Charter Arms Off-Duty VS. S&W 642

Which snubby?

  • Smith & Wesson 642/442

    Votes: 93 94.9%

  • Charter Arms Off-Duty

    Votes: 5 5.1%
  • Total voters
    98
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kind of Blued

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
3,676
Location
Rocky Mountains
I've been planning on a S&W 642 or 442 as a BUG, but I noticed the charter DAO offering is three ounces lighter and almost $100 cheaper.

Is there a reason these aren't more popular amongst the ankle/pocket carrying snubby fans? It is lighter, but are the actual dimension bigger? Or is it just because it doesn't say "Smith & Wesson" on it?
 
I only have one Charter Arms revolver (an older 44 Target Bulldog) and while it has always gone bang when I've pulled the trigger, I don't think I would trust it for personal defense (given the choice of something else). It's sights don't hold zero very well and one of the pins in the frame would walk out on occasion (it's glued .. well...Loctited in right now) The current Charters maybe fine guns in their own right, but based on my limited experience with an older one; I'd go with a Smith given the choice.
Regards,
Greg
 
I have said this before and will say it again. Charter Arms are junk. I bought one of the new Charters in 2007, and the cylinder started to loosen up pretty badly after firing a few boxes of regular .38's. The construction is cheap, and the resulting product is cheap. The cylinder crane/yoke is held on by a screw, instead of having a rod that goes into the frame holding it. The cylinder stop is a stamped out piece of sheet metal. Mine developed alarming cylinder play from front to rear.

I paid $272 new for it. I then bought a used S&W Model 36 for $289. The Smith is ten times the gun. Don't get a Charter. Get a used Smith.
 
I have owned both in the past, but only the one make now. Guess which. (Rhymes with "lesson" which I learned).
 
I have a S&W that was built in 1930. It served as a police department issued gun until about 5 years before I bought it in 2000.

In 80 years, will that Charter be drilling the X ring like my old Smith? Or will it have self-destructed, like I suspect it will after a few thousand rounds?

Buy what you need and can afford, but as for me, I buy Smith and Colt. New or used, they aren't going to disintegrate on me.
 
I too have had both. My Charter Arms was an Undercover .38 bought new in 1977. The Smith is a Model 36. I shot both very well. Both functioned flawlessly and as accurately as a snubby can be. The ONLY reason I sold the Charter Arms is because a fellow bugged the tar out of me until I gave in and sold it to him. Charter Arms,S&W,Taurus,Rossi,etc(I have or have had them all).. all are going to do the job. Carry what YOU want and don't let others make that decision for you.
 
Last edited:
There may be only $100 separating the Charter from the S&W, but are you willing to bet your life on $100.

I have found the quality of the S&W products to be better than that of Charter Arms. I carry a 442 as a BUG. I also like Rugers, and find them to be a good value for the money, but a little heavy as a BUG.

Charter Arms, Taurus and others don't get any money from me as I've not been impressed with what they offer, if it's my life on the line.

Take care and stay safe, BikerRN
 
A friend recently bought a new Charter Arms snubby.

He let me put a few rounds through it and it felt.....well......like there were a dozen gears and cams between the trigger and the hammer/cylinder.

It felt like a lot was going on inside that handgun.

It works, but it just didn't feel good to me.
 
Yuck.

I thought they were some sort of "best kept secret", I think stemming from Michael Bane's love for their .44 Special snubby. I'm not one to skimp on anything, especially something which may save my life. I knew the Smith was dependable, no question there, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't paying $100 for a brand name. Apparently this is one of those cases where the brand name IS worth $100 because of what comes along with it.

Thanks for the info/warning guys!
 
Yeah, this is one of those cases where you really do get what you pay for. the 642/442 is one fantastic little gun. Very reliable. The Charter...very hit or miss, and even the ones that "hit" are iffy.

One thing I didn't see people mention is that for the extra money you are getting the best CS in the industry vs. going with Charter which seems to go out of business every time the manager farts.

The piece of mind of knowing that a MAJOR company will back me up and fix any problems is wroth the extra coin in my mind.
 
i can't believe someone voted for the charter arms and didn't give their reason. All I can hope for is that someone was making a joke...
 
I'm not too much of a gun snob but believe me, get the S&W. Keep the Charter Arms "off duty":)
 
hey if we were talkin 44 specials I'd have done the same thing I did find a charter and check it over real good but we're talkin like $300+ more for a used 296.since we're talkin 38s no question buy the smith.
 
I have a Charter Arms Bulldog .44sp. I bought it back in '89 and only put approximately 500rds. through it since I've owned it. While it never gave me any problems, my brother, who bought his at the same time I did, had to send his in for repair a couple of times. I can honestly say, I have much more confidence in my S&W M36 when it comes to my personal security. For $100 extra, you're getting more than twice the gun in terms of quality, IMHO.
 
Sometimes you don't get what you pay for either! I've never had a 100% satisfactory Charter Arms product of any vintage.

Sad as the .44spl bulldog makes a LOT of sense. I still keep one around for fun.
 
The best 100 bucks you could spend would be buying the smith over the charter arms.I would even go taurus before charter arms.I do have a mod 85 taurus it's ok for what it is..
 
I have owned two Charter Arms .38 Spl. snubs in my life.

Both were lemons that would not reliably set off rounds DA.

One almost fell apart in a little over a year, while I was trying stronger springs to get it to work reliably.

I got rid of the second one as soon as I found it did the same thing as the first one.

That was, not work!

rcmodel
 
Smith 642 is a fine weapon. The CA is acceptable.

That would be the best C note you ever spent to get the Smith.

This is your life, don't pinch pennies.
 
i have owned three C.A. revolvers in my life. two were junk and one was quite good.

ive owned dozens of s&w revolvers in my life. all were good non locked guns.


based on this i'd trust the reliability of a clinton&wesson lawyer lock over the reliability of a charter arms gun.
 
Tain't even a close match. I'd pick a Rossi, let alone a 642, over a Charter any day. I've owned both.

I like Taurus, Smith, Ruger, Rossi, of which I own good quality examples. If you are down on funds and don't like or can't find a deal used, Taurus and Rossi are the lesser expensive quality alternatives. Charter is pretty junky and I won't do that again. I don't believe in throwing money away needlessly, but I do have my limits.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Panzerschwein
  • Locked
  • Poll
Charter Arms vs. S&W snubs?
Replies
24
Views
11K
blindhari
B
S
  • Locked
A good deal? Trading S&W Model 60 for 642-2
Replies
9
Views
788
BullfrogKen
B
M
  • Locked
Just got a S&W 642.
Replies
15
Views
1K
JNewell
J
P
  • Locked
taurus vs S&W
Replies
7
Views
1K
E357
E
K
  • Locked
Is anyone a fan of the S&W Model 60? I would like a .357 magnum snubbie & need advice
2
Replies
41
Views
4K
Tom Servo
Tom Servo
Back
Top