Charter Arms vs. S&W snubs?

[Panzerschwein]

Hello friends! I'm in the market for a new snub nosed .38 special caliber revolver. I've pretty much narrowed it down to either a Charter Arms On Duty or a Smith & Wesson Model 642 No-Lock.

Which of these guns do you think is the better buy? I know that the Charter Arms is a cheaper gun, but is it worth it? Which one is better quality and more reliable, has the best features, etc. etc.

Thanks!

 

[tommy.duncan]

My wife picked out a Charter Arms "Lady Chic" 38 special. She handled the S&W equivalent and liked the C.A. better. I have fired about a hundred rounds and she had about 500 down the pipe. It fits her hand well and she enjoys firing it. She also carries this too.
S&W's are awesome but if the C.A. feels better then that is the way to go.
Good Luck.

 

[rswartsell]

Charter's are good and as stated you may like it better, IMHO though if one can afford the Smith & Wesson it is a better built gun. The resale value retained answers the question if there is no strong preference in play.

 

[Jaymo]

Neither.
I'd rather have a 40/640 or a Charter Bulldog.
OR, a Colt Detective Special.
OR, a S&W 10 or 15 snub.
OR a Dan Wesson 14-2/15-2 2-3/8".

 

[Panzerschwein]

Sorry Jay but this thread is not about those guns or why you like them. I meant which of the two guns I presented would you choose if you had to, hence only two answers in the poll!

 

[Slamfire]

Having handled Charter Arms 38's, a owner of a Bulldog, and a number of S&W snubbies, I like the S&W's more. But you pay more.

You get good value with a Charter Arms, maybe the fit and finish is not as perfect as a S&W, but it will go bang. The sights were good as I recall. If you don't like the grips, you can find aftermarket. My recollection is that the crane screw always unscrews itself in time, but I doubt there is any significant difference between the two brands in terms of fatique lifetime. These are, lightweight, light duty revolvers.

My S&W's are delightful, well machined, well fitted, excellent triggers, and they go bang. My personnel opinion is go for the "Bodyguard" (M638) or the M642, as the hammers won't snag when they are being pulled out of a pocket.

 

[rcmodel]

I have owned two Charters in my life.
Both were a POS, and I never got either one 100% reliable in DA.

On the other-hand, I have owned numerous pre-lock S&W's for the last 50 years and have never ever had a problem with any of them.

So I naturally voted S&W.

I would not carry another Charter for serious social purposes if someone gave me one.

But that's just one mans experience with two of them, and two dozen+ of the other.

rc

 

[rswartsell]

I had a '70s CA Bulldog that never gave me problems, the rest is second hand testimony about the "bad years" and the new ones being solid. My CA was a functional "blue collar" gun. I would carry it. If it wasn't reliable though I would not have considered it worth gunsmithing and would not have been optimistic about finding a 'smith who would do any serious work on it.

That said I'm standing with the Smith being better, bang for the buck and all.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Now that the Ecker family are back at Charter Arms the quality of the revolvers is again on top. The CA revolver weighs 12oz, the S&W weighs 15oz. IMO you should pick the one you like best and the one that feels best in your hand. Both will serve you well but if I were buying I would buy the M642. I carried a M642 for a few years and then changed over to the M442. If I could only get a current CA revolver I would be OK with that.

Remember, I'm talking about current CA revolvers made in the last 5 years or so. CA went through a few incarnations since the late 70's, one worse than the other. Current management is back to the original management and the company is again a very good American gun company. (all IMO of course)

 

[GP Henry]

My wife picked out a Charter Arms "Lady Chic" 38 special. She handled the S&W equivalent and liked the C.A. better. I have fired about a hundred rounds and she had about 500 down the pipe. It fits her hand well and she enjoys firing it. She also carries this too.
S&W's are awesome but if the C.A. feels better then that is the way to go.
Good Luck.

As is so common, I think the first response is best. Personally I would not buy the CA, but if it fits and is right for you then that is the right choice.

 

[bannockburn]

I had a Charter Arms Undercover back when they were supposed to be as good as a S&W only cheaper. Well it was no where even close to being like a S&W J frame, especially in regards to how poorly it was made. Currently I have two J frame snubbies: a Model 649,and a Model 638. Both have been great, as have all the J frame revolvers I have owned. I would go with the Model 642.

 

[j1]

I would choose the Smith but that was the question. The only time I might choose a Charter is the Bulldog.

 

[urbaneruralite]

The S&W is the better gun, but the Charter is a better value. You may also want to look at a Ruger LCR.

 

[jeepnik]

I own quite a few S&W revolvers (I always thought their semi auto sucked). Yet, I often carry a CA. Why? Because Charter Arms makes a left handed revolver.

 

[Panzerschwein]

Thanks for the replies all!

 

[Jim K]

IMHO, unless the dollar difference is critical, go with the S&W.

Jim

 

[gamestalker]

I don't like the CA's at all. I had an older one years back and it was junk. It certainly wasn't manufactured with the intention of being be shot regularly, not a good range gun in this respect.

OTOH, S&W's are built, and I use that term very specifically to imply they are stronger, far more precision workmanship, smoother actions, and are constructed to handle a good deal of range use with little concern of over working them. I have S&W's that have had thousands of full throttle loads run through them, and they still run as nice as the day they were built, if not even a bit smoother as a result.

So I say go with S&W, and don't bother to look back!

GS

 

[sixgunner455]

642, hands down, no question. I've carried mine for the last ten years, and I couldn't be happier with it. Not one problem, ever.

 

[buck460XVR]

For the minimal difference in price, the S&W wins hands down. Down the road, that same minimal difference in price will greatly increase should you ever wish to sell or trade. Even later on down the road, your heirs will fight over a Smith...not so much a C.A.

 

[gunsablazin]

Always buy the best quality weapon you can afford, it is a matter of life or death if you ever need it. I would get the S&W.

 

[David E]

If the two, the 642. If you have the money, get the Spegel high grips.

But if she likes the Charter significantly more, then buy that one.

 

[shafter]

Smith and Wesson snubs really aren't all that expensive. For me the choice would be easy. Smith and Wesson all the way.

 

[farm23]

If you want a 44 as I would CA is considerably less expensive. For 38's the difference is less. If I had the money I would go S&W but CA is a viable option.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

I voted S&W but my vote is on reputation alone, as I have never fired a Charter.

However, I have never heard a Smith owner say, "Dang I wish I would have gotten a Charter Arms instead of this POS Smith & Wesson."

I bet there are a few Charter owners who have said the opposite.

 

[blindhari]

I have both jframes and Charter On Duty. For carry, the way they fit my hand, the way they point shoot---I carry two On Duty Charters in a vest for a New York reload.
blindhari