S&W 642 vs. Charter Arms Off Duty

[dandyrandy]

20161110_194219-21 by Randy, on Flickr
The Smith and Wesson 642 has been my pick as the quintessential go to pocket revolver. Charter Arms has been around to stop the bad guys longer than most people been alive. So how do they stack up? Both are surprisingly quite evenly matched. You might be quite surprised on how these two revolvers stack up to each other.

Both guns have a concealed hammers and both are lightweight easy to conceal and easy to carry revolvers. MSRP is about the same for some reason. Both have a life time warranty. Both guns have many accessories and different grip choices you can go with. By the way I have found that grip choice on these type of revolvers greatly affect how accurate I shoot the guns. I am not going to go into to much detail on that because both revolvers accuracy is pretty much the same with similar grip choice. Im going to cut to the chase. Im not going to go into all the tiny small details. If I did this post would be as long as the movie Titanic. So what are the big major differences?

First off let me get the biggest difference out of the way right now. The S&W 642 has the best trigger work hands down! I can stack up the trigger quite nicely and all the workings of the revolver feels smoother than that of the CA Off Duty. Furthermore the Charter Arms has a major flaw in it's trigger pull. On the CA you must fully release the trigger on follow up shots or you will lock up the trigger workings of the revolver. What does that mean exactly? Is that a major problem for a self defense revolver? Not necessarily! It just means the revolver needs trigger discipline and lots of practice but it is a big enough problem that a new shooter needs to know about it.

With that being said there is some things I do like about the Charter Arms that I dont care for in the S&W and I feel as though the CA is superior to the S&W. The sight picture on the CA is more pronounced and way better than the thin bladed front sight of the S&W. I can pick up the sights faster and put lead on target much faster with the CA because of this. Also the CA has a better finish on it than the S&W. I dont care for the paint they put on the 642. It just does not hold up well at all! The finish will look like a big pile of butt in a can after a few short years of constant carry. Dont say I didnt warn you. Furthermore the stainless steel and anodized aluminum CA seems to hold up much better in the long run. Also I seem to shoot the Charter Arms more accurately with a wide variety of different 38 special. The gun seems to hit at the point of aim with minimal effort. Either two handed or one handed strong handed or weak handed it does not matter! The Charter Arms just shoots well!

My conclusion is well honestly I like both revolvers just as much. The Charter Arms is usually a little cheaper. If I had to choose one that I think is better I would choose an older Smith and Wesson like for example a Model 60 or an old Charter Arms Undercover. So what does all this mean??? Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear. In other words try both revolvers out yourself and make your own determination. Dont believe the hype!

 

[amazingflapjack]

I have a Charter "On duty" it has a cockable hammer-weighs 12 ounces-and is rated for +P ammo. My other carry revolver is an early Charter Bulldog 44.

 

[dandyrandy]

I have a Charter "On duty" it has a cockable hammer-weighs 12 ounces-and is rated for +P ammo. My other carry revolver is an early Charter Bulldog 44.

Unload show clear than put some empties in that 38 and see if you can replicate the trigger lock up I described earlier. Report back to me ASAP with your findings sir and thanks!

 

[washerman]

i have a charter arms off-duty and a S/W 638 which is the shrouded hammer version of the 642. The 638 has a slightly smoother action but not by much. I much prefer the grips the CA off duty came with and have never changed them...Got half a dozen grips for the 638 and none are as good as the CA grips. The CA is more than 3 ounces lighter and i can tell you that makes a difference as I pocket carry. Both guns have been 100% reliable. The CA is more accurate for me because of those factory grips. Sights on the CA are superior to the sights on the S/W. The CA is only 12 ounces but is all metal and no exotic stuff to worry about what I use to clean it. I really like my S/W 638 but i carry the Charter because its lighter and i shoot it better

 

[dandyrandy]

i have a charter arms off-duty and a S/W 638 which is the shrouded hammer version of the 642. The 638 has a slightly smoother action but not by much. I much prefer the grips the CA off duty came with and have never changed them...Got half a dozen grips for the 638 and none are as good as the CA grips. The CA is more than 3 ounces lighter and i can tell you that makes a difference as I pocket carry. Both guns have been 100% reliable. The CA is more accurate for me because of those factory grips. Sights on the CA are superior to the sights on the S/W. The CA is only 12 ounces but is all metal and no exotic stuff to worry about what I use to clean it. I really like my S/W 638 but i carry the Charter because its lighter and i shoot it better

The only grips that I found to be as close to perfect as possible for the S&W J frame is the pachmayr compact grips. No one likes them because they are the heaviest of the grip options and everyone thinks they are ugly. I could care less about that and I care more about shooting the gun reliable and accurately than what the guns looks like. All other grips are terrible for shooting. Everyone likes the original little bitty S&W and Charter Arms magna grips. They look pretty and the conceal very well but they suck for shooting accurately and they kill your hand after a lot of rounds. I agree Charter Arms has better grips than what is offered for the S&W. Charter makes a sweet set of wood grips the are a little bigger than the magnas but a little smaller and lighter than the pachmayr's. They are as close to perfect as you get.

 

[Old cop]

CA was a fairly new entry into the market when I was a young cop in the late '60s, but our range officer would not approve them for off duty/back-up carry.

 

[dandyrandy]

I have a Charter "On duty" it has a cockable hammer-weighs 12 ounces-and is rated for +P ammo. My other carry revolver is an early Charter Bulldog 44.

I forgot to mention that... The Charter Arms Off Duty is very lite! Its probably the lightest revolver I have ever held in my hands in 38 special.

 

[MCorps0311]

I have a CA Bulldog .44 SPL. that I carry.but I don't have a 642.I also have two sweet .38 spl +p a 442-2 and 638-3.

 

[jimmyj]

Charter Arms has a great Customer Service Department.
The charge for a "Action Job" is $49.50

 

[dandyrandy]

Charter Arms has a great Customer Service Department.
The charge for a "Action Job" is $49.50

Thats interesting I didnt know they offered that. You learn something new all the time on this forum.

 

[dandyrandy]

After evaluating both revolvers in the past couple of years of shooting and handling the S&W 642 and Charter Arms Off Duty I have to say the S&W is way better. Mostly because the trigger on the 642 is a MILLION times better! After shooting them both to compare the two the Charter Arms starts to get a feel of last ditch effort blood and guts kind of gun. In other words the Charter is like a trusty but stumburn old ugly mule while the S&W is like a champion thoroughbred race horse! With all that being said I wouldn't hesitate carrying any of these guns for a self defense role.

 

[ShivasIrons]

I own and shoot both. They each have their pluses and minuses. I like them both and just as likely to have a CA in my pocket as I am a J frame.

I will say my Charter Arm Undercovers are easier to shoot accurately than my J frames.

Today, I have a CA Off Duty with CA Walnut Grips in my pocket. It is a Dandy carry piece. I need to investigate that $49.50 trigger job from CA! That would put it near the top of the list.

 

[dandyrandy]

I would like to find out about that action job too. 50 bucks for some trigger work done from the factory sounds like a good deal. Especially since most gunsmiths turn there nose up to the Charters.

 

[STCM(SW)]

When it comes to small frame revolvers, I'll match my M638

or M640

up to any CA. Had a .44 CA bulldog long ago. Not even close to a S&W in any way.

 

[Warren Sear]

... If I had to choose one that I think is better I would choose an older Smith and Wesson like for example a Model 60 or an old Charter Arms Undercover...

Except for the quote above, I think the OP did a good, objective report on the two revolvers (I have to say though, I have owned two Charter Arms revolvers in the past and never experienced the trigger locking up as he described).

For some reason there is a mind set that the older something is, the better it is. In the case of S&W and CA revolvers, that is not true, and their best revolvers are being made today.

The same is true for the automotive industry.

 

[Truckin]

I carry my CA Off Duty more than my S&W because it is lighter. Trigger is not as good as S&W but it is acceptable and lighter.

 

[Rock185]

I had the opportunity to handle and examine an older Charter Arms Undercover revolver. Seemed like a decent little revolver to me. That being said, I've never personally owned one.
FWIW, years ago Jeff Cooper reported in "Cooper on Handguns", on CA revolvers. He thought the .44 Bulldog was the best concept in pocket revolvers to come along, but reported it was unfortunately produced as a "cheapie". He further expressed the opinion that the CA snubbies were produced to undersell S&W's similar revolvers. He commented on the CA's rough action, crude finish, base pin socketed at only one end, and a yoke design that seriously reduced axial rigidity. Since I have't owned CA products, I don't know if current CA production suffers any of these issues. It does appear that the yoke design Cooper mentioned is the same on current and older CA revolvers.

The current CA revolvers may be fine firearms. But I admit that I have stuck with S&W and Ruger .38 and 9MM revolvers that have served so well for so many years....ymmv

 

[ShivasIrons]

Except for the quote above, I think the OP did a good, objective report on the two revolvers (I have to say though, I have owned two Charter Arms revolvers in the past and never experienced the trigger locking up as he described).

For some reason there is a mind set that the older something is, the better it is. In the case of S&W and CA revolvers, that is not true, and their best revolvers are being made today.

The same is true for the automotive industry.

This is the truth.

I remember a time in the not too distant past where it was more common than not for a new pistol to need the services of a Gunsmith.

When I was a kid we had a Dad in my neighborhood get 100,000 miles on his mercury. It was a big deal.

 

[dandyrandy]

I wanted to address some questions and or concerns about my review of the Charter Off Duty and S&W 642. Some would say that the new revolvers across the board are superior. I find that to be true and false in some regards. So far I have tried out both new and old S&W and Charter revolvers. With that being said the new revolvers do say they can handle hotter loads now. Thats debatable to say the new revolvers are stronger than the old but it does clearly say +p on the 642 barrel and it does not say that on any of my older S&W barrels. So its safe to assume that the new revolvers are designed for higher pressures. That does make them better in my opinion so one point for the new revolvers. Although the older revolvers do seem to have a better fit and finish in some respects as compared to the new revolvers especially when comparing the Charter Arms revolvers. My old trusty Stratford built Charter Off Duty looks to me a better fit and finish than my new Off Duty. By the way I would like to do a comparison of the new Shelton Off Duty and the old Stratford Off Duty. Both ARE different but I digress because this is about the new Off Duty and 642.
WIN_20180203_07_06_47_Pro (2) by dandy, on Flickr
I would like to discuss my bigger issue with the two revolvers and that is the trigger. Clearly the 642 has a better trigger and the Charter has given me this trigger lock up issue that I commented on before. This is the biggest concern for me about Charter revolvers. I have tried to duplicate this problem on my other Charter Arms revolvers and yes my new production 44 Bulldog did lock up on the trigger also. However I have not been able to duplicate this issue on my older Stratford Off Duty revolver. Further evaluation is needed on the Charters. ( I have since evaluated ALL the Charter revolvers old and new and they ALL have the same trigger. I can duplicate this trigger mechanism lockup on the older Charter Off duty also. You must ensure you have complete trigger reset when making follow up shots.)

What does this mean??? Well my double action shots with the Charter can get tricky especially in rapid fire and that is not far from reality in defensive shooting. Make no mistake about it these are defensive, up close and smell there nasty ugly breath, shooting type revolvers and I need all 5 shots! On the other hand with the S&W I do not have to ever worry about that trigger at all. The trigger pull and mechanics are always positive and the same every time. So one smiley face sticker goes to the 642.

In all fairness the Charter Arms revolvers are VERY appealing. One attractive thing about them is the fact they have the same round butt style frame on all there revolvers regardless of caliber and model. What does that mean??? Well that means you are able to put any kind of grip on any of the Charters. My new Off Duty is sporting Crimson Trace laser grips as we speak and I cant wait to test it out! One thumbs up for the Off Duty!

However the Charter you have to watch closer. Screws like to come loose on the CA but on the S&W I dont ever have to worry about that. Though the Charter is easier to work on in my opinion. For example I can change the hammer on my Charter in about 5 minutes but its much more complicated and a headache to do on my S&W. The trade off to this is the S&W is more complicated and I prefer the smoother time tested and proven workings of the S&W more. This also might explain why the Charter has such an atrocious trigger on it because of the simpler mechanics. Though the Charter is easier to work on overall in my opinion.

To conclude further testing needs to be done by me on the Charters, which takes time and money, and I dont have to worry about that with the S&Ws. I know, rely, and trust the 642. Its a really good revolver! Though I wish they would bring back the nickel plated Airweights again because my only real big complaint with the 642 is the painted finish on the frame not really holding up to well. So back on the Charter do I trust the Off Duty? Yes as long as you know what your getting into you will be fine after all there is far far worse out there. Even though I pick the 642 the Off Duty is a very close second. In the meantime more shooting is in order! Kampai!!!

 

[bmcgilvray]

Hah dandyrandy! You can send me my image usage fee later.



Here's the other side of the Model 642 that lives around here.


And, a photo of the revolver with the choice of "totin' " ammo.


At the end of the day I'll take the Smith & Wesson J-Frame rendered in steel over any alloy-framed revolver. Shot a circa 1980 Charter Arms Undercover .38 Special on an occasion years ago and it was alright though not as good as the Smith & Wesson J-Frame. Don't know about current Charter Arms Off Duty.

Don't really care for the Model 642 for that matter. Think they are overrated and oversold. But, my wife came to love the revolver in the photos.

My personal notion of the best 5-shot .38 Special revolver is the Smith & Wesson Model 49 or Model 649.