Any opinions on Charter Arms new "Boomer"?

[Brutus57]

Let's keep the conversation on a higher plane, shall we? I'll admit that my stainless 1991 Charter Arms Bulldog has a limited range, It did save my life on December 25/26, 2005. I was attacked by a man with a machete. I thank the good Lord Jesus that I didn't have to shoot him, but had he not surrendered, I would have killed the man.

The 2" barrel and Magnaporting may make this five-shot, snub-nosed, big bore manageable, but I wouldn't want to attempt to carry a .44 Special with a barrel that is this short!

25/26?, the guy attacked you for 2 days...that must have been some fencing match!

Brutus Out

 

[Captain O]

It happened at 11:45 pm and the encounter continued on for 45 minutes, until I was dismissed by the Clark County Sheriff's Deputy that answered my 911 call.

 

[Brutus57]

It happened at 11:45 pm and the encounter continued on for 45 minutes, until I was dismissed by the Clark County Sheriff's Deputy that answered my 911 call.

Ahh, I see, hope you made mid rats!, Capt! Glad it worked out.

Brutus Out

 

[Captain O]

Scared the living crap out of me! I was securing a construction site when a 64-year-old man was scheduled to perform work on heavy equipment that was on site. I wasn't notified of his schedule. When I approached the man and asked him for his identification, the man pulled a machete from behind the front seat of his Forest Green Ford Taurus. I produced my Bulldog and ordered him to the ground, face down palms up and legs crossed.

After calling the County Sheriff's Department, I had to await their arrival.

Not fun.

 

[Certaindeaf]

I certainly didn't mean to seemingly slam this mighty .44.
More of a play on how it seems most everyone these days thinks that all handguns don't need sights.. since they just close their eyes and empty it as fast as they can at three yard and call it good.
I'd sport one of these handguns.. if one with sights wasn't available. Heck, I'd use a rock.
For some years around 25 years ago, I carried the short barreled CA stainless .44 everywhere. Had some close scrapes with it and lots of fun. I loaded the long discontinued Lee (you had to make them yourself) 320gr SWC with way more Red Dot under it than I'd care to share. Three inch groups @25yds easy with anything.
I'm glad they still exist, though again, I'd pick the one with sights given a choice.


Fitz

Oh, I saw the "Fitz" after I posted (it was a note for me).. check out Fitz and his sawed off .45's back in the stone-age..

 

[Captain O]

Certaindeaf: Charter Arms is currently building the "Original" .44 Special Bulldog in all it's glory. If you want one, it can be ordered and obtained rather easily. I still have my Stainless 3" 1991 edition and am glad of it.

Go to their website and order what you want.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Certaindeaf: Charter Arms is currently building the "Original" .44 Special Bulldog in all it's glory. If you want one, it can be ordered and obtained rather easily. I still have my Stainless 3" 1991 edition and am glad of it.

Go to their website and order what you want.

I know. I said "I'm glad they still exist".
They're pretty good for throwing heavy sharply angled lead.

 

[Captain O]

Daddy had one of the original "Undercover" .38 Specials. I wish that I had his old revolver again. While these are a "carry a lot, shoot a little" proposition, they can be quite handy when the fecal matter impacts the air motivator.

My stainless Bulldog saved my life. I can't complain.

 

[Certaindeaf]

I think you said that.

 

[billdeserthills]

I used to sell many of the charter arms guns, but they seem too cheaply made to me.
I really don't like whatever the material they call 'stainless', either. It looks like it has
a bunch of pot-metal in it. I bought an old pre-taurus stainless steel Rossi in 44 special
You can likely find one of the old rossi guns for about the same amount, at least I was
convinced that was real stainless steel

Actually the old Charter Arms guns do look like real stainless steel

 

[Captain O]

I used to sell many of the charter arms guns, but they seem too cheaply made to me.
I really don't like whatever the material they call 'stainless', either. It looks like it has
a bunch of pot-metal in it. I bought an old pre-taurus stainless steel Rossi in 44 special
You can likely find one of the old rossi guns for about the same amount, at least I was
convinced that was real stainless steel

Actually the old Charter Arms guns do look like real stainless steel

I can darned well guarantee that my 1991 Charter Arms is made of stainless steel. I'm not too worried about it working when I call upon it.

 

[Pandaz3]

My Pitbulls are fairly new manufacture, seem well built to me, not S&W good, but good just the same. I would call mine stainless.

 

[U8395279]

The 2" barrel and Magnaporting may make this five-shot, snub-nosed, big bore manageable, but I wouldn't want to attempt to carry a .44 Special with a barrel that is this short!

Not to mention how very loud the gun would be, with that short a barrel, with Magnaporting on top of that! That pistol is for someone that wants to either shoot very little, or go deaf.

.

 

[U8395279]

I have two Charter Arms, five Ruger, one Taurus, one Colt, one Heritage, one NAA, and two S&W revolvers. I like all of them. The Colt, Heritage, and one Ruger are 22's and just for fun primarily. The NAA was my EDC for a long time and often a backup with Magnum loads. but it is a single action five shooter that takes eons to reload if you are in a hurry. I keep the S&W 38 in my pickup, the Taurus 357 in the john, the Charter Arms .40 is on the bed stand and gets fondled every night. I want it to know that I will depend on it first to get me to my AR if there is a bump in the night. With revolvers I won't trust them until they have 100% score regarding going bang, with two boxes of different ammo.
I have one Charter in 40 S&W and the other in 9MM they get to shoot any ammo that I have tried in two separate pistols with poor results. Revolvers are less finicky about ammunition usually. Primers sometimes are an exception. I am looking to buy and have had on order for three months the Nitride version of the 45 ACP Pitbull. I am a Charter Arms Fanboy. Are they as pretty as my Ruger 6" GP100 or 6 1/2" S&W 629? No they are not, but they are durable, reliable, reasonably accurate and on the big side revolvers

I think the OP's 44 question is good, I would certainly own one, but my priority is that Nitride 45.

The 44 Special is too old and archaic of a caliber to use in the 21st Century. There is such a wider variety of top quality self defense ammo available in .40 S&W or .45 ACP compared to the meager options available in 44 Special. I see absolutely ZERO advantage in shooting 44 Special these days. It has nothing but disadvantages, in my opinion.

So if one did have to get one of these revolvers, I'm with you that the .40 S&W and .45 ACP would be the most desirable way to go.

On the other hand, though, revolvers themselves are now rather archaic to use for self-defense. The military started switching to semiauto handguns over a century ago, and they certainly took over the law enforcement market before the end of the 20th Century.

My Walther PPS in .40 S&W costs roughly the same as a PitBull in .40 S&W. And it only weighs one ounce more unloaded. But it is much more ergonomic and easy to shoot accurately than any snub revolver. And its standard mag holds 6 rounds, giving it 6 + 1 capacity: two more than the Pitbull or Bulldog. Dramatically thinner too, making it much easier to carry concealed.

And my PPS only has a 6 lb trigger pull compared to the 11 pound DA pull on the Charter Arms pistols. Such heavy trigger pulls also make shooting accurately difficult to do. And my PPS even has front and rear sights on it.

So personally, for myself, I would never in a blue moon consider one of these pistols. As I think that a good compact semiauto in .40 S&W is a much better choice for concealed carry.

I have left revolvers to history and the past.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Yeabut will those cute little gats throw wrist-breaking 320gr SWC's or huge payloads of birdshot? lol

 

[Bon Sauvage]

I sure wish there was a way to "unlike" certain posts without having to "like" them in the first place.

 

[Pandaz3]

The 44 Special is too old and archaic of a caliber to use in the 21st Century. There is such a wider variety of top quality self defense ammo available in .40 S&W or .45 ACP compared to the meager options available in 44 Special. I see absolutely ZERO advantage in shooting 44 Special these days. It has nothing but disadvantages, in my opinion.

So if one did have to get one of these revolvers, I'm with you that the .40 S&W and .45 ACP would be the most desirable way to go.

On the other hand, though, revolvers themselves are now rather archaic to use for self-defense. The military started switching to semiauto handguns over a century ago, and they certainly took over the law enforcement market before the end of the 20th Century.

My Walther PPS in .40 S&W costs roughly the same as a PitBull in .40 S&W. And it only weighs one ounce more unloaded. But it is much more ergonomic and easy to shoot accurately than any snub revolver. And its standard mag holds 6 rounds, giving it 6 + 1 capacity: two more than the Pitbull or Bulldog. Dramatically thinner too, making it much easier to carry concealed.

And my PPS only has a 6 lb trigger pull compared to the 11 pound DA pull on the Charter Arms pistols. Such heavy trigger pulls also make shooting accurately difficult to do. And my PPS even has front and rear sights on it.

So personally, for myself, I would never in a blue moon consider one of these pistols. As I think that a good compact semiauto in .40 S&W is a much better choice for concealed carry.

I have left revolvers to history and the past.


View attachment 304892

I don't carry my Pitbulls, they are on the bed stand, on the computer, by the TV remote. These guns are pretty big, definitely not 'J' frame size, not really conducive to concealed carry, but as a snubbie they are handy around the furniture. I carry a semi-auto, a Springfield XD45 SC Mod 2, or a Glock 29 with a over garment, but I will pocket carry a Glock 33 in the very near future (Waiting on the holster) I do not like IWB carry, but I am equipped for it if need be. I like and carry semi-autos for the same reasons you do, but I still have revolvers and I see the merit of a revolver that shoots semi-auto ammo, I would buy a 44 special, it is a great round if you reload. I only occasionally see them on the shelf. I already have a 44 Magnum, a 629, and it can shoot 44 special so I guess I should buy some ammo and shoot it up, but I have too many irons in the fire.

 

[Captain O]

The 44 Special is too old and archaic of a caliber to use in the 21st Century. There is such a wider variety of top quality self defense ammo available in .40 S&W or .45 ACP compared to the meager options available in 44 Special. I see absolutely ZERO advantage in shooting 44 Special these days. It has nothing but disadvantages, in my opinion.

So if one did have to get one of these revolvers, I'm with you that the .40 S&W and .45 ACP would be the most desirable way to go.

On the other hand, though, revolvers themselves are now rather archaic to use for self-defense. The military started switching to semiauto handguns over a century ago, and they certainly took over the law enforcement market before the end of the 20th Century.

My Walther PPS in .40 S&W costs roughly the same as a PitBull in .40 S&W. And it only weighs one ounce more unloaded. But it is much more ergonomic and easy to shoot accurately than any snub revolver. And its standard mag holds 6 rounds, giving it 6 + 1 capacity: two more than the Pitbull or Bulldog. Dramatically thinner too, making it much easier to carry concealed.

And my PPS only has a 6 lb trigger pull compared to the 11 pound DA pull on the Charter Arms pistols. Such heavy trigger pulls also make shooting accurately difficult to do. And my PPS even has front and rear sights on it.

So personally, for myself, I would never in a blue moon consider one of these pistols. As I think that a good compact semiauto in .40 S&W is a much better choice for concealed carry.

I have left revolvers to history and the past.


View attachment 304892

If (and that's a big if) these revolvers are so "outmoded" why are people buying, and using them? I have carried the 3" version with consummate confidence and am certain that they can do the job. Evidently you haven't trained sufficiently with these handguns to have mastered them. Would you care to try standing in as a target? I didn't think so.

Your lack of training/skill doesn't render these revolvers useless.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Not knocking any ONE revolver! Our Aircrew carried little smith stubbies with no sights and they were fine for what was expected of them! Some of our guys switched to the bulldogs so that they had better arms while still looking like what was issued! Kept the non involved clueless as to what they were doing!

 

[U8395279]

If (and that's a big if) these revolvers are so "outmoded" why are people buying, and using them? I have carried the 3" version with consummate confidence and am certain that they can do the job. Evidently you haven't trained sufficiently with these handguns to have mastered them. Would you care to try standing in as a target? I didn't think so.

Your lack of training/skill doesn't render these revolvers useless.

Skill level has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with preferring one type of handgun over another. It is quite ridiculous for you to be criticizing my shooting skills.

And it is also extremely impolite of you to suggest using me as a target.

Your response here could not be more weak and lame in nature. It is most definitely an Ad Hominem reply.

.