Charter arms revolvers

[Panzerschwein]

While the Smith is more expensive, it terms of longevity and probability of issues OTB, it is the FAR better value between the two.

The Smith might cost 50%+ vs the Charter, but the Smith will outlast the Charter in round count by years of shooting and S&W customer support is quite good.

 

[tuna]

Even though I'm pi@@ed at S&W for a string of crappy service (personally mad, as opposed to the "mad at the trigger lock") and POS guns that were new made, I probably would go the S&W over the Charter. Especially if it were an older Smith.
Newer Smiths, I'd go for a Taurus first.

My next purchase is an LCR.

 

[ljnowell]

While the Smith is more expensive, it terms of longevity and probability of issues OTB, it is the FAR better value between the two.



The Smith might cost 50%+ vs the Charter, but the Smith will outlast the Charter in round count by years of shooting and S&W customer support is quite good.

Smiths are all I shoot in bullseye. That's part of the reason I went with one.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

You made the right call.

I like it.

 

[Panzerschwein]

Even though I'm pi@@ed at S&W for a string of crappy service (personally mad, as opposed to the "mad at the trigger lock") and POS guns that were new made, I probably would go the S&W over the Charter. Especially if it were an older Smith.
Newer Smiths, I'd go for a Taurus first.

My next purchase is an LCR.

That may have the experience with you but my new S&W 642 is beyond awesome.

Tight, slick, accurate, the gun is an absolute winner and the quality of fit and finish is apparent throughout.

The last few Taurus revolver I've handled in gun shops all felt like an ounce or two of sand was stuck under the sideplate. Beyond gritty, with awful triggers and actions. Not so with any new Smith I've handled.