Many of us have wondered why anyone'd buy a Terrier with the Chief's Special avaiiable, after the latter gun appeared.

Has anyone here really chronographed a snub .38 S&W vs. a Chief's snub, fired with standard speed 158 grain LRN ammo?

The velocity may be closer than expected. The Terrier was discontinued about the time that Plus P .38 Special ammo became widespread.

I hope this doesn't need to go to the ammo section...

My guess is that the .38 Special was still hotter, but not as far ahead as we may think. Certainly, I'd have bought a Chief, and do wonder why Terrier owners didn't, at least in the USA. (In some countries, .38 S&W regular ammo was more common.)

Does the Terrier recoil much less?

T-Star

I have both a Terrier and a Chief Special. The Terrier has a lot less recoil then the Chief Special, at least when I shot them both side by side earlier this year.

I am much more accurate with the Terrier then the Chief. In fact the Terrier is one of my best shooting Smiths. Also, I believe the Terrier was also seen as a good ladies carry gun in its day, mainly because of the low recoil.

I'm sure others will have more to say then me.

Is this board great, or what? I posted, went to the kitchen for a ginger ale, and had an answer by the time I got back to the computer!

But how weak is the .38 S&W, fired from a snub?

T-Star

Also the Terrier is tiny even when compared to a Chief.
I have both and double action the Terrier shoot at least as good as the Chief, single action it shoots better. For me at anyway...

I have a circa 1946 'Terrier' in .38 S&W.

It is a joy to fire and very comfortable for it's small size.

I have not chronographed it yet with the old, standard RNL Ammunition I have for it.

If you ilke, when I do, I can report back here with the results.

Respecting the 'Terrier', I see no reason why it would mind having it's Ammunition Hand Loaded to slightly higher levels of perfomance than the Factory offerings.

Thanks. I would like to see the velocity results. But the public buying those guns seldom handloaded. They'd use factory ammo. To the extent that handloaders bought snub .38's, I bet that most favored the .38 Special.

I compared my Terrier (I frame) to my Centennial (essentially a J frame in size) and the Terrier is only minimally smaller. Very small difference. I bought the Terrier with the intention of developing accepted self defense loads and using it for concealed carry but the difference doesn't justify the effort. The J frame 38 Special is a better deal.

BTW- I got 975 FPS clocked from my Terrier with a 125 JHP but I get 1,100 from the M40 with the same bullet. The 38 Special is simply superior and the J frame is only a tiny bit larger. There's a reason the Terrier fell by the wayside.

Don't have my chronograph notes to hand at present but I have shot the usual run of 38 Special 158 grain standard velocity lead round nose ammunition from 2-inch snubs to find that most makes 750-775 fps. Some foreign renditions will crowd 800 fps but none will quite make it.

I don't have a Terrier but I've fired "Remingchester" .38 S&W 146 grain lead round nose ammunition from a Colt Banker's Special with a 2-inch barrel to find that most of it clocks 600-650 fps.

One can delve into the older Lyman manuals to find some handloads that will make the .38 S&W "walk and talk" in a solid frame revolver. Some of these handloads will just about equal standard velocity .38 Special factory loads. Of course it is also possible to use the same older Lyman manuals to liven up the .38 Special too.

Then there's the pre-war British service .38/200 load. I got nearly 700 fps from out of the Banker's Special with a 200 grain bullet and a charge of Unique.

You sure like to argue...
The Terrier weighs 18 ounces, the Centennial 21.2 ounces on an electronic digital scale. The Centennial cylinder is 1.54" long, Terrier 1.24" long. Pretty big hairs to split.
I appreciate these as high quality collectable shooters. If I wanted to kill somebody, and I don't, I'd get a real gun.
The Terrier is the tiniest .38 caliber revolver I've ever seen, handled and shot. To me it is easy to see, and easier to feel the difference between the two. The Terrrier is one of the coolest Smiths I own and next up on the "letter list".

Cant offer any data as I do not shoot my older Baby Chief or Terrier.

They are all great guns but my Modern 38/638 Airweight (not shown) feels just as light and can handle +P.

My dad began his career as a LEO in 1954 and carried a full sized side arm until he went "plain clothes" in 1969. In those days officers purchased their own service revolver. My dad selected a new 32-1 J frame Terrier and wore it every day from 1969-1984 when he retired. After that it was his ccw until his passing in 1997.

I now have that gun with the original box, tools (unopened) and Bianchi "Chief's Special holster. The gun is in 99% and fired very little. I often wondered why he chose such an obscure round. But I have since learned that in 1969 the .38 S&W was a very popular, plentiful, and economical round that packed a punch. It is also good to remember that in those days most men were generally smaller in stature. And there were few options in a small concealable revolver.

The Terrier is very accurate, a pleasure to shoot and a joy to carry.

Bryan-

Thanks! Years ago, I saw a test in, Guns that had .38 Special snubs also clocking about 650 FPS with the usual 158 RNL load. They used both Colt and S&W guns. I think the Colt averaged a bit faster, at least in those guns.

I was very glad to see factory Plus P ammo come on the market. It makes a lot more difference in a snub than some think. Like about 175-200 FPS difference for the lead HP load, more from the hotter 125 or 135 grainers.

A person at Speer told me that the NYPD uses their Short Barrel 135 grain load and has been getting excellent results in shootings.

SDH says that he doesn't want to kill anyone, Neither do most of us, but sometimes, one does that or gets killed.

I've done a fair amount of load development with the .38 S&W cartridge, using a 2" barreled 32-1 and 4" barreled 33-1, among others. Some of the info is at 38 S&W load devopment Pt. 1.

As to why anyone would buy a Terrier or 32-1 instead of a Chief's Special, I'll add a couple more quick thoughts:

1) The J-frame ejector rod provides full-length ejection for a .38 S&W, but not for a .38 SPL. Don't know how much the old-school types worried about rapid reloads, but many modern-era gunwriters have complained long & loud about lack of clean ejection from a .38 SPL snubbie.

2) Ballistics of commercial .38 S&W back in the day: 146g/685fps, or 200g/600-ish fps. Former is still available today, and its ballistics are very close to .38 SPL wadcutter loads, although the latter cuts a better wound channel.

3) Recoil/blast of .38 S&W snubbie seems markedly lighter to me (and definitely to my wife & two daughters) with 146g loads than any .38 SPL I've encountered, I believe. I haven't done rigorous side-by-side comparisons, though.

4) Ballistically, the .38 SPL clearly has an edge, which is especially noticeable with a "lighter / faster" approach to ammo selection. But if you get each cartridge launching a 200g LRN at about 600fps, like the respective Super Police loads of the old days, the difference would be minimal, at best.

5) I personally appreciate the "slow & heavy" approach, so I'm about as confident in a 200g LSWC at low 600s as I am in a 158g +P hollowpoint, and I can get the former performance from a 32-1 as easily as a Chief's Special. I like both, own both, and carry them interchangeably, since I use 200g loads in both. (Actually, I have a stainless Chief Mod. 60, which I carry when I'm liable to be sweaty, and I carry the blue-steel 32-1 when it's cooler. Ballistically, it's a toss-up for me, and I appreciate the full-length ejection with the 32-1.)

BTW, I'm a hobbyist and claim no expert knowledge that others should heed. Never in a gunfight, and sincerely hope it stays that way :-)

Good Job LA man, So in 1952 would you have bought your daughter (or wife) a Terrier, or a Chief?
I'd vote Terrier...
Nobody wants to get shot with anything.

1952--a Terrier. Just like in 2011, actually :-)

In late '09 and early '10, I obtained 4 Mods. 32-1, a Mod. 33, and 3 Mods. 33-1. That gave each of us a 2" and a 4" gun that are otherwise identical; easy to learn, easy to feed with same ammo, etc. Although I subsequently allowed myself to be led astray (ahem, ahem) and turned some of them into pocket automatics, we still have a 32-1 and two 33's, and I'm on the hunt to rebuild the collection. Time has shown that my girls all do better with these mild-shooting J frames than with any automatic, and they also prefer the .38 S&W over the .38 SPL.

We use several loads.

(1) Practice & "light duty" load for the more recoil-shy. . . I cast a Lee 140g LSWC which drops at 147g, and load it to 685fps, so it's a factory duplication load that cuts a fuller, straighter wound channel than factory LRN.

(2) "Medium duty" load especially appropriate for the 4" guns: I cast a Lee 158g LSWC (drops at 161g) and load it to 710fps, providing an excellent load midway between .38 S&W factory ammo and .38 SPL 158g LSWC factory loads.

(3) For the time being, my wife & daughters use loads (1) and (2), although I hope we'll upgrade them to 200g loads after more practice. I cast a Lee custom 193-200g LRN and load to 640 fps from a 4" barrel, and use it for practice and in my speedloaders. (The round nose provides a clean drop into the chambers.) I also have a die that flattens, or "smushes," as I like to call it, the LRN into a flat-nose profile that looks like a wadcutter without the sharp edges. This heavy-hitter is my carry load, and it gets into a 6th milk jug full of water when fired at about 600 fps from a snubbie, and all the way through 6 jugs when fired at about 640fps from a 4" gun. Recoil is a fairly strong & slow push, rather than a sharp, snappy sensation, so that makes for a vry shootable combination.

(4) I've also experimented with an RCBS 200g .35 Remington LFN rifle bullet that drops at 214-215g for me, smush the nose a bit more, and load to about 570 fps. (Standard deviation is an amazing 4-5 fps!)Penetrates like all get-out, and the long ogive makes this load great for carry in speedloaders, as the cartridges fit very easily and positively into the chambers.

Recently obtained a 200g custom LSWC mold in a group buy over on Cast Boolits, and expect to turn this into my standard "heavy duty" load. Haven't worked with it yet, but it should work like a charm.

My S&W Victory Model eats up all these loads, and my Enfield No. 2 likes everything but the modified .35 Remington ammo, which is a few thousandths of an inch too long for its cylinder. This summer I expect to develop a few more loads & put together an article on the topic.

Everyone is free to carry whatever makes him happy, but the ballistic superiority of the 38 Special over the 38 S&W is pretty much inarguable.

If you like a slower bullet then you will prefer the 38 S&W but you do realize you are accepting the inferior caliber. A 125/1100 beats a 125/975 every time. Same with a 158/800 vs a 146/650.

Of course nobody wants to get shot with any gun, and the 38 S&W is certainly capable of wounding or killing a man, but I prefer to play the safe bet and go with the obvious choice. The 38 Special is clearly more powerful.

Yes, it will recoil a little more than the lighter 38 S&W. A BB gun has virtually no recoil but I would not choose one for self defense. If you want a reliable stopper you have to deal with some recoil.

As to the previous question regarding physical size of the Terrier vs M36, as I said earlier, the difference is very small. A couple ounces and and a fraction of an inch dimensionally. Again, I go with the obvious choice and rely on the more powerful gun and accept its additional 3 ounces of weight and 3/8" or so of length. I doubt most men could discern the difference if handed one or the other in the dark.

Here's a link to much of the experimentation I did with .38 S&W about a year ago: .38 S&W penetration tests - TheFiringLine Forums


Similar info, with varying responses from different posters leading the conversation in different directions & gathering lots of info & expertise from others:

.38 S&W with 200g bullet--penetration tests - THR

.38 S&W penetration test, 200g bullets - Cast Boolits

.38 S&W (NOT .38 SPL) penetration experiments

.38 S&W with 200g bullets, penetration tests

It's also on Graybeard Outdoors & Cast Bullet Association.

Hi Saxon,
Roger your last transmission--the .38 SPL is ballistically superior, as I noted above. No argument there.

Ditto for whether men are bothered by the recoil/blast difference, but I primarily bought for my wife and two daughters, for whom it does make a difference.

Also I personally like to play with different calibers, and the British .380/200 historical connection is something I want to research further to get possible insights on their views & reasoning. I taught history for years at USMA and that's an abiding interest of mine.

Final notes in clarification: my personal primary HD sidearm is a .45 Automatic, and I am fairly experienced and decently competent with everything south of .44 Magnum territory for revolvers and 10mm for autos. When I carry concealed, the .38/200 solution suits me because my intentions are purely defensive & my range of action is in great degree limited to protecting self & family at bad breath distances. If I were an LEO or if I lived in a place & way that made me worry about gangs, etc., I would select markedly different sidearms than a .38 S&W of any description, because my duties, legal authority, and perceived threat would be totally different.

As to whether I would worry about choosing between a Terrier and Chief's Special for my current personal needs, no. It's a toss-up **for me**. Were I recommending selection to a non-aficionado, it would unhesitatingly be the Chief, because current factory .38 S&W 146g ammo is relatively rare, expensive, and underpowered for a modern solid-frame revolver. It's intentionally loaded light because of the existence of masses of old break-tops, and it's niche is therefore south of .38 SPL, north of .32 ACP and .32 S&W Long, and very roughly equal to .380 ACP, although the latter's JHP loadings provide advantages in certain situations. (Perhaps disadvantages in others, but that's a different conversation.) In my case, I'm both a bullet caster and a handloader, and that's what you need to get very much out of the .38 S&W these days.

My personal enthusiasm for .38 S&W as a "working" caliber is therefore limited to its suitability for women, arthritics, etc., and its capability of providing a "heavy & slow" solution--if handloaded appropriately. And even modern factory ammo is superior for defensive purposes, generally speaking, to the thousands of .22, .25, .32 in widespread use. And anyone loading FMJ in a .380 would get very roughly equivalent ballistic bang for the buck if they used a .38 S&W factory load. Main difference there is the "auto vs. revolver" debate, which will provide food for thought long after we're dead, I suspect.

For what it's worth, I think the last Terriers were just M-36's chambered for .38 S&W. The cylinders may have been shorter.

T-Star

Yes, I think the -2 and later versions were built on J frames so no real advantage at all on size.

The pre-number Terrier was generally an I frame, although I think S&W deviated from that some. After they went to the number system, the 32-1 was made on the J frame.

IIRC, a side-by-side comparison with my Mod 60 showed that the cylinder was shorter on the 32-1 but the cylinder window (?) in the frame was standard J frame size, so S&W screwed the barrel deeper into the frame to keep barrel-cylinder gap in spec. As a result, although the barrel lengths are actually the same, the 32-1 is a fraction of an inch shorter overall.

Will try to mic my guns' cylinder lengths next weekend and provide numbers.

It is interesting to consider, how the .38 S&W Cylinder of the 'Terrier', given it's length, could have been chambered to accept .38 Special Wadcutters, with a little over 1/8th of an Inch of extra room to spare.