Man, you two just pushed my "Charter Button" by acknowledging their value, based on EXPERIENCE, rather than popular conjecture.
Charter is my all-time favorite revolver brand and I could write a BOOK about their virtues, though it might not be a very good book.
Anyone who's a fan of the Ruger Security Six line, the Redhawks or the GPs and SPs need to sit down and take a look inside a Charter.Charter came out in '64, Ruger hit the DA scene in, what '73? No one's kidding me based on WB Ruger's reputation and the distinct DNA that he didn't rip off the design from Charter. Granted, he did a marvelous job of it, but at times OVER-did that marvel. Charter was doing in 1964 what most companies are just getting around to within the past ten years. If you see a Stratford or Bridgeport-production Charter - GRAB IT! After that, thisngs were sketchy - hit or miss, but still a solid design, which even the penny-pinchers couldn't ruin completely.
Tip: the early 3" stainless 44 Buldogs has STEEL grip frames, not aluminum. I f you find one, even if it's ragged out, grab it and salvage the grip frame. Their earlier bobbed DA/SA hammer is t he berries - grab any of those you can find.
I was saving for another SP101 (NOT current production) and saw the new" 3" stainless 357 Mag Pug in "high polish" and completely forgot the SP101 and grabbed the Mag Pug. Other than the grotesque, clumsy-looking barrel, it's really a nice-looking gun. I HATE their rubber grips, pachmyer Compacts are too bulky and finding the older, fuller "skinny grips" (the squared-off,checkered ones) has proven fruitless (for under $40). The "adjustable" rear sight (one of their not-so-hot points) were just wrong for that gun, but I overlooked it and am working on a fixed version I can install in its place.
That aside, this is the first Charter I've ever had to return to the factory. The integral front sight, with its amorphous figure, was WAY short - filed down at the factory, for whatever reason. I assume to accommodate the new, boutique "personal defense" ammo? Anyway, the SA trigger was bad - like a two-stage, which was another first for SA triggers on Charters for me. The DA trigger rivals the Rossi 720s (which were the best I've bought, DA trigger wise, and yes, I've owned some "vintage" S&Ws. They replace the barrel to get a whole front sight - still not enough. I'm fixing that.
This gun had a LOT of things just not right, the worst of which was cylinder binding (another first for me with Charter) and I ended up resolving that the the pawl was forcing the cylinder forward, against the breech of the barrel. Shimmed the cylinder and it's golden, but I shouldn'yt have had to do that. Their new means of retaining the cylinder on the crane-barrel is BAD. There wasn't a thing in the world wrong with the original design, but now, they use a split-ring nesting in annular grooves, corresponding to one another on the crane-barrel and inside the cylinder axis bore. How cleaver! Except that if you drop this revolver while the cylinder is open (think hasty reload in a dire situation), the cylinder can be jarred loose! Terrible, terrible design.
This new Mag Pug outshoots my 4" stainless Service Six by about a half inch at 20 yards, ugly barrel and indistinct front sight outline not withstanding. Handy, not overly heavy, fits my hand better than any other than the Rossi 720, which had the BEST rubber grip I've ever used, but I'd be hesitant to buy another of this model even if I could find one. BUT< I've owned a LOT of Ruger SAs and DAs over the years - and have returned more Rugers to the factory than all others combined. My first, only, last NEW S&W (4" 624) would not work right out of the box - cylinder bound up - and was returned with ten listed defects. They fixed a couple and I ended up fixing the rest. I've never returned a H&R or Rossi revolver, and hadn't returned a Charter until this last one.
If Charter brought back the tapered 3" and 4" barrels (full underlug and ejector rod shroud be damned) I'd jump on them in spite of this last one. I'd probably even expand into the 32 Mag in a 4" and own a 22 again - if I could have them with the tapered barrels. The design is SOLID - just ask Ruger.
To be fair, significant bits of the Charter design had roots in High Standard revolver design too. Humble origins for for the best, toughest DAs ever made (the Security/Service/Speed Six line), but it works. Ruger just beefed everything up and made them easier to work on, which is great, but how often does one really need to get that far into the guts of a functional DA that it HAS to be that easy? Charters are a PITA to put back together, but do it once to clean and tune a but and you don't need to be "in there" every time you shoot it.
Charter service, based on my one recent experience, is VERY good, by the way. Ruger has been good with one exception (two, actually) but that's another story and I believe they have fixed that.