I just got off the line with Charter 2000's CEO!

[gunfan]

I called Charter 2000,once again, today.

I told the secretary:

a) about the desire for a revolver in .45 Colt and

b) the return ot the .44 Bulldog with a 3" barrel.

Nick likes to listen to the shooting public. You can call him @ 1-203-922-1652 between the hours of 8:00 and 4:30 eastern standard time and give him your opinion. I called because I want him to earn money and serve the shooting community and police departments with durable and affordable revolvers.

Take the time to call Charter 2000. Nick is a wonderfully receptive man to those that are genuine in their hearts. Let's make the gun-owning community as strong as we can through mutual support of the industry, and the public

Scott

 

[MCgunner]

He should surf the BBSs to hear us gripe and beg.

+1 on the three inch. I want a 9mm in three inch if they come out. What I like about the longer tube as much as the extra velocity in calibers like .357 is the added sight radius. It sure shrinks the groups! No harder to carry IWB either.

 

[gunfan]

He should surf the BBSs to hear us gripe and beg.

+1 on the three inch. I want a 9mm in three inch if they come out. What I like about the longer tube as much as the extra velocity in calibers like .357 is the added sight radius. It sure shrinks the groups! No harder to carry IWB either.

Nick said that in 2006, at the SHOT show no less, you'll see a 4' and 6" barreled Bulldogs with both fixed and adjustable sights. In two months, we'll see them!

Scott

 

[carebear]

I can get 2" and 4" Smith's, Tauri, Ruger's and Rossi's anywhere.

3" is the market niche he can exploit right now for cheap. As has been said, if you aren't actually sticking it in a pocket, it is the best compromise barrel length for a holstered carry revolver.

Along with an actual "I"-sized (short cylinder length) alloy-framed receiver it is the quickest way for him to distinguish himself from everybody else out there.

Except for maybe a "D"-frame(ish), alloy, 6 shot, round butt .38 Spc (again with a 3" option).

Reintroducing the Bulldog is the knee-jerk best first step, but he should concentrate on doing things the big 3 aren't for the rest of the line if he wants to gain a business-sustaining following among a jaded buying public. Price point alone won't do it, innovation (or creative re-introduction of old faves) will.

 

[gunfan]

carebear:

I'll go along with that. A reintroduction of the "original" Charter Arms .44 Bulldog with a 3" barrel would, again, sell like hotcakes on a January morning!

The main reason that I had suggested the "I" frame was to revive a small revolver that, with modern metallurgy, could prove competitive with the "big three" and arm small-framed people as well as undercover narcotics agents with a potent backup piece. Uniformed officers could feel comfortable with an 8-ounce 9mm or .32 H&R Magnum aluminum-framed revolver a-la their "Off Duty revolver (with 5 and 6 shot capacities respectively). These would be wonderful companions for our ladies and gentlemen in the armed services to use in conjunction with their 9mm service automatic. All at an affordable price.

This is just four examples of the "I" frame's application. I am certain that you can think up more for yourself in short order. The market awaits!

Scott

 

[Old Fuff]

I am admitedly a big fan of 3 inch barrels, and I would note that prior to World War Two many so-called "pocket revolvers" came with barrels in the 3 to 3 1/2 inch range. S&W didn't start making hand ejector revolvers with 2 inch barrels until the middle 1930's.

However, while discussing this with one of the major revolver makers I was told that while 2 and 4 inch barrels were hot sellers, 3 inch was not. Apparently among the general gun-buying public the 2 inch size was seen as handy and "cool looking," while more experienced buyers of larger-framed guns prefered the 4 inch length. I was a bit suprised at this, but he had the sales numbers.

Be that as it may, I still maintain that outside of pocket, ankle and deep cover carry, anything a 2 incher can do a 3 inch will do better.

 

[Nobody]

If someone would make an I framed .32 mag with a 4 or 5" barrel, I'd be all over it like white on rice. I personally know of a few other people who would be all over that as well.

 

[Old Fuff]

Tell Taurus. They are (or were) going to make the revolver, but not in the barrel lengths you ask for. Original S&W I-frame revolvers came in lengths of 3 1/4, 4 1/4 and 6 inches. Colt Police Positive revolvers were 4, 5, and 6 inches in .32 Colt New Police (same as .32 S&W Long) and can be rechambered to .32 H&R Magnum. Both Colts and Smith & Wesson's can be found on the used market for reasnoable prices, and I believe that Ruger makes (or at least made) a SP-101/4" in .32 Magnum.

And there will be the forthcoming Charter Arms.

We are slowly getting there...

 

[thealien]

I have a Charter Bulldog Pug from the late 80's that still chugs along, and one of their old stainless .38 Off Duty revolvers. They are both good shooters and have at least 500 rounds apeice through them.

No, not as pretty by any means as one of my Smith & Wessons, or as classy as a nice Detective's Special...but they work.

I agree with you wheelgunslinger, I wish them luck, and would buy another Charter.

I love my .44 special bulldog pug 5 shot short barreled bobbed hammer rubber gripped pocket hand cannon!! You can see the 4 bullets in the cylinder and the one in that very short barrel removing any doubt that puppy is loaded. I paid $180 dollars for it used ten years ago and I am as happy with it today as I was when I bought it. I would not sell it.

 

[StrikeEagle]

Any idea of when we can realistically expect to see deliveries start?

 

[gunfan]

Some time either during, or after the February SHOT show, would be my guess.

What's nice about ALL of these revolvers, is that they will be built upon their Bulldog frame. It should be stout ehough to handle all three of their revolver cartridges without any difficulty. Remember: there will be stainless steel versions of these handguns too! Many a revolver-shooter's prayer will be answered in the coming year.

Happy 2006 to all!

Scott

 

[medmo]

I own two Undercover's, one Off Duty and two 44 spec. Bulldogs. The only one that is "new" is the SS, 2.5" bbl'd Bulldog. I like it better than my "classic" 3" bbl'd version and it totes around nicely in an IWB holster. The "classic" 3" bbl'd version occasionally pinches hard on the lower hip when sitting down. I stumbled across their website and realized they were still in business. The next day I called them to find out who is their distributors. I went down to my favorite gun store, checked out the price and had them order the new Bulldog for me. It is an excellent deal especially considering the price was less than $300. I have been very satisfied with both new and old Charter products. All that I own and have owned are impressive in the accuracy department. I have carried them in situations where I would have depended on the guns with my life. When I hear folks questioning their quality I don't understand. I think a lot of folks equate "price" and "quality" and feel if they aren't shelling out 1/2 a month's salary for something then it must not be any good. I wish them all the luck in the world and sincerely hope they do well and stay in business. Maybe they can increase popularity and sales by jacking up the price of their guns by a couple hundred bucks....

 

[rfurtkamp]

Nick told me that he has so few returns on his products that it is unreal. It may be wise to give his newer products their due.

He's had so few returns because the guns are flatly vaporware at this point.

I gave up on trying to get one for myself despite lots of claims over the last year or two. It's been silly.

The minute my distributors have some, I'll change my tune -but demos at the SHOT show don't translate into product I can hold in my hand or sell to customers.

For now, I'm just glad I still have my S&W 296s. They're discontinued but at least I have them in my possession.

 

[gunfan]

Worry not!

Charter 2000 will come back, in spades!

Scott

 

[medmo]

"The minute my distributors have some, I'll change my tune "

Are you saying you can't find a distributor who stocks these guns? I provided a list of distributors that Charter Arms gave me over the phone to my dealer and within a few days "Bingo" I have the revolver I was needing.

 

[magsnubby]

I told him of peoples' trepidation concerning such issues. He assured me that these were being addressed. I told him that we wanted to see the Charter Arms of the 1980's revived yet again. He assured me that it would be.

Scott

I sure hope so. Between my dad and myself, we've owned and shot several of the first generation Charter Arms guns. I've always loved those little guns. I'm really waiting for those .44 specials.

 

[georgeduz]

what ever happen to the 44spl bulldog,i like that one.

 

[GaryP]

I will definitely take a look at the new 4" & 6" .44spl Bulldogs -- NO BARREL SHROUDS PLEASE!

A Stainless 3" .44Spl Bulldog back in the catalog would be a welcome addition, also.

I purchased my Charter Arms 3" .44 Spl Bulldog NIB along with a Charter Arms #400 series holster back in early 1980. Fit and Finish is far superior to anything I've seen from Charco or Charter 2000 to date! It is my primary CCW these days loaded with Georgia Arms 200gr. Gold Dot HP's (850 FPS).

Hopefully the new models will be the best of the breed.

 

[gunfan]

they have 2" barreled models. I still have my 3" 1991 stainless Bulldog. As the old poker player once said, "I like what I got".

Scott

 

[gunfan]

I have been exchanging Instant messages with Massad Ayoob

I told him of inspiring Nick of Charter 2000 to replicate the "I" frame in 9 X 19 and he is all for it! This would be a HOT seller in civilian circles as well as police and military venues. Massad said that HE HIMSELF would be interested in such a development.

You can't get a more "ringing" endorsement than that!

Scott

 

[rfurtkamp]

Are you saying you can't find a distributor who stocks these guns.

In any quantity, no. RSR finally got some stainless Bulldogs, but customers want the blued ones. That's after a year of having nothing in sporadic checks and being on a variety of waiting lists.

Ditto Bangers and the other big ones.

 

[gunfan]

By the way...

If Charter 2000 decides to revive the "I" frame in 9 x 19, the revolver will also handle the .380 Auto Cartridge. The .22 WMRF will handle the .22 WRF (currently being produced by CCI-Speer) and the .32 H&R Magnum will also handle the .32 S&W Long (.32 Colt New Police) and the .32 S&W to boot.

Charter 2000's current "Off-Duty" aluminum-alloy frame revolver chambered in .38 S&W Special weighs in at 12.5 ounces (empty). Can you imagine a 9mm Parabellum/.380 Auto Cartridge revolver weighing in at between 9 and 9.5 ounces? the "fly weight" all steel frame would still come in between 11-12 ounces. Now THAT"S a lightweight, compact revolver!

Scott

 

[wbond]

Regarding 3" barrel .32 revolver pocket guns

I have no problem putting a Taurus small frame .38 special with 3" barrel into my general size coat pocket. It fits well and does not show.

However, I can't handle the recoil due to arthritis and screws holding my hand together.

I'm hoping for a .32 Long or .32 Mag revolver with 3" barrel, hopefully not too light. Around 20 to 23 oz would be perfect for me to shoot .32 Longs. I suppose 17 to 18 oz would also work for .32 Longs.

I just would shoot .32 Longs and not .32 Mags in a gun this size. To handle the .32 Mag I need a larger heavier revolver like Ruger SP-101, which I also own and can shoot.

The small frame .38 I mentioned I can no longer shoot due to hand problems.

My point is that a small frame .32 or .38 with 3" barrel fits fine in a coat pocket. It won't fit in a pants pocket with a 3" barrel, but I wouldn't want the 2" in my pants either (uncomfortable).

So a 3" barrel is not just for holsters, it's also great for coat pockets.

Thanks

 

[wbond]

3" barrel .22 mag revolver

I'd really like to see nice, small frame .32 (Long or Mag) and .22 Mag revolvers with 3" barrels.

The .32 revolver with 3" barrel topic has already been covered.

So I'd like to add that a .22 Mag small frame revolver with 3" barrel would be infineately better than the 2" barrels now offered by S&W, Taurus, Charter Arms, and possibly others.

The .22 Mag revolver is ideal for very recoil sensitive people wanting a light, small gun. The problem with .22 Mag is that it is loaded with slow burning powder for rifles. It is not loaded for shorter handgun barrels. Therefore, the .22 Mag velocity suffers severely from a 2" barrel. The 3" barrel would largely correct this while providing more sight radius, not adding much weight, and still be able to fit in a coat pocket.

From a 3" barrel the .22 Mag would have enough velocity to be a serious weapon, especially with regard to penetration. From a 2" barrel the .22 Mag is very wussy for defense.

I believe that in .22 Mag a 3" barrel makes it a viable 3 shot stopper while the lightest gun that a recoil sensitive person can easily fire and conceal.

In 2" barrel, the .22 Mag is almost useless for defense. The ballistic difference and accuracy difference are extreme between the 2" and 3" barrel. I don't like the 4" barrels because who can conceal one?

 

[fastbolt]

Well, it remains to be seen if the latest reincarnation of the CA guns are worth the time & money ...

My brief interlude with CA guns was more of a dalliance from my experience with the rock solid dependibility of my many Ruger revolvers. I wasn't particularly a S&W revolver enthusiast until after I entered L/E, and was forced to carry a S&W revolver. I'd grown up being a Ruger revolver shooter & owner ...

I had a couple of CA Bulldogs chambered in .44 Special, 1 blued & 1 stainless, and while one of them would seemingly function and fire most of the time, although sometimes with erratic accuracy with a couple of different factory rounds, the other one would consistently lock up. It repeatedly locked up even during dry-fire.

I got rid of the blued one that wouldn't pattern for me ... and focused on the stainless one, hoping the glitch in functioning was something easily repaired. It exhibited decent accuracy when it would fire.

I never tried to "magnum-ize" the ammunition, either, favoring the old W-W 200gr STHP and the mild Federal LSWCHP (really more of a dimpled nose, rather than a true hollowpoint). I remember being told that there was a bearing surface issue that W-W had to resolve with the early .44 Special STHP, so that may have been involved with some of the accuracy issues with the other (blued) Bulldog ... but the Fed LSWCHP and some mild LSWC 'target' handloads my dad produced did well enough, and were mild enough, for what I was being told was a 'light duty' .44 revolver. None of those loads should've strained the gun.

I returned it to the factory for repair at least twice, and I thought I remembered finally trying a third time in desperation (it's been many years). The last time it was returned, with the same sort of "We fixed it" letter, I picked it up out of the shipping box and started dry-firing it at the store counter (they handled shipping for me at that time). It didn't make it all the way around the cylinder before the cylinder seized and the gun locked up tight.

I didn't get much sympathy from the gunshop folks, although they did a bit of head nodding, seemingly because it was a CA gun. They had a seemingly bored gunsmith, however, who apparently enjoyed a challenge, so they agreed to take it in on trade toward anything I cared to purchase. I dropped it back in the shipping box without a second thought, selected something of better quality to purchase, and never looked back ...

I've known a couple of folks who owned and enjoyed older Undercover .38's, but they only shot the guns sparingly. Ditto another guy I knew who owned a blued CA Bulldog, and admittedly only fired it a couple of times in several years.

There are a lot of modern, reliable, robust handguns, backed up by good-to-excellent customer service, available in the current market place. I imagine there's always going to be room for another company that can offer more of the same.

Time will tell if this is one of those instances.

I won't be rushing down to try a 3rd one, though.