

28Shooter · Oct 11, 2020

My very first handgun was a stainless, 5-shot, .38 Charter Arms revolver with an "action job". Bought it secondhand from a sheriff's deputy who had the action job done to fix the quality control issues. I was in college, it fit my budget, and was not a bad little gun - not a S&W but it went bang every time I pulled the trigger and never gave me any trouble. Gotta' say, when I traded up for an S&W Model 49, I was much happier.

HiStandards · Oct 11, 2020

I handled a couple Charter Arms revolvers at the NRA show in Pittsburg a few years back. I was thinking of an extra .22 for plinking with my kids. The rep encouraged me to try the trigger pull. I told him, "That's something." I didn't tell him it reminded me of dragging a cement block across a gravel driveway.

TheOriginalMexicanBob · Oct 11, 2020

Kinda sad. Charter made some nice guns for the money years ago. Their quality control varied depending on corporate ownership at any particular time. Guns with the exposed ejector rods could be opened two ways...either with the cylinder release or you could pull the ejector rod out and open it. When the company started putting barrel shrouds on that were held on with set screws the barrel would start sliding off if the set screws weren't kept tight. They also had some strange marketing...selling sets called "Bonnie" and Clyde" didn't make much sense...making and marketing handguns named for murderous criminals raised more than a few eyes and didn't help the cause for gun rights.

The early generation of Charters was worth it but I would hesitate to buy one today if I didn't know what it was made and who owned the company at that time.

mcbruzdzinski · Oct 11, 2020

Sorry to hear about your experience with Charter Arms. I have two of their .22LR that I have used for my classes over the years. They work fine and have not given me any problems.

miles71 · Oct 13, 2020

mcbruzdzinski said:
Sorry to hear about your experience with Charter Arms. I have two of their .22LR that I have used for my classes over the years. They work fine and have not given me any problems.

Me too, I was hoping to get one for teaching but free this I'm not interesting.

TD

Cold Steel · Oct 16, 2020

Back in the 80s when I had an FFL, I got guns for a lot of federal agents. And many of those guns were Charter Arms. During that time, I bought a Charter Arms Bulldog and a Charter Arms .38 in stainless steel. The Bulldog was a cute little gun, nice barrel length, and the .38 was what I wanted for carry. Back then it was impossible to get a concealed weapons permit, so when I carried, I had to be discreet. (I'd been mugged in the 70s and had the sh** beaten out of me, so I routinely carried protection when I went to DC and other places I felt...insecure. And one time I needed it.)

Anyway, the Charter Arms pistols didn't hold up to sustained shooting. They began to bind after awhile and the cylinders would catch against the frame. When they cooled off, they began working again, but their modular designs seemed to make them weaker (unlike Rugers, the designs of which made them stronger). I recall, though, that one gun magazine writer wanted a strong .44 Spc, so he took a perfectly good Ruger Speed-Six, and somehow converted it to a 5-shot .44 Spc. I guess he thought that would give him a power boost.

The Rossi .22LR revolver is a great alternative to the
S&W 63, which is largely unavailable.

Rossi 511 (top) and 88, .38 Spc. :party29:

Anyway, I don't like Charter Arms to this day. I also wanted a Charter Arms AR7 survival rifle. I was delighted to learn that Henry had bought the rights to the gun and had redesigned it from the inside out. So I bought two of them and a bunch of spare magazines.

If you can find some of the old Rossi 511s or 88s (.38 Spc) at good prices, you would do well.

--

E.Shell · Oct 17, 2020

I've had fine results with two older revolvers; a .38 special and a .44 special. The .44 was my first CCW.

Charter Arms 22 revolver

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

miles71

Ultimate Member

TheOriginalMexicanBob

Ultimate Member

Rambler

Doing the best with the worst.

miles71

Ultimate Member

28Shooter

Ultimate Member

HiStandards

Active Member

TheOriginalMexicanBob

Ultimate Member

mcbruzdzinski

NRA Training Counselor

miles71

Ultimate Member

Cold Steel

Active Member

E.Shell

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Share this page