I’ve been considering getting one of the current production Charter Arms Undercoverette 32 H&R mag snub revolvers. I’d love a Smith J-frame in 32 mag but the prices and scarcity of these guns keeps me from seriously considering them. The Undercoverette seems to run less than half to a third of the price of the equivalent Smith 32 mag.

I cast and reload a fair bit for the 32 cal varieties and enjoy them a lot. I also appreciate the fact that a smaller frame can hold 6 vs 5 and that shooting 32 cal is more manageable on recoil for faster and easier shooting on easy toting handgun.

Anyone out there have any firsthand experience with the current production 32 mag Undercoverettes? I’m interested to hear feedback on:
- trigger feel in both DA and SA. Serviceable/usable trigger or too rough?
- size compared to a J-frame
- bullet weight for shooting POA/POI
- will the grip frame accept the old school wood grips which are smaller and more concealable than the large rubber factory grips?

Thanks all for your help!

Here is mine, with some other .32 cousins.

Trigger is fine, and getting better with use. I did a tiny amount of polishing when changing out the hammer. Much better than the Ruger SP101, not quite as good as the two Smiths. Picture shows that relative size. I am still tinkering with best load. Yes, it will take the original small wood grips.

__________________
Only a cold warrior

Negative experence with the newer C.A. revolver but the older ones it is not recommended to dry fire with chambers empty. Fragile firing pins.

No experience with the CA 32 H&R Magnum, however I can say that I really like the Taurus 327 revolver I recently bought. Shoots 32 S&W, 32 S&WL, 32 H&R mag, 327 mag and even 32ACP equally well.

__________________
Send lawyers, guns & money...

The Taurus 327 snub is also intriguing but I imagine the frame is larger than the Charter Arms and J-frame.

BC38, do you have any J-frames to compare size with the Taurus?

Yessir, I have 4 J-frame snubs, though they are all older.
The Taurus seems to be the same size in all but one respect. It has a shrouded extractor rod - kind of an underlugged barrel. But then so do some of the newer J-frames.

Otherwise it seems to be pretty much the same size in all respects. It fits the majority of my leather J-framed holsters. If I were at home (where the J-frames are) I could post a comparison photo.

Since I'm not the best I can do is show you this online comparison between a M60 and a Taurus 605 - which is the same frame and barrel size as the 627.
Smith & Wesson Model 60 vs Taurus 605 2" size comparison | Handgun Hero

FWIW, I think the Charter Arms may be slightly smaller than the J-frames. At least they always looked like it to me. I always thought the Charter seemed more like an I-frame in size. Maybe just my perception. The only one I have to compare is my old 44spl Bulldog and I think it is built on a slightly larger frame than the 32 Undercover.

__________________
Send lawyers, guns & money...

I love my alloy CA Undercoverette
...
feedback on:
- trigger feel in both DA and SA. Serviceable/usable trigger or too rough?
More than serviceable, and actually decent. Well ahead of an SP101 and comparable to any stock-J

- size compared to a J-frame
Well, have a look.....

- bullet weight for shooting POA/POI
Been too long and I didn't write it down

- will the grip frame accept the old school wood grips which are smaller and more concealable than the large rubber factory grips?
any CA uses any other CA grip, lower frame is universal

and here we go. The CA U/C .32, LCR in .38, and trusty 38 Bodyguard...

Attached Images

	20221127_104029.jpg (72.0 KB, 82 views)
	20221127_104108.jpg (48.9 KB, 82 views)
	20221127_104146.jpg (74.8 KB, 73 views)
	20221127_104153.jpg (57.3 KB, 62 views)
	20221127_104117.jpg (55.2 KB, 64 views)

CA's rubber and wood

Attached Images

	20221127_103605.jpg (33.8 KB, 30 views)
	20221127_103719.jpg (86.8 KB, 34 views)
	20221127_103706.jpg (91.4 KB, 29 views)
	20221127_104053.jpg (36.3 KB, 30 views)
	20221127_104059.jpg (48.2 KB, 22 views)

Wheels of the Charter and J-frame

Attached Images

	20221127_104332.jpg (50.9 KB, 47 views)
	20221127_104345.jpg (60.7 KB, 40 views)

Thanks BC38 I appreciate the feedback. I’m leaning towards the CA rather than the Taurus. The CA specs read lighter overall weight than the Taurus. Shooting the 32 cal variety isn’t as demanding in recoil department as the 38/357 is in small frame guns.

VictorLouis that helps seeing the side by side comparisons. Glad to hear the trigger is usable. I don’t expect target grade shooting from a snub revolver… not because of the barrel length but because of the nut behind the trigger… snubs are simply harder to shoot well. Having a decent trigger helps tremendous to overcome the other difficulties of small frame and short sight radius.

It looks like CA Undercoverette is in the future for me at some point.

Sure, happy to provide some perspective.

The alloy frame of the Charter Arms is a definite advantage for carry - especially if the 32 H&R magnum is the hottest thing you want to shoot. However, if you want to shoot 327 magnums, the extra weight of the steel frame of the 327 is actually a plus. Of course if you don't want the option of shooting the 327 mag, then the Charter is probably a better choice.

FWIW, I took the little Taurus 327 to the range yesterday and loaded it with a 327mag, a 32 H&R mag, and a 32 S&W Long, followed by another 327mag, a 32 H&R mag, and a 32 S&W Long. The whole point was to compare the 3 cartridges - and it was... interesting. Pretty much a poppa bear, mamma bear, baby bear kind of deal - as one would expect.

The 327 was quite stout, though not quite rising to the level of being punishing, the 32 H&R was pretty moderate, and the 32 S&W Long quite mild.

Ideally I would have liked to also try shooting some 32 S&W (short) through it too - just to compare. But the 32 S&W Long was mild enough for me to conclude that the shorts would probably have felt about like shooting a cap-gun or a pellet gun.

__________________
Send lawyers, guns & money...

Here's a good read from THR forum on the 32 Undercoverette. Lots of problems reported by several of us owners.

Good luck finding 327 Federal Ammo. Not even Federal lists it, the only .32 revolver ammo they list is 32 H&R and it's "Currently Unavailable!"
Geoff
Who is not tempted at all.

Skeptic 9c the only feasible way to shoot 32 cal regularly these days is to roll your own.

Fun Flyer thanks for suggesting. I’ll definitely consider with a grain of salt. That one guy having 2 bad CAs in a row is pretty disconcerting. Maybe a classic case of “you get what you pay for”. I realize that squeaky wheels are the ones making the noise mostly on forums, but the CA owners on that thread who had problems seem to be in the majority.

The only downside I can see to the Charter Arms is that I believe it's a five shot. I think that pretty much eliminates speed loaders. You are limited to speed strips.

__________________
Loyalty Above All.. but Honor

I have a CA Professional 7 shot 32 H&R. It went back to the factory for action problems and I got it back 6 weeks later including a 4th of July week long shut down. I would prefer the sights on the undercoverette as I am not a fan of the professional. Factory sights hit 6"-8" low with a 6 O'clock hold at 15 yards. It's fine if I remember to cover the target but that isn't how I shoot everything else.

__________________
Front sight and squeeze

I have had several Charter revolvers and have never really had any issues with the ones I owned. Did return a couple for timing issues when we had the gun shop but, to be blunt, we returned more than a few other makes of gun as well for problems that should have never left the factory.

As to caliber I find 32 caliber guns a pleasure to shoot, even the 32 Mags were not abusive at all. Never shot much 327 but can't see it would be that much worse than the H&R Mag round. I find the 32's easy to load and the brass lasts a long time so wouldn't turn down one of the Charters in that caliber if the deal was right.

Zeta6 offers speed loaders that hold five rounds in a cluster rather than a strip.

__________________
otis

The newer charter 32 h&r i have seen is 6 rounds.
I have had a few older charters never a bad one.

CA doesn't make the 5 shot 32 any longer, just the alloy 6 shot is being made.

Fragile firing pins. ?? Quote from American Handgunner from some years ago; " The gun has a beryllium-copper firing pin that is nearly indestructible ". However, I wouldn't dry fire without snap caps.

__________________
John

I've dry fired the snot out of my early Charters without the least concern.

I bought a five shot Undercoverrette a few years ago, and sent it back to Charter Arms to have an updated 6 shot cylinder installed. The new cylinder is scary accurate and shoots perfectly to POA. Here’s a six shot group at seven yards with Federal 95gr SWC:
99377E3E-13FD-459D-81A3-2ADA16B97AF5.jpg
It is a fine shooting little revolver, and was a fraction of the cost of my S&W 631.

My old Bridgeport Undercover made me a CA fan. They have a niche of economically priced, tough, and reliable small frame revolvers, and have filled that niche very successfully. I shoot it better than my S&W 36 and 442.

__________________
John

...and the 7-shot Professional...

Personally I wouldn't mind having one of their 7-shot, 3" barrel versions, just for giggles - even though I already have the Taurus 327, and a 32 HE, and a Colt Pocket Positive.

__________________
Send lawyers, guns & money...

And the all-stainless 6-shot…..

I do believe that this thread is going to cost me money. As I checked out gun broker many of the CA 32s are described as 5 shot. Are these leftovers from before the change to 6 hole cylinders or just typical gb laziness. I can’t quite tell when the changes happened. Obviously the appeal to me is the 6th shot.

I have tried Zeta and wouldn't call them a speed loader. They are made of rubber and you still have to peel them into the cylinder like a speed strip. They are made well, but I wouldn't want to have use one under stress.

__________________
Loyalty Above All.. but Honor

It's seller laziness, or possibly CA not getting the word out to their distributors. When I bought my CA 32 Ett, every seller and site listed them as a stainless 5 shot. I ordered that 5 shot model and received an alloy 6 shot. I called CA and was told they no longer make the stainless 5 shot and have only been shipping the alloy 6 shot. Regardless, CA has been putting out some real garbage recently. Read through that link from my above reply if you want to see lots of issues we've had.

Its a resounding YES for me on 32 mag! I like all 32 calibers and have more of those type of firearms than anything else. With that being said I have experience with the Charter Arms revolvers in 32 and it reverts back to my usual experience with them. Outstanding customer service with mixed reliability on the guns. The 32 Undercoverette had light primer strike issues due to more than likely the bobbed hammer I put on it however the Off Duty 32 mad I have has been outstanding. Both guns were outstanding reliability until I bobbed said hammer on that one.

I have one that I got a little while ago. Shoots fine, Seems ok to me. I just like some others better and I don't plan to carry it. I will be offering up for sale at our next club swap meet.

__________________
Robert
SWCA #2906, SWHF #760

This comparison has me baffled. J Frames fit loose in the kydex holster I have for my 605. My 605 will not fit in my leather J Frame holsters.

The older firing pins are nearly indestructible. Copper beryllium.

Having owned both, I'd take the current Charter Arms .32 H&R Mags over the current S&W mis-named "Ultimate Carry" models, not even taking into account the price and availability difference.

Use these frequently with no problems:




My favorite though is still the older circa-2010 and trouble-free no-frills S&W 431PD (bottom). Sadly no longer made, nor of the same quality. Shown with current 432UC.

__________________
Retired LE Instructor/Armorer

Interesting that this thread was resurrected. About a year ago I had a chance to shoot one of the current production Undercoverettes. It did not do well for me. It could have been the nut behind the trigger. With my 93gr Lee cast loads it didn’t shoot very well to the sights. I can’t remember now if it was high or low. Also the trigger pull on my example wasn’t conducive to good DA shooting, much worse than any j frame that I’ve used. Overall I was not a fan. My current small carry is a 340sc which shoots to sights with my 158gr 38 loads. I find it much easier to shoot than the Charter Arms though it may be I just had a rough example.

Anyhow I should have updated this thread a while ago but had forgotten about it till running across it just now.