S&W mod 39

[Dan Cash]

I have one, a 1971 vintage M39, that I bought because I thought I should have a 9mm. It is an elegant looking pistol but does not fit my hand as well as some other guns; CZ, High Power and 1911 for example. The pistol does not have the accuracy that it should have for a high quality gun but is good enough at 3-3 1/2 inches at 25 yards, (I have an Astra 600/43 that is much better). The trigger pull on my 39 is nothing to brag about but is far better than a stock Browning HP. I like it in spite of its shortcomings but it sits on a shelf and not on my hip.

[frkelly74]

Question; Where in the evolution of this basic design did the 915 occur? I have one and am getting used to it. The hammer drop safety was kind of an unnerving thing for me at first. And also the first shot double action and single action on subsequent shots is something to get used to. I have unintentionally double tapped the target board once or twice.

[ReloaderFred]

My experience as been very different with my then new S&W 39-2. It was a jam o matic. I would get a jam every few rounds with a failure to eject. It would jam even with Smith and Wesson branded ammo. I still have it in my safe as I would feel guilty to sell it to some one. The pistol felt great in my hand and recoil was easily managed due the grip shape.

rcslotcar,

Those were the exact issues the upgraded parts addressed. The original extractor's grip angle wasn't quite right, so they fixed it with the new extractor. The extractor spring also wasn't strong enough, so they replaced it. The original barrel bushings were pressed parts, and they would work loose. That was the one with the full loop on the bottom. Some of the original guide rods became worn because of this issue, so they replaced all of them.

Check to see if your extractor has a punch mark on the front, at the chamber. If not, it still has all the original parts and hasn't been upgraded. I'm not sure upgrade parts are still available after all these years, but they did solve all the feeding and jamming issues with the original guns.

And lastly, S&W didn't make S&W branded ammunition. It was made under contract, and it was even offered in at least one caliber that S&W didn't make a handgun in at the time, .380 acp. I've seen S&W headstamps that indicated manufacture by Fiocchi and DWM, and I believe there were others during that time when Bangor Punta owned S&W.

Hope this helps.

Fred

[rcslotcar]

Thanks for the info ReloaderFred, I bought the gun believing that if I passed the Police/Sheriff's hiring process that would be my carry gun. I ended up with the LASD issue gun of a S&W 15,for many years.

[ReloaderFred]

I retired from the county on the other side of the Grape Vine from you......... I used to shoot PPC matches alongside the LASD team, and Don Calberlow and I attended the Rangemaster course at the FBI Academy together back in the 1970's. Don was in the Governor's Twenty, and worked the range at Wayside.

Fred

[Green Frog]

Question; Where in the evolution of this basic design did the 915 occur? I have one and am getting used to it. The hammer drop safety was kind of an unnerving thing for me at first. And also the first shot double action and single action on subsequent shots is something to get used to. I have unintentionally double tapped the target board once or twice.

The 915 was part of S&W's "Value Series" of Gen 3 semi autos... you can sort of think of it being to the 5903 somewhat as the Model 28 is to the Model 27 in revolvers. IMHO, it's one of the great under rated guns of that era. BTW, that double tap thing is not surprising; the change from 1st pull DA to 2nd pull SA requires a bit of getting used to. Also, I worried about the hammer drop/safety too until I both tested it (with the muzzle pointed safely) and then looked at the geometry to reassure myself.

Back to my personal preference, I like the 639 lower for its ergonomics and the durability of the SS frame. I have a 439 upper that will eventually have some sort of optical sight on it and a 915 upper (imagine that) that is waiting for me to get a round tuit and install a NOS set of Millett adjustable sights I found. Once completed (with both slides) that will be my sole entry into the world of 9mms.

Froggie

[Mk42gunner]

I never personally owned a Model 39, but have kinda sorta wanted one for a while. They can be slicked up very well if the Armorer knows what he is doing, I did a Model 469 when I was in Armorer's school.

I did own a Model 410, the .40 cal version of the 915 for a short while. It went down the road after seeing the damage to the aluminum frame roughly 450 rounds of .40 did by torqueing the barrel during firing.

Robert

[frkelly74]

Thankyou Froggie!!

[Rich/WIS]

Had a 39-2 and it shot well with both cast and jacketed, and was 100% reliable. The -2 incorporated the changes to fix the problems with the original model. Was not target pistol accurate but better than some off the shelf guns. Its size and weight made it pleasant to carry.

[Green Frog]

Those who want a lot more and deeper information about the Model 39 and its descendants should go over to the S&W Forum where they have a whole section on the S&W semi automatics. It seems like new threads on this topic pop up there a couple of times a week. There are of course two schools of thought, the collector/preservationist faction and the shooter/experimenter faction. As you may surmise, I fall into the latter category, but I also have a 39-2 I first bought for then inherited from my father. It has the factory optional adjustable sights and a Gen 2 safety (with right grip panel modified to suit) but is otherwise as-issued. It stays in the safe most of the time in honor of Dad.

If I can ever get around to finishing up the two slides as planned, the 639 Franken-Smith will be a very flexible Gun for just about any use I would have for a 9mm.

Froggie

[Bigslug]

Very cool hearing from the guys who wore these!

The most personal part for me in their history was when a storage area was cleared out and I ended up with the bullet molds from when our agency used to cast it's own - - a pair of 10-cavity H&G's - one, a #50 wadcutter mold for the wheelguns and the other a 122 or 125 grain conical mold for the 9mm's. I don't recall the number for that one off hand - ##20? 22?

Got to meet one of our old range guys who brought in his 59 that had been worn just about fully white from being drawn so much - but cared for and not a speck of rust on it for all of that. One could only stare and say, "Dude. . .that's badazz!"

[T-Bird]

I have a 39-2 that belonged to my father in law. I like it, it fits my hand really well but I don't shoot it much. .... I need to fix that.

[Char-Gar]

I never had a 39, but have had two 59s. One was an all steel version with the protected adjustable rear sight and the other was a straight up alloy frame 59. I liked them both and both were quite accurate or else easy to shoot, at least for me. I would like to have a 39 if somebody would give me one. I don't want to buy one. I much prefer spending money on a Browning HP.

[rondog]

I like the 39 much better than the 59. The 59 I had was an insult to the name of Smith and Wesson: the trigger pull was terrible, the accuracy was worse. I have one 39 now and would have no qualms carrying it were I compelled to return to the mean streets.Attachment 295710

Sounds like you owned the 59 that I had.

[Bmi48219]

About 1978 or '79, S&W came out with an upgrade for the Model 59, which consisted of a replacement guiderod, barrel bushing, extractor spring and extractor. Fred

I bought a new 59 in 1979. It handled and shot well for quite a while. Mine had the press together barrel bushing that became un-pressed and fell off at the range. Not long after I replaced the bushing I noticed the aluminum frame had worn considerably resulting in a lot of slide ‘wiggle’. Traded it in for a 5906 will dull trijicon night sights. Apparently the sights are guaranteed to glow for 10 or 12 years. They replaced all three lamps under warranty. Always liked both the 39 & 59.