From his book "Sixguns":

"The best auto pistol in the 9mm caliber we have seen to date for combat use is the new Smith and Wesson. It is made for both single action and double action....with the double action model the first shot canbe fired with a pull of the trigger the same as the Walther P-38.

Its Double Action feature places it head and shoulders over the Cold model 1911 or the Colt Commander. When the Colts are carried in combat they should be cocked, and the slide safety used . This can be thrown off quite fast, but it is not as fast as a double action gun for the first shot".


The esteemed Mr Keith is long before my time, but where does he gain the idea that DA is faster then what Jeff Cooper would later term Condition 1?

In my experience I find flipping off a manual safety on the draw to be slightly faster and slightly more accurate then pulling through a DA shot, but is that outcome based on my weak skills with a DA pistol, or is that "the way it is"?

Should it turn out that I need more practice shooting Double Action, it would mean I'd have to endure the horrible consequence of more shooting practice.Life should be so hard.

I certainly won't put my knowledge ahead of Mr Keith, but there are several firms including S&W making versions of the 1911 and the old M39 is no longer in production. Years ago I liked the idea of a DA first shot so you could carry with the safety off. I no longer do and I do not own any DA/SA handguns. I agree with the OP that if you practice with the 1911 safety that it doesn't slow down the first shot. I would rather draw and fire a 1911 with its easier first shot than to have a DA first and SA afterward.

__________________
Luke 22:36

The philosophy of the times, and the associated training, were nowhere near as sophisticated as they would become in the 70s and for the next 40 years. Elmer had a lot of savvy, and a lot of practical experience, but not the benefit of the work done by the leatherslap group in Big Bear and the IPSC folks who came after.

We have also learned a lot about the ergonomics of the DA/SA pistol (which are HORRIBLE), and the utility of that design (none). It serves no purpose except to make handwringing LE executives who should be removed for cause feel better because it makes it harder to shoot people who need it. I was issued two different pistols of that configuration (1076 and 4566). Both were unwieldy pigs on the best day they ever had. My USP was also DA/SA, but not quite as bad (but it had other warts). Being one of the few in the agency that got to transition to the 1911 was a happy day for me.

He also did not have the benefit of what was learned about the M39 after it was adopted by the Illinois State Police, who in essence did the R&D work for S&W on the improvements to the M39/M59 line through the development of the 3 and then 4 digit models. ISP beat the hell out of those guns, and not only improved the pistols themselves, but the ammo available. The last ISP load in 9mm, the 127 grain +P+, is still considered a good service load. They dumped a good # of bad guys with that load and its immediate predecessor (115 +P+).

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

Ol Elmers 9mm of his day are not the same as today.
It has come a long way.

I've carried a DA/SA Sig for over 20 years. I've never had any problem going from the DA first shot to the SA next shot. As a matter of fact, I just qualified today.

I doubt there is much difference in speed between drawing and firing my Sig or a 1911. But for drawing and NOT firing - as in taking a guy into custody at gunpoint - I much prefer my Sig.

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

You're right...that one even made it to the beach!

__________________
Thirty characters. Exactly...

He was basically right. The model 39 was what he had as a point of reference when he wrote that statement. Out of production now, it has been replaced by newer D/A and D/A "type" autos that follow the same principal, so lets use them as a point of reference.

As much as I like the 1911, it is not a gun for the masses. IF you are a little gun savvy, and willing to train and develop muscle memory, it is a fine defensive weapon. Its use by numerous SWAT type teams, and selected military forces bears this out.

For the run of the mill shooter, a D/A pistol is probably quicker, and maybe safer to get into action, especially if the shooter is unwilling to practice and train as he should. Designes with hammer drop options and long (compared to a S/A 1911) trigger pull also prevent quite a few accidental discharges.....Shouldn't be that way, but lack of training and stress happens.

I think that the overwhelming use of D/A type autos (ala the model 39) by modern police and civilian shooters bear this point out.

Larry

The model 39, 3915. and the 3953. were aqnd still are three of the best police auto's ever made...Not with out some faults but all could be made police perfection with little and in some cases no tune up. Why SW gave up on the 3915 and deveations I'll nrver know....I can only guess costs, or some expert had more influence than the buying public.....The late Joe Bonner did a 3953 for me many years ago. Had the best dbl type action easily as good as a fine K model revolver...Good enough to score a perfect score at W/Mo. qualification..I was 57 at the time....A collector bought it because he offered 1300 for a 400 dollor pistol......Even in passing it served it's pauper master....(not my words) Old Drum Case......I couldn't resist sorry. Even though I made3 much more than I should have I still miss that pistol...It was far better than I.....That was 13 years ago and I still brag about that pistol......

I agree with SIGP220.45 on the first point. I have never understood the fuss about this, possibly because I am not a champion marksman/speed-shooter. On his second point, I also agree. On the third, I could see how he would feel that way though I am not sure I agree, but since I am not in that business I wouldn't know.

Elmer was a gun writer and a product of his time. He had good and bad to say about everything, which was one of the tools of his writing trade. In the same breath he might laud the Model 39 for its double-action mechanics, and then turn right around and say it was useless because it was not .45-caliber.

Doug-

What were your issues with the H-K USP?

Elmer Keith was almost exclusively a revolver man and did not use autos enough to determine empirically which system was faster. He was also a gun writer and said some things to garner favor from S&W, I think.

When he wrote that the then-new Combat Magnum .357 had very little barrel left to bell or crack behnd the frame, I think he was just looking at factory photos of the gun. It is now well known that the bbl. there DOES sometimes crack when the gun is fired a lot with hot .357 ammo. He may not have examined the gun personally before writing those words. May have been on a press deadline, and gone by photos.

Later, he recommended his old .38-44 load for these guns, which I think is a wise choice, for handloaders. Skelton adopted pretty much the same load and liked it a lot in his M-19's. Elmer also wrote that the M-19 was not as good a gun for the reloader who wanted top .357 power as was the larger M-27/28. He was correct.

Jeff Cooper did much more fast combat type work with the Colt .45 auto and was aware of its potential more than was Elmer, who used that gun mainly for traditional bullseye match shooting, when required.

Although this gun was introduced in 1935, it was first imported here by Browning about 1954, I think. Keith never mentioned it, to my knowledge. In any event, he probably hadn't seen one prior to writing what he did about the M39.

Elmer woudn't have been too interested in any 9mm, especially with only hardball ammo then available.

I have a copy of "Sixguns" by Keith. I've noticed that his opinions are a lot more reasonable and nuanced that he is often given credit for, especially after they gain the status of folklore. His section on the Model 39 is pretty clear. He felt it was a very handy little automatic. He felt that the double-single action was perfectly adequate for close range fast work (which it is). The one he had (#1153), was very accurate (he and a friend shot it out to 400 yards!). He felt that the magazine safety was a worthwhile addition (I just browsed a book by Roper that said the same; perhaps some of the old-time revolver shooters like having an extra mechanical feature to guard against those "oops" moments). He found the sights and the grip tang superior to the military's 1911. He said the trigger was better than on his Lugers. As for the 9mm, he felt that it was a flat-shooting accurate caliber that was hampered by its bullet. In the chapters on handloading and cartridge selection he discusses what to do about it. He finished by saying that he would like to see the S&W auto in .45.

Speaking just as a recreational shooter, I wouldn't argue with him too much on that statement. I've used both guns and while I liked the 1911 better back in the day when I was shooting IPSC, I didn't think the M-39 I had back then was at much of a disadvantage. It was lighter, help more rounds, the D/A-SA trigger adjustment never bothered me, nor did the magazine safety, I never tried to shoot when I had the magazine out anyway. The 39 also fit my hand better than any handgun I've ever owned. The only real reason I liked the 1911 better back then was the 45 ACP made "major" caliber where the 9mm didn't.

I don't own one now, but I'd rather have a M-39-2 than any other 9mm semi I can think of today.

__________________
John 3:16 .

Sometimes you can't improve the best.......

Keith often got things right. This quote... no atypical.

As to speed of use, etc., there are folks who can horse a 625 around and end up setting speed shooting records. But for most folks, a G-21 works much better. Same with DA/SA pistols over SA pistols w/ safeties. Sure there are folks who can learn to hit the safety while they aim a SA pistols just like some folks learn to run a SAA fast by cocking it while they are pulling it from the holster. But simply being able to grab a pistol and pull the trigger w/ nothing else to think about is simplicity in itself. It really doesn't matter on a target range or shooting in a match. All your doing is shooting for score. And if one actually spends the time to learn to run a gun, learning to transition from DA to SA is only a big deal if one is predisposed to making it a big deal. In a actual unsocial encounter, it matters. Once upon a time I used not a 39 but a 59 when someone decided to pay my wife and I an uninvited visit on morning about 2 a.m. Happily there was not need to fire as he took off running like a winged Mercury. But, just as happily I had no need to figure anything out in that early morning... except not to chase him down.

__________________
<><

The 39 was a great little gun in its time. I didn't realize it so much back then. I am not so sure about the 59. I always thought that one had a serious case of "doesn't feel right."

I was never too impressed with the accuracy though. I guess I need to drag mine out and shoot it again. I didn't remember EK commenting about shooting his to 400-yards. From my recollections of the ones I shot, I think at that range quite literally he would have had a hard time hitting the proverbial broad-side of a barn.

Elmer was one of the first "gun writers". The Smith mod 39 was new, it was fairly revolutionary.....He had to say SOMETHING good!

It was Starsky and Hutch that got me wanting the 59...but it felt like a pellet gun in my hand...so I decided on the P-35. I never got my "show" gun and to this day I'm sure glad I didn't make an actor pick out my 9....

__________________
Thirty characters. Exactly...

Well I'm a grumpy old fart . I am intimately familiar with the 1911 . I had one M39 . For me it was no contest as I did not find the 39 more than a " pie plate " gun @ 25yds ( kinda like a Ballister - Molina ). Sold the 39 & still have a dozen 1911's . That was over 40 yrs ago . The Browning P35 at that time was a much better gun as it was more accurate , held more ammo albeit was still a 9mm . I think the old boy had been sniffin' too much 2400 .

I think it really comes down to your training and experience. I learned how to shoot semi-autos with a TDA pistol after initially learning to shoot on a Model 28-2. SA pistols (like the 1911) are nice guns and very successful, but they don't feel right to me. If someone learned to shoot with a 1911, I could see a Mod 39 trigger not feeling right, but for me that little bit of "slop" is what I'm used to and shoot best with. As for accuracy, most handguns I can afford are only combat accurate, which is fine for me since I am not a competition shooter. I shoot for fun, for self-defense training, and because it relaxes me.
In any case, shoot what you enjoy and try to shoot as often as you can.

__________________
J.D. Roy

Along the same lines go back and read Skeeter Skelton carefully-particularly when he talks about his beloved 27's and the little faults he does find in them...ie the cylinder is a bit too massive for its intended purpose and the barrel is a bit light. My opinion is that if the 586/686 had been around for Skeeter to shoot-he would have left the 27 in a heartbeat for them. Remember that these guys were products of their times.

__________________
Forum consigliere

[QUOTE=brucev;137216111 But simply being able to grab a pistol and pull the trigger w/ nothing else to think about is simplicity in itself. .[/QUOTE]

That works for me. Back when I was young and dumb and before I figured out the 9mm was not a good cartridge I had a P38. The difference between a DA first shot and the rest SA was not a problem but to just grab the gun and start pulling the trigger was an advantage. Larry

I'm a hardcore 1911 guy. But I also totally agree with Fishinfools comments. Its not for everybody. One must be willing to put in the time and practice to not only be proficient with it, but to make releasing the thumbs safety a totaly automatic movement.
I also own and am a huge fan of the Model 39. I think a SA/DA auto is a much better choice for the average shooter and you can't do much better than the old 39.

Keith's experience with the 1911 was very deep yet very narrow. He spent WWII working at the U.S. Army's Ogden Arsenal helping to rework 1911's. He wrote that he would test-shoot them, an armorer would tear them down and rework the trigger and other parts (I forget what, had to do with accuracy) and then he would shoot them again to see how much better they were. Apparently he did this for a couple of years and probably several thousand 1911s, anyway.

Over the years I've been into this hobby, sport and self protection, I have read articles, books, instructional's, etc. by Keith, Skeeter, Jordon, etc. and I have come away with many good suggestions made by them. When I was younger I even went so far as to buy what some of them were recommending at the time. Reflecting back upon the years I have come to the conclusion that the BEST gun (no matter what ANYBODY says), is the one you shoot the best, feel the most comfortable with and have the most confidence in. As much as I respect some of these pioneers, LEO's and gun guy's, I do NOT subscribe to the BEST GUN theory for everybody.

When it comes to specific calibers, holsters, guns etc. you need to see what works for you. Everyone of us dresses differently, we live in different climates (both weather-wise and political) and we need to select our gear bases upon these things as well. We all have different life styles and careers and what might be the perfect gun for a man in one situation might be a disaster for a man trying to safely carry a licensed concealed weapon in a large metropolitan city.

A perfect example is if you live in a LARGE congested city and need to conceal a weapon in hot sticky weather. IMHO few if any of the large frame Auto's will fit the bill. A small frame ( J ) revolver in a pocket holster might be the perfect answer for this situation.

Another example is if you live in Idaho like E. Kieth did, concealment is of lesser concern than a larger caliber for protection against two legged animals as well as four.

Bottom line here is when we read all the books and articles written buy all these famous gun writers, we really need to be truthful with ourselves in determining what is the best, most effective and most practical for our own individual needs.

That was my experience with the 39. Even my untuned Colts of the time would consistently outshoot any 39 I found. That was a disappointment and, along with its caliber, led many of us to not take the 39 very seriously. Now, I wonder how much of the accuracy issue back then was gun and how much was ammunition?

As to the sniffing of #2400, I think yes, that was definitely the case! I also agree with the earlier poster who opined that Keith was not above giving a tip of the hat to the 39 in deference to S&W and Hellstrom, both of whom he claimed to maintain a close association/friendship with.

Interesting comment from CL. I don't recall reading that but don't doubt it, and while the cylinder of the 27 never annoyed me the whippy barrel always did, so I can see how Skelton would have felt that way. Thanks for that bit of "history."

Technically, really nothing much has changed in handguning in the last 100-years. The Glock pistol, which is considered "modern" ( ), is hardly radically different than a 1911 in terms of its job and how it does it. Advancements largely have been incremental, but how shooters have responded to those increments is interesting - just as interesting as the development of the weapons, possibly more so. I do not expect to see any major advances in handguning as long as we accept the idea that the handgun by definition has to be something that one can carry on his belt without extraordinary heroics, and that the pistol must be as close to absolutely reliable as is possible.

The 1911 does not get used as much as the HK USP .45 and the P220's in .45 and .38 Super.

When the 39 first came out, I bought one, but I could never get it to shoot a very small group. I sold it less than a year after I bought it. It was a couple of decades before I shot anything but a relvolver.

I will not argue that one gun is better than the other. It is personal preference.

__________________
Corripe Cervisiam

very interesting; one of the first things I've notived from all the works I've read by him is that he wasn't a big 1911 guy

__________________
Cheers, Charles
SWCA #2442

Note the title of the book...

"Sixguns".

__________________
'Merica!

I don't think Elmer Keith wrote that. Where did you see it? For him, it is VERY "atypical."

I knew him and read about all that he wrote, and that isn't his wording. I also doubt that he ever used a Glock. He died about 1984, as I recall.

But Bill Jordan had a S&W M-59 when I talked with him in the late G.W. Stone's knife shop when Bill drove over to Dallas from Shreveport one day. He said the M-59 was "almost" as reliable as a revolver.

I believe brucev is referring to the Elmer Keith quote in the original post, not to the paragraph that follows, which I assume is brucev's own.

iF YOU DON'T MIND ME ASKING...WHO MADE THOSE GRIPS ON THE BHP. Love them or think I do,,,,,

GEORGE, THE ORIGINAL POST WAS BY XFUZZ. WHY ARE WE SHOUTING?

Life before the awesome CZ75?

Wow. Two year old thread and I'm all in! Back in the olden days (1976) I became a Deputy in a 800 + Department in SoCal. The issue gun was the S&W M-39-2. I loved that gun. Two years later, some Dept. bean counter thought we should transition to the M-66 4 inch. Not a fan. So I opted for an "optional" privately purchased Colt Combat Commander. I still missed the M-39. Soon thereafter, we went to the Sig P226 in .40S&W which remained the Department issue weapon until I retired in 2004.
I loved that old M-39, and finally, in a fit of nostalgia, found a NIB gun on an internet website and bought it. It's still just as good as I remember it and now it's my EDC.

Pulling a gun and pulling the trigger comes a lot more natural especially under stress than pulling a gun pushing a safety and pulling the trigger

__________________
Len

The double action on the CZ75, CZ85DB, CZ82 & CZ83 Rocks.

Sorry I know noth'n about the s&w pistols and the other brands I do know the 1911's/CZ. I'm not fond of pistols.

I have a CZ-75B, which I love. I did fire a M-39 years ago on the range. Couldn't get it to shoot for sour grapes. Wasn't me, either. I had a Colt .45 auto, a Browning Hi-Power, and a .357 that day and they shot just fine, as they normally did.

I like the way that the M-39 fits my hand, but I was so displeased by the poor accuracy that I never bought one.

Keith did say overall that the .45 was the best auto, because it hit harder. But when S&W made the M-645, it was too big and didn't fit my hand very well. The CZ-97 .45 is also pretty huge. I think John Browning had the shape about right, and the A-1 version topped that off.

*
I'm not sure why I did not notice this question back then.
The biggest single problem with the pistol is the biggest single problem with anything from H&K: H&K. They are horrible people. Their idea of customer service requires registration in every state with which I am familiar. No dinner, no kiss, no consent.

We had a set specification package and were supposed to get them at a negotiated price, but as far as I know, they never honored it for officer purchases, and actually getting one with those specs, including the match trigger, was a many month long process that required fighting with them at every step. They lied at every chance - "next week" was what I heard for many months. Some of our personnel got so mad that they cancelled their orders and did consumer fraud complaints with the AG's Office. I was so dedicated to getting rid of the 4566 abomination (mine was one of a small group that did not break, but I did not trust it because of all of the failures I had seen from poor manufacturing and QC) that I stuck it out, but they were not happy with me when I wrote a scathing letter to the HQ and sent it to Europe by FedEx to tell them just how awful they were. (US Division President called to whine about what I'd said. My direct response to him was worse. I'm not charitable when I am angry.)

I did have a lot of trouble with mag springs. Unlike any other pistol I have ever had, they did not last. A year or so, then they would die. I got to the point I was replacing them regularly, because I could not otherwise trust the pistol. Too bad, 'cause I shot it well. I have heard a lot of good things about the new VP9, but I doubt I could ever trust H&K enough to do business with them.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

Charlie Askins, no stranger to a gunfight, also liked the 39 and preferred it to a 1911. But this was years after his gunfighting days. It probably had something to do with his being left-handed, too.
Bob

I personally go all three ways on the subject , or is it four ? ( 1911, DA/SA , DAO-ish, and revolver .)

Keith had a perspective of being a master of the DA trigger. Most 1911 fanboys aren't.

The DA/SA and transition thereof are not nearly as big as issue as sometimes made out to be, so long as two factors exist : 1. The shooter is a capable DA shooter 2. The DA pull is at least reasonably decent

I've seen plently that were terriable , but my P series SIG is great , and my P90 is more than decent.

Hard to beat in a 9mm work gun.

__________________
Halfway and one more step

I leave the 1911's for the 45acp round. I think a double stack, double action first shot in 9mm is the way to go.

The CZ75 & it's twin the CZ85DB (CZ75 amberdexterious) is probably one f the best double action on the first shot pistols in 9mm luger/parabellium hands down. It's the choice of the Russian spec ops.

I waited probably three decades++ maybe four to get a pistol in 9mm.
The CZ85DB was sitting in the used handgun case at my LGS still unfired in it shipping box and case for $300. I got my foot in the door on the 9mm luger round.

If you look at the used guns here locally you can find a lot of them still new, unshot. Why I don't have a clue. They have no wear at all. Plus the price of a used gun is around half the cost of new sometimes. I don't want to hear anyone say I don't get dealS like that. I didn't find any too till I stayed looking often. I have a few LGS that are near each other. I go browsing often when I'm looking with my extra gas money I save up.

We have to adapt to ccw different style guns. I flick the safety off on my 1911/45acp as it leaves the holster. She's unleashed ready to fire.

I wonder how many of us practice drawing the ccw gun from its holster? While it's not the old west and dont know when it could happen are you ready? To me the ccw means the element of surprise is on our side. A difference of a few seconds could save your life or someone else's.

I'm not talking about the riflemans pin point shots from the hip.
Lucas McCain makes those accurate multiple shots from the hip all the time.

I remember our first bear kill. We go to the range and practice, practice and more practice. Being as accurate as we can be. Bench rested I put two rounds through the same hole at 100yds with a 338wm.
I stood up in a hunting situation and had four different bullseye at 100yds. I fired and ran the bolt as fast as I could changing my aim to each bullseye. I was 1" on each target from the x.

I find that practicing a lot helps that's my point. I seen a bear and went into a preprogrammed mode. I put the safety off, aimed, and fired. I automatically did it like pushing enter on your key board. But look at the amount of time I put in practicing. I had no time to think about stress. I was in a automatic programmed mode I knew what I had to do. I never heard the sound of the rifle. I think being so focused on the hunt and making the shot count blocks everything around us out.

How often do you practice drawing your ccw weapon?

I agree with a previous poster. We must remember to read books and gun articles in the context of their time.

Elmer had experience with the 1911 and the P35 and the P38, and the P38s were often surplus and not in good condition. Elmer was likely glad to have an American made brand new quality made DA Auto. S&W would have been the only game in town.

Everybody wants a fast first shot, but people differ on how to do that. I think if somebody trains with something, be it SA or DA that's what's best for them. I train with a DA and would probably shoot my foot off with an SA but if you train with SA a DA trigger would be an impedance. Were I strictly carrying for COMBAT and I knew I'd probably be needing a handgun in a few minutes, I'd really rather have an SA but I would surely be well trained in using it.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

With the advances in bullet technology perhaps the .45/9mm gap has closed even further today ?

While I do love my Smiths IMO the Model 59 came up short in the ergonomics dept and the Model 39 came up short in capacity dept when compared to the CZ75/85 .

Revisiting the issue has me thinking perhaps a SS Model 639/659 slide with a CZ shaped aluminum grip frame enhanced with the Browning HP Mark III SPS safety system might just be the best combination of features for the ultimate combat pistol ?

After reading all of this thread, well, I had a M39 when they first came out.
Had it Bobcated for CC.
Never got it to shoot right with out jamming...
Sold it for big bucks. Big demand for them back in the late '70's.

I'll take a 1911 over it anytime in 45ACP.
As a matter of fact, my 9mm is a 1911.
Also have the 38 Super barrel it came with but 38 super brass/ammo is
not easy to come by.
Now, my wife has a S&W Shield 9mm, but she is disabled.....
Light weight & trigger pull are paramount with her.

__________________
Only difference Fool/Mule-ears

During my career that 38 spl. revolver was mandated. However, when I went into investigative services I bought (one of the early)
a Model 39 and packed it for several years. I regret ever selling it.
It remains, to me one of the best pistols I've ever owned. It was
S&W's design to replace the military's 1911s but the Viet Nam thing came along and the army ordered thousands more of the 1911s and the contest ended. So, S&W brought them out to the public. They also offered the "39" in all steel. Alloy frames were new back then and did give me concerns if they'd go several thousand rounds__so I got the all steel one later.

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
-- George Orwell