Charter Bulldog?

[azmark]

Has anyone gotten one of the newer Bulldog .44s from Charter? I'd like to hear some honest opinions on the gun, good and bad. Jeff Quinn liked the one he tested but I've read some negative stories, too.

[Bill in Oregon]

I don't know if Charter has ever resolved its quality control/design issues. I lusted for one of the old Bulldogs back in the 70s but never found one at a reasonable price. Lots of folks complained about the recoil.

[azmark]

I'm not sure it could be any worse than the S&W 442 of my buddy's. I was surprised at first but when you get used to it, it's not a bad shooter at all.

[AJMD429]

No complaints with mine - I added a pair of Crimson Trace grips, and it's been my CCW piece for three years or so. Not a 'target' gun (fixed sights), and not as solid as a Redhawk (nor as big, nor as heavy).

All I ask of it is that it go bang, every time, not rattle loose with a reasonable amount of practice, not be too rust-prone, and handle decent self-defense ammo. It does all those things perfectly. Some of the criticisms I hear about them come from people who want a super-accurate, impossible-to-break, bear-stopper. If they want that, they should get a .44 Mag (at least), not a .44 Special, and get a Redhawk or Freedom Arms instead.

[azmark]

I've seen where people say theirs shot loose after 1 box of ammo. One guy posted a picture of his with a bore that looked like it was cut by hand with a chisel. I know you have to take these things with a grain of salt but it still makes me nervous.

[AJMD429]

I've seen where people say theirs shot loose after 1 box of ammo. One guy posted a picture of his with a bore that looked like it was cut by hand with a chisel. I know you have to take these things with a grain of salt but it still makes me nervous.

I wouldn't shoot lots of magnum-wannabe loads out of mine (not sure what the point of that is anyway), because if a .44 Special Silvertip hollowpoint won't terminate the threat, then I either a) shouldn't have been there, or b) should have been carrying my M1-A instead. I never bothered to look in the bore of mine; it is a gun designed for keeping shots in a 6" circle at 15-20 yards, not a target pistol - why would I care if there were tooling marks in the bore...? I think people are either longing for the hand-crafted precision of the older Smith & Wessons (which I doubt were any stronger, and if I had one of those valualble blued masterpieces, I'd not tuck it in my sweaty waistband for CCW anyway), or the strength of a Ruger (which would weigh twice as much). My Charter Arms has only about 500 rounds through it, but shows no sign of premature wear; (if it did, I'd send it to the factory, as I hear their customer service is now quite good).

Now if Ruger made a .44 Special on their old Speed-Six frame, I'd seriously consider it as an alternative, but that's because I don't mind carrying a 'heavy' gun. The only alternative I considered was a Taurus .44 Special, but they were not to be found when I was looking, and I doubt there's a significant difference.

I should add that although where I live 'deep' concealment isn't needed, and heavier guns don't bother me much, I'd not carry a .357 Mag or .44 Mag for CCW, due to the fact that if I had to shoot one indoors I'd likely have permanent hearing damage, as would any close bystander, plus the 'political' factor of using a 'magnum' making one look like a vigilante. A .45 ACP or .44 Special are about perfect, and to me the only difference is whether I want a semiauto or revolver. If I carry a .45 ACP, I want it ready without chambering, and I've not found a 'condition-one' holster for a wide-body 1911 that i completely like, so I choose the .44 Special.

[Blaine]

I've seen where people say theirs shot loose after 1 box of ammo. One guy posted a picture of his with a bore that looked like it was cut by hand with a chisel. I know you have to take these things with a grain of salt but it still makes me nervous.

I wouldn't shoot lots of magnum-wannabe loads out of mine (not sure what the point of that is anyway), because if a .44 Special Silvertip hollowpoint won't terminate the threat, then I either a) shouldn't have been there, or b) should have been carrying my M1-A instead. I never bothered to look in the bore of mine; it is a gun designed for keeping shots in a 6" circle at 15-20 yards, not a target pistol - why would I care if there were tooling marks in the bore...? I think people are either longing for the hand-crafted precision of the older Smith & Wessons (which I doubt were any stronger, and if I had one of those valualble blued masterpieces, I'd not tuck it in my sweaty waistband for CCW anyway), or the strength of a Ruger (which would weigh twice as much). My Charter Arms has only about 500 rounds through it, but shows no sign of premature wear; (if it did, I'd send it to the factory, as I hear their customer service is now quite good).

Now if Ruger made a .44 Special on their old Speed-Six frame, I'd seriously consider it as an alternative, but that's because I don't mind carrying a 'heavy' gun. The only alternative I considered was a Taurus .44 Special, but they were not to be found when I was looking, and I doubt there's a significant difference.

I should add that although where I live 'deep' concealment isn't needed, and heavier guns don't bother me much, I'd not carry a .357 Mag or .44 Mag for CCW, due to the fact that if I had to shoot one indoors I'd likely have permanent hearing damage, as would any close bystander, plus the 'political' factor of using a 'magnum' making one look like a vigilante. A .45 ACP or .44 Special are about perfect, and to me the only difference is whether I want a semiauto or revolver. If I carry a .45 ACP, I want it ready without chambering, and I've not found a 'condition-one' holster for a wide-body 1911 that i completely like, so I choose the .44 Special.

I've not found a 'condition-one' holster for a wide-body 1911 that i like...

Remind me to tell you what I found...very slick, lined to make it smooth, and the snap perfectly blocks the hammer...Love it....it was about 150, though.

[Catshooter]

If you search for it you'll find a fairly long and very imformative thread here about the Bullldog. I found it very helpful.

Charter's customer service, for me, couldn't be better. I bought a stainless one that had spent long enough in a leaky car trunk to pit the cylinder and frame pretty well. Still worked, but would tie itself up every now and then. Sent it to Charter and for $49.95 they replaced about six parts including the cylinder and it works perfectly now.

I can recomend them without reservation. I have no connection with them or their products.


Cat

[Jeff Quinn]

I not only liked the 44 Bulldog that I reviewed, I bought it, and also bought five of the new blued old style 44 Bulldogs a couple of months ago.

Jeff

[azmark]

Jeff, are you talking about the 'Classic' model with the 3" barrel? I thought they weren't released yet. I've searched and can't find anyone selling them.

[Jeff Quinn]

Jeff, are you talking about the 'Classic' model with the 3" barrel? I thought they weren't released yet. I've searched and can't find anyone selling them.

That's the one.

The production guns have sybthetic rubber grips, but other than that, it is like the old 44s.



jeff

[Pitchy]

Three of us had the old models years ago and loved them, very accurate and nice to carry. I`m happy to see Charter bring back a favorite and when the opportunity presents itself may have to get one.
Thanks for the update

[azmark]

I also wanted to ask if your other Bulldogs are capable of the kind of accuracy you reported in your review. Not necessary for defense, I know, but it would make it a lot of fun when I go out and shoot tin cans.

[Jeff Quinn]

I also wanted to ask if your other Bulldogs are capable of the kind of accuracy you reported in your review. Not necessary for defense, I know, but it would make it a lot of fun when I go out and shoot tin cans.

I have not tested the new ones for accuracy, but they all seem to do better than I can shoot them.

jeff

[Pete44ru]

I don't know if Charter has ever resolved its quality control/design issues. I lusted for one of the old Bulldogs back in the 70s but never found one at a reasonable price. Lots of folks complained about the recoil.

I've seen where people say theirs shot loose after 1 box of ammo. One guy posted a picture of his with a bore that looked like it was cut by hand with a chisel.

I can speak to both questions, having owned/shot a .44 BD in the late 70's, and currently own/shoot/carry a new stainless .44 BD Pug - and having had a few personal conversations with the current CA Prexy, Nick Ekers, who (believe it or not) actually answered my phone call to CA Customer Service one day.

I have two current Charters - the .44 BD & a 4" Target Pathfinder Dual Cylinder LR/WMR - and have put about 500 rounds through the .44, and a little over 500 of each chambering through the Dual Cylinder gun, both with the sole issue of the front sights being in need of a contrasting paint ( I used orange) for sighting visibility, since they are the same material/color as the rest of the gun.

FWIW, the reason I sold my .44 BD, shortly after I bought it in the late 70's, was that it was VERY hard to control - not an issue with my new BD Pug, maybe due to the rubber bumpers & barrel underlug adding weight.

Here's the latest .44 BD Pug



As for resolution, from the horse's mouth (Nick Eckers, CA President): "My goal is to make the best guns we possibly can, but know that human beings are making these guns, so things sometimes can and do go wrong. If that occurs, I will stand behind my product 100%, and try to turn around any warranty repair within 20 days."

To wit: I got a prototype Dual Cylinder Pathfinder 6 months before it was a CA catalog item, as a warranty replacement for a single cylinder .22 Mag-only Pathfinder, with a profuse apology from Mr. Ekers for having to return my gun twice under warranty w/o resolution (hard extraction).

Here's The Pathfinder, with older Target grips, accompanied by a 70's .22 Mag 3" Pathfinder:



.

[azmark]

Jeff, are you talking about the 'Classic' model with the 3" barrel? I thought they weren't released yet. I've searched and can't find anyone selling them.

That's the one.

The production guns have sybthetic rubber grips, but other than that, it is like the old 44s.



jeff

I've been meaning to ask since the Charter site has no photos of the Classic Bulldog yet, is it the same as the old one with the soldered-on sights or does it have the new barrel with built-in sights? I couldn't tell if your photo was the new model or the old model.

[dogngun]

Not a Bulldog, but I just got my first Charter Arms revolver, a new Off Duty 5 shot .38 Spl, alloy frame, stainless barrel, cylinder and internals. It is THE MOST ACCURATE 2" revolver I have ever shot in over 45 years of shooting handguns, including my Smiths. I can't tell you how favorably impressed I am with this little gun. What ever problems arose in the older versions have been fixed. This is a very solid revolver, tight and well designed-the barrel, front sight, and extractor shroud are all one piece, screwed into the frame. The gun locks up very tight when the trigger is pulled through.

I like this gun so much, I just ordered a second one. These are the only 2 NEW handguns I have bought in about 30 years. My Smiths now stay home, and may all get sold off.

mark

[junkbug]

I've wanted a 4" .44 Special blued Target Buldog for a while. Don't know if I would buy a new one with a 3" barrel and fixed sights. I might be tempted though.