I think a lot of it has to do with "This Ruger cost $500/600/700 and is just... okay" while the Charters are simliarly "just okay" but they cost hundreds less, in some cases half as much.
The almost $800 I spent on the .45 Colt/ACP Redhawk was a lot, but I got a lot of gun for my money given the ability to shoot the ACP with moon clips. The $580 I spent on the .327 SP101 was very disconcerting given the lack of ergonomics with it, the HEAVY trigger, the sharp corners on the hammer, trigger guard, inside the frame, and the general inaccuracy of it, even though it's a 4 inch barrel.
It was the first and last SP101 I will ever buy, I see no reason to spend $500-600 on one in .357 when there are plenty of Charters, both used and new, that are available for less and when the LCR is in .22 and 9mm, it makes no sense to pay the same or more on an SP101 with a poor trigger.
I mean, some people will gladly pay more money for something worse, but is all steel. That may make sense for the 9mm given the recoil 9mm can produce in a revolver, but paying $175 more for the .22 vs the 3 inch LCRx is... just dumb. I wish I could think of a better word, but I can't.
Anyway, after that experience with the SP101, I reconsidered getting a 7 shot GP100 and have been looking at the 7 shot Taurus with the spare 9mm cylinder that costs $200 less. The experiences I read of others having with their Rugers and my disappointment in my SP101 has led me to abandon all Ruger double action revolvers that aren't the LCR. Does Taurus make a better revolver than Ruger? No, not pound for pound, but at the prices they sell for, Taurus punches above its weight class while Ruger punches below it.