inexpensive .22 dbl action revolver

[pasquot]

I put this question on another forum. but i would like some input. I would like to know if anyone has shot or heard about the comanche 1 .22 revolver. or the charter arms pathfinder.

I'm interested in hearing about reliability and accuracy on both guns.

Any comments would be appreciated.

[Pistolenschutze]

Personally, I wouldn't buy ANYTHING made by Charter in the last few years. It's crap. Don't know about the Comanche because I've not seen one. If you want a good, relatively inexpensive DA .22 revolver, take a look at the Taurus Ultra Light Nine. I own one of those and it has proven to be a very good investment.

[Oneida Steve]

The 1980's-era Charter Arms Pathfinder was a good gun. I'd buy a used one if you can find it. I agree with PS that the recent Charter Arms guns are not as desireable.

If you must have a new gun, then the Taurus is a good .22 revolver at a reasonable price.

[Bindernut]

I'll throw in a vote for the Taurus 94 family too. Had a 4" blued 94 from the early 90s...great little gun except for the DA trigger pull. Accurate enough for 20-25yd squirrel shooting in SA mode. But I traded it off for my current (and keeper) 4" .22LR SP101 which has a super trigger compared to the Taurus.

[pasquot]

thanks for all the replys. For those who would not buy charter arms could you be more specific? What kind of trouble did you have with yours? Or what have you heard.

I looked at the taurus. i decided against it because of the trigger pull, too many problems with taurus in general, and poor customer service. Plus it;s the most expensive out of the 3. comanche, charter, taurus.

[358 winchester]

I have fired a couple of the comanche 22's and for the price they where OK but I would save my money and buy a S&W but that is just me.

[stash247]

.358, there was a time when I had a real 'attitude' over Smith and Wesson, their owners, and their politics; I'm sure you remember those years.
Their design, however, is the best on the market, and was, even then!
A 'J', or 'K' frame revolver takes me all of 15 minutes, to do what their lawyers won't let the line do, with he trigger, so as to make it (IMHO), a 'reasonable ' trigger' for defensive work.
To me, Smith is a 'known commodity', Taurus, likewise; either can be a totally reliable, 'operator friendly', arm, with a few minutes' work.
These I trust.
The 'off brand' junk that compete with them, on nothing but 'price point', I would run 'scared' of, as they may, or may not function, at any given point in time.
My total justification, for revolvers, is reliability; I prefer the 1911 Colt, if I know trouble is in the wind, and have several, with 'revolver' reliability, but these are all hand worked, and 'tuned', pistols, opening the door to lawsuits, for their perfection.
My 'everyday' is a .38 Spl 'J' frame, 3" barrel, with no evidence of having been anything but a 'perfect' factory product.
Smith makes several .22 revolvers, the 'best' of which, in my mind , would be the K-22 (model14), and these need little help, beyond budgeting for them; far better than a 'click', when one expects a 'bang'!