I put about 70 rounds through the new Charter Arms Undercoverette over the weekend. For the sake of comparison, I brought along three other revolvers:
- my one-year-old Ruger LCR (.38 Spl),
- a 1922 Colt Police Positive (.38 Spl) and,
- a Mid '80s Taurus Model 66 (.357 mag) in stainless w/ a 6" barrel.
Here's a quick synopsis of my impressions:
CONSTRUCTION QUALITY: By the time you add credit card fees, shipping and local FFL fee to my GunBroker bid, it cost me $373.72 delivered. The real test of a weapon's construction is over time, but as of now, it seems like a REALLY well made gun for that price. There's nothing outstanding about it, but it's nicely finished, and solid in the hand. Nothing about it feels sloppy, flimsy or cheap.
TRIGGER: As good as I'd hoped, and much better than I feared it might be. The best compliment I can give is that I repeatedly shot it side-by-side with the LCR (which I think has perhaps the best DAO trigger among revolvers I'll ever be able to afford), and nothing too negative stood out. The pull is heavier than the LCR (I haven't put a gauge on it yet to find out how much), but switching between the two, it feels suprisingly similar shooting DA. The Undercoverette's DA pull is long but linear, with no noticeable step points. There's some trigger stack, but it's not objectionable, and it has a predictable break. It's a little less smooth than the Ruger, but again not remarkably so. Remember, this gun is brand new out of the box. I would expect a few hundred trigger pulls to smooth things out. Unlike the LCR, I also have the option of cocking the hammer on the Undercoverette. Shooting single action, there's not much to say: put some pressure on the trigger and it goes bang, just as you'd expect.
SIGHTS: The sites are typical snubnose, in other words pretty rudimentary. Even though they're similar to the LCR, I had a bit of a time trying to get a feel for them. I was shooting at 5 yards and 9 yards, and at both distances kept landing rounds a few degrees low. To compensate, I had to completely cover my intended target area with the front site, which is neither intuitive for me, or conducive to an accurate site picture. Overall, I wasn't as accurate with the Undercoverette as with the LCR or the Taurus — but I have a lot more experience shooting those — and was on a par with the old Colt (I have very little experience with the PP's tall, thin, old fashioned front sight blade, and it's a 93 year-old weapon). I was still putting lead well within the vital areas of the silhouettes at those distances, which is all that really matters.
RECOIL: This was the main thing I wanted to investigate. I shot the four loads shown above: one S&W Long, three H&R Magnums. [Side note: The average cost was about 69¢ per round, but I bought a lot more more LRN than hollow point ammo. That's, what, twice the price of .45ACP or 9MM?]
The recoil is definitely light, and I found negligible difference between the various rounds, even the Long and Magnums. The kick is much lighter than .38 Special, although nowhere near as dramatic as the difference between standard .38 Special rounds and .357 Mags. From experience, the LCR will begin to bother my wrist within about 15-20 rounds. I could've shot any of those .32 rounds all night long with no discomfort. As it was, my wrist was aching after an hour, but my defective right wrist was stinging early on after just three .357 rounds, even with Model 66's heft, longer barrel and thick rubber grips. Another thing to note is that the .32s are not terribly loud. WAAAY quieter than .22WMR! I would not be too hesitant to shoot them sans ear protection when a threatening situation demanded it.
TL;DR: It's a great gun for the money and I am very pleased with my purchase. The .32 H&R Magnum is a great compromise between comfort and firepower, even though I will need time to get accurate with it and the rounds definitely cost more.
