Every new production Charter I've handled has been a step above Taurus (barely) and several steps under Ruger and S&W. The only concession I'll make is the Bulldog Classic. That's just what floats my boat.
It what way besides finish are you talking about? What about in terms of handling and accuracy? I'm with you on Taurus revolvers, or at least those produced about 8 years ago. I purchased two of them. Both of them were duds. A .22 that was about 78% at igniting pretty much any round and a Public Defender that would seize up when you short stroke the trigger.
Still, my lowly Undercover is the most accurate .38 snub nose I have ever shot or owned. Using similar ammo it has shot circles around a model 36, 642, 442, and an LCR. The trigger doesn't tend to be as easily short stroked as the 3 LCRs I've owned, and the steel frame is just a bit heavier than the aluminum alloy found in the others (not including the 36) resulting a comfortable to carry gun that soaks up just a bit more recoil.
I would say that of all the revolvers I mentioned, the UC compares most to the LCR. Both have lightweight metal frames with polymer grips. Both have 2"/sub 2" barrels and similar lock ups. Both print about the same if you put a boot grip/minimalist grip on them.
I've got around 400 rounds of standard, +p, and AXR ammo through my Undercover. Still locks up tight, no loosening of the screws, and has not shown the cosmetic flame cutting issue my LCR had. I really liked my LCR. It was what I called my "tactical daddy gun" when my daughter was born. Light enough to fit in a pocket and not slow me down with all the other baby stuff I was to carry for the next 2 years.
I just don't see there to be a huge difference in build quality between the .38 LCR and the Charter Arms. Aesthetics/and style? Sure. However, in my recent experience within the last 4 or 5 years, Ruger seems to be going to more of a "crank 'em out" mentality with their deeper and deeper entry into budget friendly EDC pieces and letting their reputation for toughness sell the guns and their easy to deal with warranty service keep those with problems happy. Nothing wrong with Ruger. I have half a dozen of their guns. I have many, many more on my short to buy list. I just think the myth of their godlike strength and durability needs to be taken with a grain of salt and applied to certain guns in their catalog.
Charter Arms is still fighting the stigma of their old owner's business dealings. They ARE a budget gun. They DO have a rougher finish than higher end guns. However, they are accurate and reliable in my experience.
If I were buying a snub nose .357 for pocket carry, I would look hard at a Mag Pug. However, .357 is a woods walking round for me. I prefer .38 in a .38 and leave the. 357 to a gun that can make better use of the round for all the flash and thunder it spits out.
If I were getting a 4" double action .357 today, I would buy a 686. I had one and foolishly traded it off when I was downsizing my collection. A Charter Arms isn't up to a 686 in terms of quality, for sure
However, I dont think I would put comparable snubbies like the 642 or LCR much higher in terms of overall quality and value.
Just my experience limited to the last 10 or 11 years of shooting. I know there are a lot of more learned on this board who I would pay very close attention to.