Full moon clips are not “fragile”, they are the best way to reload a revolver. Rather than the rimless extractor, I believe that full moon clips are the way to go. These clips should at least be offered as an option in the CARR. S&W offers this system on several revolvers and it has become very popular; I love my Model 625.

Now the average gun owner can own an affordable, trouble-free revolver chambered in these popular semi-auto rounds without the need for specialized ammunition clips and a specialized gun.

With the patent-pending Charter Arms Rimless Revolver Round System a round is loaded into the chamber and a specialized spring engages the cartridge’s ejector groove. When the cylinder is opened and the ejector rod operated, it extracts and ejects the fired cases.

I have a S&W 610, and I shoot 10mm and 40S&W back to back. It is completely short sighted to not chamber this for the 10mm.

This is pretty awesome news, looking forward to seeing the product. I wish S&W had half the creativity Charter and Taurus are showing, and/or that Charter and Taurus has a little better QC. Then again, I’ve heard reasonably good things about the current Charter guns compared to earlier.

Not to derail, but since folks mentioned the Undercoverette, is the frame/cylinder even smaller than an S&W J-frame? If so, I must buy one, if only to spite Smith for not making the I-frame anymore. I hate how Smith will put shorter/thinner cartridges in a J-frame, not shrink the frame down to scale, and then drop them when they don’t sell. Of _course_ folks won’t by it if it’s not any smaller than the J-frames they can already buy.

The Charter Arms “Undercoverette” is slightly smaller than a “J” frame S&W. (This effectively “splits the difference” between an “I” and “J” frame revolver frame.) On the other hand, the Charter Arms “Patriot”, chambered for the .327 Federal Magnum revolver cartridge is built upon the same frame used for their .357 Magnum “Pug” and .44 S&W Special “Bulldog revolvers.

I LIKE my little “Undercoverette”. As I said before, the .32 H&R Magnum will “put the hurts” on a BG pretty quickly. If you need the power provided by the .327 Federal Magnum cartridge, buy it! If I bought the revolver, I’d want with the 4″ barrel acccompanied with adjustable sights. Low recoil, plenty of penetration, (a good thing to employ during a gun fight) and great expansion. What’s not to like?

Scott

Really?

Come to any USPSA match and see how the 5″ 625 dominates the Revolver Division. For IDPA, see how many 4″ 625 shooters there are. Hard to believe there are that many “only revolver aficionados” competing with them.

I shoot a 625 at matches – UNLESS I’m shooting Limited or L-10 that day.

Note that the 610 will happily fire both 10mm and .40 S&W. However, it uses moon clips to hold the cartridges in position.

I hope the trigger work is better than the other Charters I’ve had……..

“all semi-auto cartridges I know of headspace on the *case mouth*.”

CHEAP practice ammo
Lots of quality defensive ammo choices
Good enough round for carry
Low recoil

Unless there are manufacturing and design issues with the 9 mm round, I think that if it were marketed correctly, they would be FOOLISH not to offer it.

But, with a .40 in a 10mm chamber, the firing pin is going to make the cartridge move – there’s nothing to hold it back uniformly until it headspaces on the rim. If the cartridge moves too easily, it may not even go off. Certainly, ignition won’t be reliable. This is also likely to hamper the shell’s ability to form to the chamber and seal it, resulting in excessive blowback.

You would also have to hope the extractor hangs on to the rim through the process. It probably would, but that would require the engineering of that part so that it is not just an extractor but also an improvised headspacer. Plus, since the extractor only grabs part of the rim, the shell could easily become cockeyed.

What they *could* do is build it to 10mm dimensions and offer a second cylinder, however. That would be much like the 22LR/22WMR revolvers out there. This, of course, may require more sophisticated manufacture and thus would drive up cost from what is a very good price for reliable self-defense.

Not to derail, but since folks mentioned the Undercoverette, is the frame/cylinder even smaller than an S&W J-frame? If so, I must buy one, if only to spite Smith for not making the I-frame anymore. I hate how Smith will put shorter/thinner cartridges in a J-frame, not shrink the frame down to scale, and then drop them when they don’t sell. Of _course_ folks won’t by it if it’s not any smaller than the J-frames they can already buy.

But I still love that sick lil pup. Bites the hand that feeds it … A revolver to carry much and shoot little.

*IF* you could get it to work, its a great concept. 9mm ammo is cheaper than .38 special, but more powerful, and you can share the same ammo with your semi-automatic pistols. The shorter cases of the 9mm also potentially let you put a longer barrel into the same overall sized gun compared to a .38/.357.

This isn’t a new concept; both Smith and Taurus have had moonclip-less 9mm revolvers out in the past.

Unfortunately, these were discontinued because of lack of demand, increased complexity (eg cost) and in some cases decreased reliability.

The Smith 9mms are scarce, and now command extremely high prices (eg $800 for used ones). The Taurus guns are even scarcer.

Anyway, while I’d love to have one of these, I’m going to sit on the sidelines and wait to see if these actually materialize, and then if they do, if they have any technical or functional problems.

Apart from the lack of a rim for extraction, the slightly tapered cases of the 9mm luger make the rounds want to back out of a revolver cylinder during recoil, creating another technical issue in designing a 9mm luger revolver.

More information should be announced at SHOT Show in a few days.

Scott

Scott

I’m a 9mm shooter and reloader who hasn’t a single wheelgun. When the 9mm version of this gun is released, I’ll be there dropping my four bills!

Why?

1) 9mm is still the cheapest ammo out there. What better way to teach yourself effective trigger control and proper usage of a revolver than to shoot one that’s still relatively inexpensive on the ammo side of the equasion?

2) Ammo standardization. The less calibers I have to worry about the better. Once again, I reload 9mm, so Charter’s inclusion of a revolver into the ranks of 9mm firearms means that I can have a three gun battery when I include my semi-auto pistols and my carbine. 3 different defensive weapons, one standard ammo. Perfect!

3) A lifetime warranty to boot? It’s a no-brainer!

While there are those who poo-poo Charter’s offerings, I say let the product speak for itself when it’s released. Charter has shown a willingness to innovate and their quality control seems to be on the rise over the last couple of years.

This could be a serious home run for Charter!

However, if the extractor system is anything like the S&W 547 and Medusa, the spring-loaded extractor will drag on the cartridge case. This can prevent the cartridges from falling into place under their own weight. You will need to press on each cartridge to completely seat them in the cylinder.

If, as OFallon stated, Nick begins producing these in 4″ and 6″ barreled versions as well, we will likely see a resurgence in revolver sales above and beyond those seen to date.

I want one.

Rimless moonclips are pretty sturdy too. I know the ones for rimmed 38 spl or 357 mag are a little flimsy, but there are some thicker ones that work with remmington/peters and similiar brass that are not too bad.

Just a little defence for the simple moonclip or speedloader. I think the moonclip just brings the revolver to a much higher level.