Charter 32HR 6 shot #73220

BC17A said:

Sounds like it's the same problem mine has, or had since I fixed it today. I got the new ejector rod parts from CA last week and installed them on Friday just to find it still had a cylinder/trigger lockup problem. Not as bad as before but I could easily make it happen by slowly letting the trigger out to reset. The cylinder stop was hanging up on its trigger notch and also on the plunger so instead of sliding forward then rearward to allow it to mesh with the trigger it was moving up & forward and locking in that position which made it lock horns with the trigger. No amount of pulling force on the trigger would make it budge.

After disassembling the gun, I found the stop was very rough on the side that contacts the frame, and slightly rough on its trigger notch and plunger edge which only added to it sticking rather than moving smoothly. After polishing all the parts with some 1000 grit and a buffing wheel the stop now moves very smoothly. During trigger reset the stop will move forward then snap nicely into the trigger notch like it should. I probably should have sent it back to CA but after seeing some of the hack work they did before shipping it out new, I don't trust them.

View attachment 1078826 View attachment 1078827 View attachment 1078828

Click to expand...

That's some good work there, @BC17A. It's terrible that these guns are being released in the condition they are.

Another thing that gnaws on me now is the fact these aluminum frames don't have a steel firing pin bushing like an aluminum frame S&W, Taurus, or Ruger revolver. My CA .32 has developed cartridge recoil peening into the frame at the firing pin hole at a very low round count. And I haven't even fired .32 magnums in it yet.

Clearly this CA .32, and all other aluminum frame CAs built like it, have a very low round count expectancy.

BC17A said:

This is my first CA and definitely going to be my last.

Click to expand...

Fully understand that. I was lead astray by the quality of my first generation CA revolver. Gotta say I wish I'd have paid double for a Ruger LCR .327 and been done with it.

Oh well, I'm gonna shoot this CA .32 until it fails. Sparingly. Over many years time.

Boom Vang said:

Every Charter I've owned for the past 10 years has shot low. I routinely have to file the front sight lower to raise the POI. The models with the fiber optic front sight shoot horribly low and can't be altered.

Light strikes? Check your mainspring. If it's blue, call and ask for the green one.

What's going on over at Charter? Here's a number of random guns with the same problems. Not good.

Click to expand...

From the photos I've seen of the Professionals, CA now grinds off the partial ramp that the fiber optic was mounted to. Now the fiber optic is sitting right on top of the barrel.

Boom Vang said:

Mine had the same issue initially of the cylinder bolt hanging up on the trigger. I sent it back and Charter repaired it. How did you get the cylinder bolt out? I didn't want to knock out that splined open pin holding it.

Click to expand...

Unless you have a means of driving that pin out straight it's better to do what you did and send it back to CA. I made a small anvil with a centering pilot that allows a small punch to drive it out squarely from the center.

My new Professional has shot just fine, latest release. The fiber optic is not sitting on top of the frame but it does appear to be a smaller peace than other I have seen in pics. The Barrel Rib has a slight taper down towards the front as well. If you look at the sight pic you can see there is material that can be removed off the front of the fiber optic insert, it is in the form of a nail head and a decent bit can be shaved off the top if needed. Now I think part of the problem with the sights is that people do not know how to use them. The fiber is for a quick visual reference not exactly to be leveled with the top of the rear sight. The black corners are flat and when leveled with the rear sight will put you at point of aim for precision. I think it’s a dumb design and may remove it and replace the fiber optic with epoxy making a solid black front sight. I now have 2 Charter Arms revolvers and have had zero problems to date. I am in no way criticizing anyone for doing so, it’s your gun but the last thing I do is open up a gun and begin changing springs, polishing anything or doing any gunsmithing is until the gun has been proved reliable and broken in. Revolvers need time to break in and parts need time to mate. Triggers will get better after use, the first thing should not be a spring change upon receipt. That being said if it doesn’t work or there is a known problem send it back and let them get it right. If they don’t get a refund or replacement. If one starts tearing into a gun upon receipt one will never know what caused a problem!

chicharrones said:

Another thing that gnaws on me now is the fact these aluminum frames don't have a steel firing pin bushing like an aluminum frame S&W, Taurus, or Ruger revolver. My CA .32 has developed cartridge recoil peening into the frame at the firing pin hole at a very low round count. And I haven't even fired .32 magnums in it yet.

Clearly this CA .32, and all other aluminum frame CAs built like it, have a very low round count expectancy.

Click to expand...

Probably why CA doesn't dare chamber these in 327 Fed. As it is now they'll maybe make it a few thousand rounds before they're scrap. I'm going to work up some 32 S&W Long loads and find which work best for my wife, then only take it to the range once in a while for her to stay in practice. In the mean time I'm going to keep an eye out for a Taurus 327. People can say what they want about Taurus, but in my experience they make a much better revolver than Charter.

wcwhitey said:

... I am in no way criticizing anyone for doing so, it’s your gun but the last thing I do is open up a gun and begin changing springs, polishing anything or doing any gunsmithing is until the gun has been proved reliable and broken in. Revolvers need time to break in and parts need time to mate. Triggers will get better after use, the first thing should not be a spring change upon receipt.

Click to expand...

As the entire thread makes clear, folks are replacing the factory lighter mainspring with the factory heavier factory mainspring, on the suggestion of the factory. Charter makes two different spring weights, and they are interchangeable in all guns.

Modern revolvers, like automobiles, are designed to work out of the box. There's no break-in period. Either they work or they don't. They may get smoother over time with use, or they might not. Any firearm that does not work as intended out of the box, needs fixing. The problem here seems completely to be one of QC.

As far as sending a gun back to the factory for every little thing, that's an option, but not the only one. Filing a front sight to adjust POI is not going to be done by the factory. Dehorning any edges which the user finds too aggressive is also not going to be done by the factory. These are common modifications by the skilled hobbyist.

wcwhitey said:

My new Professional has shot just fine, latest release. The fiber optic is not sitting on top of the frame but it does appear to be a smaller peace than other I have seen in pics. The Barrel Rib has a slight taper down towards the front as well.

Click to expand...

The barrel rib does indeed appear to be considerably lowered, although the sight looks identical. Especially where the rib meets the frame, the barrel rib is lower. In the pic below, the blued barrel is a first issue model. The front sight sits on the thinnest of a ramp, adding perhaps .0015", negligible. The stainless barrel is on the later Professional IV model, and the sliver of a ramp eliminated, probably just a change to ease production. The two guns had NO difference in POA, they both shot 6" low at 15 yards, using the so-called "combat sight picture". But note the amount of height of the rib above the frame, and yours doesn't have that.


It's good that Charter addressed that with the latest guns. Don't think Taurus would do that

BC17A said:

Unless you have a means of driving that pin out straight it's better to do what you did and send it back to CA. I made a small anvil with a centering pilot that allows a small punch to drive it out squarely from the center.

Click to expand...

That was a good job! I had the tools to do it, but that pin was obviously designed not be removed under normal use, with the knurling on it. I preferred to let Charter be responsible for it, since the cylinder stop was defective anyway and had to be replaced.

I think some of you are worrying needlessly. While the aluminum frame Charters don't have a long-term track record, as the investment cast steel frames do, Charter does have a lifetime warranty. On their website: "*** All of our firearms manufactured in Shelton, CT feature a lifetime warranty ***"

While the S&W aluminium frames do have a steel firing pin bushing, I believe that is necessary for the fire control design they use, in which the hammer directly strikes the frame in their legacy hammer nose design. Even in the frame-mounted firing pin versions, the hammer still strikes both the firing pin and frame directly. S&W uses a hammerblock for it's drop safety, which moves away during firing.

Charter has always used a transfer bar design as it's drop safety feature, in which the blow of the hammer force is spread out over the width of the transfer bar, and then to the firing pin. Explains some of the light-strike issues if the timing, finish or hammer force is off spec. But in any event there is less force being directed against the frame.

Here is my aluminium frame Undercoverette, after 400 rounds, mostly .32 Magnum. There is no damage to the frame at the firing position. The light shine on the surface is the same as on on any other revolver.



There is some light wear marks where the ratchets on the ejector contact the frame. This is due to the shape and design of the ratchets. It's present on every Charter revolver, regardless of frame material. Here is my Bulldog Classic, after 1,600 rounds. Note the same wear as the aluminium frame.



I plan on shooting my Undercoverette like any other firearm, and if it fails in my lifetime (which I doubt), getting it repaired or replaced, by Charter, an American company, employing Americans.

Try that with the Brazilian Taurus. Waiting a year on a Taurus repair is not uncommon, I've seen it several times. You will might die before it gets returned. Hope not!

Hogue recently released a synthetic monogrip for Charter guns. They really hit a homerun with this design. While I like the factory stadard rubber grip, and the wood versions of the original Bulldog and Undercover grips, this Hogue grip is much more effective while shooting.

It has finger groves, which can be a personal preference, but fit me just fine. The grip width is perfect without being too fat, and note the hard plastic insert near the thumb position. Using speedloaders and speedstrips, nothing hangs up. Reloading the Undercoverette with the HKS loader or Quickstrip was very quick!

These grips also alter the grip angle slightly, making it a little less revolver-like. If you shoot mostly pistols with a straighter grip angle, these grips will give you closer to the same pointing ability. They also cover the backstrap, which on recent production Charters often doesn't have a particularly smooth transition to the frame. All good with this grip.

Boom Vang said:

As the entire thread makes clear, folks are replacing the factory lighter mainspring with the factory heavier factory mainspring, on the suggestion of the factory. Charter makes two different spring weights, and they are interchangeable in all guns.

Modern revolvers, like automobiles, are designed to work out of the box. There's no break-in period. Either they work or they don't. They may get smoother over time with use, or they might not. Any firearm that does not work as intended out of the box, needs fixing. The problem here seems completely to be one of QC.

As far as sending a gun back to the factory for every little thing, that's an option, but not the only one. Filing a front sight to adjust POI is not going to be done by the factory. Dehorning any edges which the user finds too aggressive is also not going to be done by the factory. These are common modifications by the skilled hobbyist.




The barrel rib does indeed appear to be considerably lowered, although the sight looks identical. Especially where the rib meets the frame, the barrel rib is lower. In the pic below, the blued barrel is a first issue model. The front sight sits on the thinnest of a ramp, adding perhaps .0015", negligible. The stainless barrel is on the later Professional IV model, and the sliver of a ramp eliminated, probably just a change to ease production. The two guns had NO difference in POA, they both shot 6" low at 15 yards, using the so-called "combat sight picture". But note the amount of height of the rib above the frame, and yours doesn't have that.

View attachment 1079145 View attachment 1079146 View attachment 1079147
It's good that Charter addressed that with the latest guns. Don't think Taurus would do that

Click to expand...

You are correct they must come working, it’s not going to get better if it’s broken, I get that. Break In is referring to machines parts that mate together as time goes in. A little roughness will smooth out after some dry firing and a few workouts. Triggers only get better with time. Every gun can benefit from a good break in period as long as it does not break.

I had posted about a conversation with CA about the current production Professionals and that they were confident they worked the problem out, looks like according to your pics it might be the like you mentioned the height of the rib itself. Curious as to what yours measured, barrel to top of the rib? I was fully prepared upon receipt to have to do some front sight work based on my research. There is material there, enough I don’t know to make up 6”. This was bought as a range gun not to carry!

I shudder, as this is my personal ideology, yours may be different. I will not open up a gun that “is working” from the factory and replace a spring if it is to be used for self defense. There is liability there. That and if it’s not working no change of a spring is going to make me trust my life with it. Range gun or fun gun no problem but not a daily carry. If the gun is not functional it goes back and either they fix it or return my money. I am not a gunsmith nor do I work for them, it is their product that I bought with the expectation that I will be able to use it to defend myself or family. A stiff trigger like I said will smooth out some as things settle but it has to be reliable.

As far as dehorning things that is personal, make it yours and have fun with it, it’s like a set of grips. But functionality I do not mess with. My routine after buying and owning many revolvers has been to receive it, give it a good cleaning, dry fire it a bit while checking function all with snap caps. I am a reloader and have been for over 40 years, I can make some nice shooting ammo. I only test a new gun with factory ammo as it was intended.

There have been quite few recorded instances in this forum in the last few months with new CCI primers. A few gents have had problems with misfires and light strikes. A few boxes of factory will at least set down a baseline of reliability and make any further problems easier to diagnose.

Please don’t get me wrong! I have smithed quite a few revolvers and I am in no way against making something your own. Those though have been fun guns. I won’t carry any gun that has needed work to just function properly. My opinion, your mileage may vary!

As an edit: I like Charter Arms very much they are a great company! So far I am 2 for 2 and happy with them. I had called to order a spur hammer to replace my DAO hammer on my .44 Bulldog. They stated that it was an older gun but still under warranty that they would replace the hammer as long as I paid to get it to them. 4 weeks later gun came back with a nicely fitted hammer and a armorers report about its specs (I had asked them to check it out while it was there). Total cost $28 bucks to ship from my FFL. I do think based on what I am seeing is that they are suffering from a bit of COVID workforce hangover. Most of the North East states were under some fairly harsh restrictions for a while.

blue32 said:

the Taurus 327 looks cool but some specs really made me think. At ~1.4" cylinder width and 22 oz.

Click to expand...

Taurus uses the exact same frame for the Model 856, Model 327, and Model 942. The outside barrel diameter and outside cylinder diameter is the same for all three models.

It would have been nice if Taurus still made some 85 sized frames and offered a 6-shot .32 or .327 in that smaller format.

The Taurus 327 is a small 6 shooter.

dickydalton said:

The Taurus 327 is a small 6 shooter.
View attachment 1079255

Click to expand...

Is that a currently made gun on the 856 frame?

chicharrones said:

Is that a currently made gun on the 856 frame?

Click to expand...

Taurus announced the re-release of the their 327 revolvers at Shot Show this year. And yes they are made using the same frame as the Model 856 and Model 942. They are currently only offering them with a 2" barrel.

https://www.taurususa.com/revolvers/taurus-327

PS. You posted right after I did last night where I said that Taurus is making the 327 and it use the same frame as the 856 and 942.

12Bravo20 said:

Taurus announced the re-release of the their 327 revolvers at Shot Show this year. And yes they are made using the same frame as the Model 856 and Model 942. They are currently only offering them with a 2" barrel.

https://www.taurususa.com/revolvers/taurus-327

PS. You posted right after I did last night where I said that Taurus is making the 327 and it use the same frame as the 856 and 942.

Click to expand...

Thanks! Apparently I’m having reading issues due to me using a smart phone screen over the last couple days.

chicharrones said:

Thanks! Apparently I’m having reading issues due to me using a smart phone screen over the last couple days.

Click to expand...

That is totally understandable. Sometimes I feel that my 24" monitors are too small. I don't even try to read forums on my phone.

Boom Vang said:

As the entire thread makes clear, folks are replacing the factory lighter mainspring with the factory heavier factory mainspring, on the suggestion of the factory. Charter makes two different spring weights, and they are interchangeable in all guns.

Modern revolvers, like automobiles, are designed to work out of the box. There's no break-in period. Either they work or they don't. They may get smoother over time with use, or they might not. Any firearm that does not work as intended out of the box, needs fixing. The problem here seems completely to be one of QC.

As far as sending a gun back to the factory for every little thing, that's an option, but not the only one. Filing a front sight to adjust POI is not going to be done by the factory. Dehorning any edges which the user finds too aggressive is also not going to be done by the factory. These are common modifications by the skilled hobbyist.




The barrel rib does indeed appear to be considerably lowered, although the sight looks identical. Especially where the rib meets the frame, the barrel rib is lower. In the pic below, the blued barrel is a first issue model. The front sight sits on the thinnest of a ramp, adding perhaps .0015", negligible. The stainless barrel is on the later Professional IV model, and the sliver of a ramp eliminated, probably just a change to ease production. The two guns had NO difference in POA, they both shot 6" low at 15 yards, using the so-called "combat sight picture". But note the amount of height of the rib above the frame, and yours doesn't have that.

View attachment 1079145 View attachment 1079146 View attachment 1079147
It's good that Charter addressed that with the latest guns. Don't think Taurus would do that

Click to expand...

I have to agree.

next day aired May 6th, text May 9th saying they had it, May 19th they said it is not repaired yet.

JERRY said:

next day aired May 6th, text May 9th saying they had it, May 19th they said it is not repaired yet.

Click to expand...

Mine just came back 10 days ago. Took 2 1/2 weeks from receipt.

Charter Apparently indeed has some serious labor issues. Shot the new Professional today, shot fine but only shot it single action as I was trying to group some new reloads. Had dinner, went to the garage and gave it a cleaning and some oil. Put the snap caps in and pulled the trigger a few times and it locked up. Intermittently but it locked up. I did not take it apart, removed the cylinder and grips was as far as went. Checked screws, all snug, cylinder release screw flush like it is supposed to be. Found out that the cylinder stop is not resetting. Now here is the crazy part, it works fine lefty. Putting the opposite pressure on the trigger puts it back in time. I have never seen that! I looked to see if it was something simple but I went as far as I am willing. Ain’t that some ****! All totaled it took less than 300 rounds to crap out! Will see what they have to say tomorrow!

I do not mean to hijack this threat - but is there a way to replace the hammer on the Undercoverette for a DAO hammer? I just bought a Pro and an undercoverette to supplement my pocket carry LCR 327 and I would like to pocket carry the lighter CA at times - without worrying about hammer snag. Thanks!!