Bulldog Pug .44: Perfect carry revolver?


PDA






MachIVshooter
August 15, 2011, 04:22 AM
It just might be, at least to me.

I finally made it out to shoot the little 2.5", 5-shot .44 Special I got a couple weeks back. Initially I wanted it just because, but carrying it quite a bit and finally getting some lead down range has made me think this might be one of the better $350 guns I've come into.

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n117/Hunter2506/Charter44.jpg

I'll start with what my initial impressions were. This is certainly no S&W; Fit and finish is definitely not as nice. It does, however, compare favorably to my 3" SP-101, except the little Charter has a much nicer trigger. It did have a noticeable hitch when cocking the hammer, but that has nearly disappeared with some dry firing and range time. It's about the same size and weight as my SP-101, but balances better. The Cylinder is slightly wider, but I did not find this problematic for concealment. Before I got it I had been looking at grip options, but after shooting it, I've abandoned that quest. Charter did a good job with the stocks; The'ye not bulky, but offer a comfortable and positive grip, even with my large hands. I only wish they had a little bit of a recurve at the top, as this thing wants to roll in the hand a little with warmer loads.

Due to the crane design, it has a little more cylinder wiggle than a S&W or Ruger, but this does not seem to affect function; it is a superbly accurate little snub. No, I didn't print any one-hole 25 yard groups. I didn't even have paper targets with me. What I did do was aim at reasonably sized targets at ranges out to 60 yards, and had no trouble hitting the ~15" ant hill at the full 60 or the 1-gallon paint cans at 35. This is a fixed-sight snub-nose revolver, so being able to hit such targets off-hand definitely satisfies my expectations. I'm sure it's mechanical accuracy in a machine rest is much better, but I don't really care. What matters to me is the ability to hit what I'm aiming at; The excellent balance, smooth trigger and simple but very functional sights on this little wheelgun proved very conducive to that.

Speedloaders (HKS CA-44) require a little finess and rotating the cylinder a bit, because they don't quite clear the grip. They will dump the rounds, though.

On to shooting, I started with some Magtech 200 Gr. LRNFP cowboy loads. There is recoil, but not much more than a .38 Snub. And holy cow are these loads wimpy; Average velocity: 520 FPS :eek: Still, it's a good practice load, making rapid DA fire easy.

My handloads that are my carry load are a different story. A 210 gr. Remington semi-jacketed HP over 8.5 grains of Unique and CCI 350 primers, this load was only expected to yield ~850 FPS, as Sierra showed 950 out of a 6-1/2" S&W for that charge. Well, imagine my surprise when I got an average of 980 FPS (20 rounds, 13 FPS SD, 947 low/1,006 high) from the 2.5" Pug barrel! That's a pretty darn respectable load, producing 447 ft/lbs, which eclipses any .357 Magnum load I'm aware of when fired from a 2.5" gun. Recoil, however, was quite stiff in the 21 ounce Charter, on par with full power .44 Mag loads fired from my 3" 629. I don't find it bothersome, but it'll be too much for many shooters.

Summary? This little gun is affordable, reliable, good looking, carries easily, is quite accurate and packs a wallop on the muzzle end. It's not gonna displace my P3AT that'll drop into my pocket, regardless of attire. But I'll be carrying it whenever I can. I'd rate the value of this gun as excellent.

P.S. With a little dremeling, a cut-down SKS stripper clip makes a great speed strip for .44 spl/mag!

If you enjoyed reading about "Bulldog Pug .44: Perfect carry revolver?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mnrivrat
August 15, 2011, 04:57 AM
Something about that 44 Spl that satisfies the shooting itch. Just seems like a lot of cartridge for the modest recoil it produces. It is also a very accurate cartridge in any decent gun.

I have a pair of Rossi Model 720's that fill that nitch for me. Stainless steel with 3 inch barrels and about K frame in size. The only Rossi gun that I could not pass up after shooting a friends . Both of mine are mechanicaly tight with near perfect timing, etc.

My brother has carried and shot a Charter Arms revolver for years . It always goes bang, and shoots straight. It doesn't need to be expensive or fancy, it just needs to work.

madcratebuilder
August 15, 2011, 06:12 AM
The Bulldog is a small package considering it's a .44 caliber. A 200gr bullet at 800-850fps well stop a fight real fast. I find the Bulldog much easier to shoot than my M640 .357 J frame. The Bulldog is not much larger either.

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d37/madcratebuilder/bd01.jpg

Lawdawg45
August 15, 2011, 06:19 AM
I've carried one for years and I love it.

LD45

357_
August 15, 2011, 06:22 AM
producing 447 ft/lbs, which eclipses any .357 Magnum load I'm aware of when fired from a 2.5" gun.

Check out Buffalo Bore, they have a 158g JHP that is a tad over 1300fps from my sp101. Works out to something like 600ft/lbs :evil:

http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=102

calaverasslim
August 15, 2011, 06:25 AM
A friend of mine, down here in South Texas, offered me his 3" model Charter Arms. NIB. At the time, it was a little pricey but since it was new, I didn't argue. 44 sp is my favorite round, so I was set. Like shooters, my CA hitched a little when new, but after about 50 rounds started to shape up.

For practice, I load some 44 Colt and bang away but for carry, I prefer the Speer GDHP or the Winchester STHP.

I guess that Masaad Ayoob has a strong influence on me, I adhere to his adage of loading factory ammo when carrying. I also like the Federal 200gr LSWCHP's.

All in all, a great carry gun and loaded with a dependable round, I wouldn't hesitate to use it.

MachIVshooter
August 15, 2011, 11:22 AM
Just seems like a lot of cartridge for the modest recoil it produces

I wouldn't call the recoil modest in this lightweight gun with those 450 ft/lb loads. Not quite as nasty as a 340 PD with full house magnums, but enough to sting the palm pretty good. I said it didn't really bother me, but that also doesn't mean I wanna send box after box of those loads downrange

Check out Buffalo Bore, they have a 158g JHP that is a tad over 1300fps from my sp101. Works out to something like 600ft/lbs

That's stout. I've never been able to get a 158 moving that quickly from a 2.5" gun. A bit over 1,100 was the most I could muster with heavy charges of Blue Dot.

Regardless, for a gun that's the same size as an SP-101, I like the extra 20% bullet diameter and less obnoxious report.

Mike1234567
August 15, 2011, 11:41 AM
Awe... that's such a cute little puggy. But what a bite!!

David E
August 15, 2011, 01:37 PM
I finally made it out to shoot the little 2.5", 5-shot .44 Special I got a couple weeks back. (I've been) carrying it quite a bit and finally (got) some lead down range....

You've been carrying a gun for personal defense for weeks before firing a single shot thru it???? :eek:

MachIVshooter
August 15, 2011, 06:54 PM
You've been carrying a gun for personal defense for weeks before firing a single shot thru it????

I was waiting for someone to jump on that.

If the cylinder indexes and the firing pin protrudes, I have no problem carrying a revolver that I haven't fired yet. Autoloaders are a different story, but ammo sensitivity, extraction, ejection, etc. aren't revolver problems. Sure, once in a blue moon they break parts and/or lock up under recoil. But a litmus test really won't eliminate that possibilty. In point of fact, one of our mod's recently posted about his CCW wheelgun that had been great for years (decades?) and then malfunctioned with no warning.

And guess what? If functioned flawlessly anyway, as I knew it would.

Ratshooter
August 15, 2011, 09:40 PM
You gave a nice report on the gun. I am waiting for Charter to release the classic Bulldog with the exposed ejector rod and the 3" barrel. But if i see one of the new Taurus 445s for sale first I may get that instead.

I was surprised at the velocity you got from that 210gr load. That should do the job.

Tallinar
August 15, 2011, 09:43 PM
Thanks for the review. I've kinda kept the Bulldog Pug in the back of my mind for the past few years.

waidmann
August 15, 2011, 10:20 PM
If you remove the left grip and very carefully using an exacto-knive remove grip material following the right angle footprint, your speedloaders will function without the gymnastics.

And, yes its a neat carry piece.

memphisjim
August 15, 2011, 10:25 PM
look up a s&w296

eazyrider
August 15, 2011, 10:30 PM
I really want one as well. I will probably pick one up soon. I have handled them and to me at least they seem to be a fine gun.

shep854
August 15, 2011, 10:56 PM
I have an "old" (1st generation?) Taurus 445 2"bbl that I like a lot, except for the ammo cost. I also want to have a custom wooden stock made. For me, a paddle holster would be the perfect carry. The problem is, such a holster would have to be a custom job, and the budget won't allow that, yet.

One thing about these .44s...something like Gold Dots are easy to see from the business end! I once loaded mine and pointed it at a mirror (finger OFF the trigger, natch ;) ), and the baleful gleam of the cartridges in the cylinder was chilling--I couldn't help but think of The Terminator.:uhoh:

MachIVshooter
August 16, 2011, 07:00 AM
look up a s&w296

MUCH larger. Nice gun, but not in the same league. Yeah, they can handle hotter loads, but the little Charter is just fine with those 210 gr/980 FPS loads of mine, which are under-max and standard pressure. Plenty of oomph to get the job done.

I'd have to go with a 396 anyway; The hump on the 296 is just plain ugly.

http://i32.tinypic.com/24g8sa0.jpg

shep854
August 16, 2011, 07:39 AM
Yes, the hump is ugly, even on a J-frame, but somehow it grows on you...:p

Owen Sparks
August 16, 2011, 10:59 AM
I have had half a dozen Bulldogs and prefer the 3" barrel of the older models as the one weakness of the .44 Special is low velocity. The barrel is not the part that is hard to conceal on a handgun anyway, it is the grip.

moxie
August 16, 2011, 12:25 PM
Bought mine in '88. Still looks and shoots like new!

engineer88
August 16, 2011, 01:50 PM
MachIV you make a good case for the bulldog. Does it fit jframe holsters or SP101 holsters? Just curious as I have a lot of both and it fitting one or the other would mean less of an investment to get into one of these.

Dan-O
August 16, 2011, 04:56 PM
I sure like mine:

http://i726.photobucket.com/albums/ww266/yeahitsthatbig/100_2741.jpg

shep854
August 16, 2011, 06:46 PM
"It's about the same size and weight as my SP-101, but balances better."--MachIVShooter

Did you mean GP-100 instead of SP-101? Those .44s take up a good bit of space, even if only 5 of 'em.

Note the relative size of the Pug and M60 .357 in Post #3.

David E
August 16, 2011, 08:31 PM
And guess what? If functioned flawlessly anyway, as I NEEDLESSLY BET MY LIFE it would.

Corrected it for you. :rolleyes:

Jaymo
August 16, 2011, 08:38 PM
Nah, it's a lot lighter than a GP100. It's only 21 ounces.
I love my Bulldogs. I wish Charter would bring back the 2.5" bull-barrel version.

Owen Sparks
August 16, 2011, 11:27 PM
Again, I like the 3" barrel. The barrel is always against your body no matter what style of holster you use so the snub noses are no real advantage to concealability. The longer barrel gives you more velocity, a little less blast and noise and a longer sight radius.

MachIVshooter
August 17, 2011, 12:38 AM
Dan-O, who did your jewelling and night sight install? Looks great!

Did you mean GP-100 instead of SP-101? Those .44s take up a good bit of space, even if only 5 of 'em.

Note the relative size of the Pug and M60 .357 in Post #3.

No, I meant SP-101. Frame dimensions are almost identical, the Pug's cylinder is only 1/10 of an inch wider (1.349" vs. 1.448" at rear unfluted portion). It's also 5 ounces lighter than the 3" SP-101. The SP-101 is closer to a K-frame than a J Magnum.

Shown with my 686 for comparison (1.564" Cylinder):

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n117/Hunter2506/101_1117.jpg

It's a bit bulkier than my M37 or M60, for sure.

Here, I dug up one of my older pictures showing the SP-101 between a J and K frame:

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n117/Hunter2506/SANY0025.jpg

And guess what? If functioned flawlessly anyway, as I NEEDLESSLY BET MY LIFE it would.

Corrected it for you. :rolleyes:

Take your condescending nonsense somewhere else. Snarky insult masquerading as "wisdom" is somewhere between laughable and annoying.

Tony_the_tiger
August 17, 2011, 01:06 AM
For what it's worth, I'm quite enamored with corbon's DPX offering in .44 special. 200 grains X bullet @ 950 + ft/s. Sounds very similar to what you're already shooting, except I'd bet money that a DPX will outperform a semi-jacketed HP round. That is, if I had any money to bet after spending it on DPX rounds... :eek:

Review of the round http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Corbon%2044%20Special%20DPX%20Report.htm

Do you own the 296 that you posted a pic of? I'd love to see it side by side with your pug puppy.

David E
August 17, 2011, 01:32 AM
Take your condescending nonsense somewhere else. Snarky insult masquerading as "wisdom" is somewhere between laughable and annoying.

It's pure foolishness to rely in a gun for personal defense that you've never fired.

I have a revolver that indexes, etc, etc all day long, just like yours, but it won't get past 2-3 shots before tying up. Of course, I have never carried it for defense.

I'm glad you got lucky.

MachIVshooter
August 17, 2011, 01:37 AM
I'd bet money that a DPX will outperform a semi-jacketed HP round.

Might. But I'll keep that bet money to buy more ammo. lol.

I've always had very good results with Remington's SJHP bullets at moderate velocities. They do tend to blow up when pushed beyond their velocity window, but 980 is well within the design parameters.

I may load some 240 grainers and see how they do, but I don't know if the Spl. can muster enough velocity to make them expand, and the 210's push hard enough on the back end.

I do wish they offered the Golden Sabre in .429". I love the way those perform in .380, 9mm,.38/.357, .40/10mm and .45

Do you own the 296 that you posted a pic of? I'd love to see it side by side with your pug puppy.

No, but it's the same frame size as the 686. They're both L's

It's pure foolishness to rely in a gun for personal defense that you've never fired.

Your opinion. If it were an auto, I'd agree. Having personally owned more than 200 firearms, though, I'll make my own call with confidence.

I have a revolver that indexes, etc, etc all day long, just like yours, but it won't get past 2-3 shots before tying up. Of course, I have never carried it for defense.

It's my experience that there should be something telltale that it'll malfunction. I've never seen a malfunctioning wheelgun that didn't exhibit characteristics of a problem in dryfire. I know how to look for those things, and I knew the pug didn't have any issues. It's a very simple and robust design.

I also don't feel the need to further justify my decision to you. It's my life, and with my physique, carrying a gun is something I do more because I like to excercise a right, not because I need to. Road ragers have turned around, got back into their vehicle and sped off more than once as soon as I got out of my car.

shep854
August 17, 2011, 03:42 AM
Sadly, my SP-101 was stolen several years ago and my memory was of a smaller gun. IIRC, it would take HKS J-frame speedloaders.
Thanks for clarifying. :)

MachIVshooter
August 17, 2011, 04:09 AM
IIRC, it would take HKS J-frame speedloaders.

They do, but definitely too big for a J holster

David E
August 17, 2011, 10:00 AM
It's pure foolishness to carry a gun for personal defense that you've never fired.


Your opinion. If it were an auto, I'd agree. Having personally owned more than 200 firearms, though, I'll make my own call with confidence.

Somehow, I knew you'd argue that unassailable point........

Kind of like the guy who sees no need for new car tires, having driven cross-country on bald snow tires before.

The revolver would likely work, but where would the bullets hit in relation to the sights? Can't determine that by dryfire.

BTW, "having owned 200 guns" is a good start!

It's my experience that there should be something telltale that it'll malfunction. I've never seen a malfunctioning wheelgun that didn't exhibit characteristics of a problem in dryfire.

This is understandable if you've only owned 200 guns. (not all of which were revolvers, I'd bet). Admittedly, it's rare that a problem like this wouldn't reveal itself short of actually firing the gun, but it's not unheard of.

But you're right, it's your life (and maybe your family's lives) you're risking, not mine.

I wish the best to you.

Guillermo
August 17, 2011, 01:26 PM
MachIV,

I really don't understand why you are attacking David E.

This is a forum to discuss things. It would be pretty boring if we all agreed. He is a smart guy, he has been polite.

BTW,
David E is 100% correct. It is foolish (at best) to carry a gun, any gun, that has not been...at MINIMUM....test fired.

Beyond that I prefer to know how a gun is sighted, (had a S&W that had the barrel so far off it was 14 inches away from point-of-aim at 7 yards :eek:) if it has ammo preferences and most of all, how well I shoot it.

Like David I am glad that it worked out...but I hope you never do that again...ever.

MachIVshooter
August 17, 2011, 01:51 PM
I really don't understand why you are attacking David E.

Attacking? I've been on defense.

But that's beside the point. Yes, it is a discussion forum, but staying somewhat OT is part of the mantra here on THR. My personal decisions regarding litmus tests really have nothing to do with this thread; It is a review of the Bulldog Pug and .44 Special ammo. Chastising me for carrying an untested gun adds nothing useful and only serves to distract from the intended discourse.

Dan-O
August 17, 2011, 03:00 PM
Shouldn't you rely "on" a gun, not "in" a gun.

MachIV,

MagnaPort did the custom work on my Pug.

Guillermo
August 17, 2011, 04:01 PM
Take your condescending nonsense somewhere else. Snarky insult masquerading as "wisdom" is somewhere between laughable and annoying.

that seemed like an attack to me.

YMMV

The thing about discussions, online or otherwise, is that they can take turns and twists.

Both David and I were concerned about you carrying an unproven firearm. It is not as though we are the enemy.

Tallinar
August 17, 2011, 04:33 PM
I hate to re-rail the conversation, but I have a question.

Does the Bulldog Pug use a frame-mounted firing pin? If so, does it use a hammer block or transfer bar mechanism?

Thanks.

Guillermo
August 17, 2011, 05:37 PM
transfer bar

MachIVshooter
August 17, 2011, 06:03 PM
that seemed like an attack to me.

retaliation for:

Corrected it for you. :rolleyes:

That was just snyde.

I'm an adult, I'll make my own decisions and own them, along with the consequences. I don't wear seatbelts or helmets, either. My choice. If I wanted other's opinions on these choices, I'd ask.

The thing about discussions, online or otherwise, is that they can take turns and twists.

Certainly can and do, but threads get shut down when they stray too far here, especially when they become nasty.

Both David and I were concerned about you carrying an unproven firearm. It is not as though we are the enemy.

Please. As though the spirit of those comments was altruistic rather than haughty. If it really was, it certainly wasn't articulated through the choice of words and emoticons.

Guillermo
August 17, 2011, 09:02 PM
let us agree to disagree

best of luck to you

Tallinar
August 18, 2011, 12:17 PM
I've read a lot of mixed reviews about the Bulldog Pug. Some of the negative ones seem to focus on the fact that a screw through the front of the frame is used to keep the crane in place, which strikes folks as questionable and many experience that it losens up over time. I've also read of folks experiencing timing and lock-up issues beginning after a few hundred rounds. Perhaps these folks were using loads that were too hot for the gun? I don't know. It causes concern for me though.

I think I'd like to hold one of these in hand and test the lock up and such before I'd commit to one. The idea of a very affordable .44 special stainless CCW revolver definitely appeals to me. But while it wouldn't be something I would shoot thousands of rounds though each year, I'd still want to be sure I can count on it to last me a lifetime and not break or mechanically wear out over the course of normal range practice.

MachIVshooter
August 18, 2011, 06:43 PM
Tallinar-

I think most of that comes from the fact that Charter has existed as four different incarnations. You had th original Charter Arms (good), Charco (not so good) Charter 2000 (also mediocre) and since 2007, the new Charter Arms, which belongs to the son of one of the original principles. Everything I could find on the latest stuff was pretty postive, so I took the leap. Been very pleased so far, may pick up an undercover light in Panther trim. No real reason, since i already have a S&W M37. Just like the way it looks.

Tallinar
August 18, 2011, 06:57 PM
Oh, interesting. I didn't realize they had undergone another ownership change in 2007. So I guess I just need to find some way to distinguish the year of manufacture if I intend to buy one.

Tallinar
August 18, 2011, 07:02 PM
Just reviewed their website. Looks like 2000-2007 guns were stamped "Charter 2000", while 2007 and later guns will be stamped "Charter Arms." It looks like the ownership change was in 2002, but the name was changed in 2007. <shrug>


•1972: David Ecker made a buy out offer to Doug and Ecker became the sole owner of Charter Arms.
•1984: Nick Ecker, David Ecker's son and the present owner of Charter Arms, joined the company and ultimately ran the manufacturing/production arm of the company.
•1988: The compnay was renamed Charco.
•2000: The company was renamed Charter 2000 to coincide with the change of the millennium. For a period of time between 2000 and mid-2007 the firearms were stamped with "Charter 2000."
•2002: The company was renamed Charter Arms. Nick Ecker becomes the sole proprietor of Charter Arms.
•October 2004 Founder, Doug McClenehan passed away.
•March 2005 David Ecker passed away.
•2007: Mid-year the firearms were stamped with "Charter Arms" and remain today.

Deaf Smith
August 18, 2011, 08:42 PM
I just shot a new made Charter .44, DAO stainless revolver today.

Not bad. Bit rough as for the action but I bet with some cycleing, Wolf springs, and some good lube the DA action would be fine.

All shots at 7 yards were within 3 inches firing off hand DAO.

Deaf

Tallinar
August 18, 2011, 09:04 PM
I'm doing some more reading. Can anyone explain how the "3-point cylinder lock up" that Charter Arms boasts is different than other manufacturers' designs?

Charter's website (http://www.charterfirearms.com/products/gun_schematic.html) doesn't seem to elaborate too much on this.

Owen Sparks
August 19, 2011, 12:35 AM
Remember folks, published factory velocities for the .44 Special are usualy made with longer barrels than those on the Bulldog. I have owned at least half a dozen of them and also a chronograph. So far I like the Speer 200 grain Gold Dot as it was designed for these guns and will open at Bulldog velocities. This bullet is also avalable as a componant for those who reload.

Warp
August 19, 2011, 12:43 AM
It's pure foolishness to rely in a gun for personal defense that you've never fired.

I completely agree. That lept right out at me when I read the OP. I figured it came up for discussion within the thread

rdrancher
August 19, 2011, 08:54 PM
You gave a nice report on the gun. I am waiting for Charter to release the classic Bulldog with the exposed ejector rod and the 3" barrel.

I received an email from Charter about a week ago. the Classic is available now. The email said where to order from, but I seem to have deleted it.

Owen Sparks
August 19, 2011, 09:32 PM
In .44 Special, the longer the barrel is the better. I like the "classic" 3" version. The grip is the hard part to conceal, not the barrel. I bought my first Bulldog in 1979 and paid $115 for it new!

Stainz
August 20, 2011, 11:54 AM
I wanted a Bulldog - I just couldn't find anyone who had one - or had owned one - with a fond remembrance. I remembered the Ti .44's that graced American Rifleman ('98?) - and wanted a Taurus all-Ti 445 or a S&W 296. I found the latter at $359 locally on closeout nine years ago - less than half the last MSRP. They also had a new 696, also canned, but for their 'regular' price of $439. Just days later - at the range - my carry and NIB AMT DAO Backups in .45 ACP both jammed - I cleaned them both and traded them on the 296 & 696 on the way home. I got $400 for the pair - and another $10 off the S&W's because I bought both. I was happy. Sadly, the 296 had to be carried in an OWB pancake holster - until I got Mr. Mika to make me a pocket holster for it:

http://s171.photobucket.com/albums/u307/Stainz_2007/IMG_3867-1.jpg

That combo is a pocket carry in 3/4 of my pants' front pockets (A 642 gets 100% carry.). The original boot grips are back - and those GA Arms 200gr Gold Dots, like the CCI Blazer Al-cased variant I carried for years (No more - one split in my 696!), make right at 800 fps from the 2.5" barrel. That's enough to fully open in gelatin - quite impressive! That's been 95+% of it's diet of 2.5k + rounds thus far. When I am in the woods, the first round is a 240gr LSWC. The recoil in the 19+ oz humpback with the OEM boots is 'significant'. Of course, a simple grip change improves that quite a bit - just try to get the X-frame grip in your pocket:

http://s171.photobucket.com/albums/u307/Stainz_2007/IMG_0713.jpg

Absurd? Talk about universal fit, those grips fit K, L, N, X, & Z frames! Of course, the Charter Arms designed HKS speedloaders, #CA44, fit the 296/696 quite well. I don't think the hammer on the Bulldog will fare well in my pocket - did they ever make it with an enclosed hammer?

I still find myself looking at the Charter Arms revolvers at my enabler's lair. Thanks to this thread, I may just look more closely... it would be an ideal car gun. Good to read positive results with the little beast!

Stainz

David E
August 20, 2011, 12:40 PM
I had the Classic back in 1977 or so. Forget what I paid.

It never gave me a problem. It started out tight, but loosened up a bit in 2-300 rds. Still, it was well within tolerances. After testing it, I carried it at my part time job at a gunstore.

Sold it to help finance my first 1911, but I liked it.

Taildragger-J3
August 20, 2011, 07:35 PM
I picked up a nearly new Tarus 431 with 3" barrel, stainless. Been reloading with a variety of bullets 180-240 gr. It's routinely by my side. A lot of fun to shoot, too!

Snubshooter
August 20, 2011, 07:47 PM
Just for info on a similar vane.... Charter Arms is introducing a PITBULL basically a .40 SW Bulldog with no need for Moon clips. Looks interesting. I've always been enamored of the Bulldog, Just never found one with a trigger that felt "right" and being stuck in CA there are not a lot of them to try. All the Smith 696s go for a fortune IF you find one. The price on a new Bulldog is very reasonable.

Owen Sparks
August 20, 2011, 09:47 PM
Rumor has it that Charter Arms will introduce a .45 ACP revolver next. I reload both the
.44 Special and .45 ACP and use the same exact powder charge. Preformance should be about the same.

shep854
August 20, 2011, 10:38 PM
A .45ACP Bulldog? Now that's interesting!

Lucky Derby
August 21, 2011, 11:28 AM
I've had a couple. Between timing issues and light hits, I gave up. Been thinking about getting one of the new ones and giving it a try.
I've had a 296. It just seemed to big to be pocketable, and I have no problem with a 696, or even a 624 if I am going to wear a belt holster, so it didn't make the cut either.

Lonerider357
August 21, 2011, 09:45 PM
Just got a notice that Charter is introducing a .40 Cal "PitBull" No mention of a .45 yet. I might wait until they do!

Owen Sparks
August 21, 2011, 09:56 PM
They anounced these rimless ejector models at the SHOT Show several years back but are just now getting around to making them. Business was so good during the "Obama panic" that they did not want to allocate recources to new products when they were busy selling existing models of revolvers as fast as they could make them. The story was that when these new rimless ejector models went into production that the .40 would be released first followed by a .45ACP version and then one in 9MM.

BTW the .40 S&W ballistics are identical to the old .38/40 revolver round with a 180 grain .400" diamiter bullet traveling at the same velocity.

azgunner
August 25, 2011, 08:09 AM
I have a Rossi 720 and a Taurus 431.
Both are awesome carry weapons. Not under gunned with one of them.

If you enjoyed reading about "Bulldog Pug .44: Perfect carry revolver?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!