what can you guys tell me about it? how is accuracy? did it have problems? let it all hang out guys. i'm really starting to like the looks of them.
what's a good price? i have seen some for 250-300 range.
is someting wrong with them?

It was my issued duty gun for several years until we went to the 439. My agency was the first large agency to issue autos and it was the 39. Initial issue to all the Troops was in 1968 and we carried it until 1982.

Mine is almost as accurate as the Model 52 I use to have. A lot depends on the ammo. With our reloads it is tack driver. When I was in the academy we'd have shoot offs between all of us shooting at 25 yds bullseye targets, one hand. If you didn't get at least 1/2 your rds in the X ring you were out of the competition.

The 39-nothing came from the factory with a slight hump in the feed ramp which was suppose to feed the pointed FMJ ammo better. With the more blunted nose HP ammo the hump tended to cause some failure to feed problems. Most agencies who issued the 39-nothing ground the hump down. The 39-2 came from the factory without the hump.
Another issue, and it depends on who you talk to if it was really an issue, was the extractor. It used a wider extractor than later models. The early extractors would some times break. Some felt the extractor design was the problem, others felt that using the hotter service ammo was stressing the extractor too much. The 39-2 went with the smaller extractor.
Another issue, altho it's not really a problem as a lot of autos were so designed, was the 39/39-2 did not have a firing pin block. That meant that if dropped from a sufficient height, with just the right kind of ammo, and if it landed on the muzzle just the right angle at just the right speed that it was possible for the firing pin to move forward and strike the primer with enough force to set off the rd. Again, lots of guns at the time were so designed so it's not just the 39.

I haven't kept up on the prices so someone else will have to advise.

Nope, nothing. The grip design of the 39 is often viewed as one of the most user friendly grips produced. They seem to fit most people's hands.
The biggest thing wrong with them is that S&W no longer makes them.

__________________
183rd FBINA

The 39 is a excellant pistol, i prefer the 59, i bought one NIB a few months ago, i like both of them, both well made, George.

__________________
George Tucker

I can concur with the accuracy comments. I've had one of the original 39 no-dash models since about 1973, and it is still the overall best feeling gun I have owned, remarkably accurate, and as far as I know, still on it's original extractor. It's truly a pleasure to shoot, and it always goes to the range with me.

I had a 39-2 before that that I foolishly sold, and I remedied that mistake yesterday with the purchase of a late production un-fired 39-2.

Depending on condition that could be a very good price. If it is in great condition its a great price. If it is shooter grade you it is a good price. In short, I would get it if it were me. These are great shooting guns that are reliable and have a comfortable grip.

__________________
J.D. Roy

Elmer Keith thought highly of it and said so in his book "Sixguns."

And Elmer wasn't too keen on automatics to start with, but he liked the 39.

The 39 (especially the 39-2) is a great gun, and I'm primarily a revolver guy. I've owned several 39s and 59s, all have been good, reliable and pretty accurate guns. I currently have a 39-2 that, while in good condition, has apparently seen a lot of rounds go down range. It recently started jamming with failure to extract fully, usually after 3-4 rounds had been fired, causing a sort of a stovepipe jam. I remedied that by replacing the extractor spring, and also replaced the firing pin spring and recoil spring (all relatively easy to do). It now operates flawlessly. The grip design of the 39 is absolutely superb, possibly the best feeling gun (certainly the best feeling semi-auto) that has ever been made. This is heard not only from guys with large hands (such as me), but everybody, even small women with small hands. Like I said, I'm not a big fan of semi-autos (though I have several 1911s, a couple of .22s and a Luger as well as the 39), but the 39 is one of those guns I just do not want to be without. The price range you referenced seems to be a real bargain to me, also.

Some individual model 39 no dash pistols can be a tad fussy with hollow point ammo due to the humped feed ramp. Instead of paying for a gunsmith job (and possible mistakes if the smith is inexperienced) just look for hollow points with more rounded tips and try them.

Also, if in doubt, carry a hollow point in the chamber, then two round nose off the top of the magazine to ensure reliable follow up shots. The next rounds could then be hollow point again. With less spring pressure lower down in the magazine, the hollow points would be much less likely to tip downward against the ramp in response to magazine spring pressure and magazine feed lips friction.

My 39 no dash was about 95% reliable with all hollow points, but a very skilled gunsmith simply polished the ramp without changing the hump very much (if any)

If the hollow point will chamber off the top of a full magazine when racked slowly by hand, then it's likely the gun will be fine.

thanks gents,i knew i could count on you guys. i noticed how close it looked to a 52. i really couldn't beleive how cheap the prices were on these! i had heard bad things about the 59, but never really anything on the 39. the 39 looks as if it would be a joy to shoot. i can't explain why they are s reasonable. i think its time to make the plunge. ever since i saw that 52 friday,i've had the fever.
thanks again guys.

I bought my 39 no dash in '72, but being "really into" 1911's then, I never really took the time to get satisfactory with it, though it always went with me to the range. It is truly an accurate and reliable pistol for me. It has a grip that was, for me anyway, not like the 45 I was trying so desperately to master that I kind of just kept it around but never really got serious with it until a few years ago.

It DID break the extractor, but S&W sent me a new one, they explained it as a "tempered spring", and the current stock is heat-treated and tempered differently - "this one should NEVER break" (quote).

It has always and still feeds and fires everything in 9mm, from SuperVel's stubby hollow points of the early 70's, through any handload that I could concieve for the 9mm (even the puny little 92gr cast lead RN for the 380) to today's Federal and Remington JHP's. Yes, has the "humped ramp".

It is accurate, and I use it as my standard for chronogrphing 9mm loads, ('cause it refuses to shoot the wires like the BHP did).

It is a nice carry, concelaed or Open. Not a real flashy "Barbecue gun", but in a nice Ross holster, it looks good. I now carry it more than I used to, if that says anything for it.

Flash

were the 439's and the other 39 models just as good?
only asking because i saw that some others were cheaper.

They are just as good if not better than the no dash 39 because the later pistols feed hollow point ammo reliably.

Personally, however, I dislike the rear sight on the 439 because there are too many vertical objects in the sight picture when aiming.

Quote
"It is a nice carry, concelaed or Open. Not a real flashy "Barbecue gun", but in a nice Ross holster, it looks good. I now carry it more than I used to, if that says anything for it."

Flash

Guess it's all in how you dress her.....

Yes, my M639 is as good...maybe slightly better....but it ain't a 39. The 39 is the Daddy of S&W semi autos. One day I'll find the 39 I always wanted.

I've long wanted one but have heard some poo-pooing of the Model 39 for durability issues. Any opinions from the owners/shooters? What about parts and service? Could it still be a practical choice today?

that's what i was wondering fellas. i'm kinda on a budget for this first one. but didn't want to make a mistake. i'm only going to use it for a target gun. but i plan on it being the first of many on my list. thanks.

Even though they are 60ish, parts are still available from Numrich and others. Btw, If I handed you one and didn't tell you what it was would you guess it was designed in the early 1950s?

Yes they are durable, reliable, accurate, and fit they hand like like nothing else since. If the alloy frame worries you find a 639 all stainLESS steel version. Just be aware the weight difference is very noticeable.

I lust after the M39; I'd love to get one.

i may have found a good 39-2 here in georgia,guy wants to trade. would love to have it.

price was too high for condition. oh well i'm patient.

Is the extractor broken on your no-dash? Or does it have a little step on it - that vertical mark at the midway point?

My original extractor broke, but the factory sent me a "new, improved, better heat-treated" one and neither it nor the original had that little line.

BTW, the nickel plated looks nice. My niece has one for her EDC.

Flash

Amen! And they somehow fit just right for concealed carry with an inside the waistband holster. The 39 just kind of snuggles up and blends in like few other full size autos can do.

What he said. The 639 is the most accurate semi I've ever owned, but it's a load of bricks if you're used to carrying polymer pistols. The 39 is lighter by a hefty margin in concealed carry consideration. I haven't heard of anyone wearing out a Model 39 anyway.

Speaking of the 439: I was planning to do a rear sight R&R, and noted 2 springs nestled under the rear sight. Anyone care to expand on the sight R&R and those 2 springs??
Thanks

__________________
"Shoot 4 Ten Rings"
ASA 61-66

Those springs have plungers underneath them. Both plungers interact with 3 levers in the frame, two on the right and one on the left. The left side lever is for the magazine safety and the right side ones are the firing pin safety lever and the decocking lever.

__________________
Mama, take this badge offa me

Thanks for the spring info, xcpd69. So, if one removes the rear sight, and catches the springs and plungers, what procedure is used to compress the spring(s) while sliding in the new rear sight??
Anyone?
Regards.

EDIT: No need to reply. Job has been completed. Nice scope mount has been installed, and scope is now on board. Springs did not present a problem. And in case anyone might wonder why I scoped a 439...I use it in Center fire Bullseye competition. And for Personal Defense, simple, aim C.O.M.
Regards

__________________
"Shoot 4 Ten Rings"
ASA 61-66

I have one and like it very much. Good shooting gun. The only problem, compared to modern 9's, is the low mag capacity. The 52 looks like it because it was built on the same frame.