Hi
Except for the hammer and trigger finish (stainless vs blue),
what are the differences between 3913 early and late production?
Does one have advantages over the other?
Thanks

That wasn't as much a difference in finish as it was a difference in material, wasn't it? I could certainly be mistaken, but I thought the hard chromed parts were forged steel whereas the black parts were MIM.

The regular 3rd gen production changes and revisions were followed in the 3913/14 lines (and some variants).

Just off the top of my head ...

The slides & barrels changed. Narrow breech face cuts & machined shoulders on the breech face of early guns v. wide cut breech faces & straight cuts; barrel tabs were narrow for the older guns and wide for the later guns (corresponding to the narrow/ or wide cut breech faces).

S&W used carbon steel hammers & triggers for older 3rd gen guns, with flash-chromed in the 3913 and plain carbon/black finish for the 3914. (MIM for both in later guns)

Early guns had steel disconnectors (v. plastic); metal mainspring plungers (v. plastic).

Sights & rear dovetails.

There were some changes to the profile of the engagement pads/surfaces for the slide stop lever & manual safeties (narrower/thinner on early guns).

Revisions and manufacturing/production improvements occurred as the model lines continued (including through production of later TSW versions).

__________________
Ret LE Firearms inst & armorer

The early 3913's with the flash chromed triggers and hammers also had a flat machined on the slidestop, and reduced thickness decocker/safety paddles.

Made them slightly flatter and more concealeable. Regards 18DAI

Did those changes improve the pistol reliability, and does it justifies replacing an early model with a late production model?

Thanks

I'm not sure I'd go that far, although some of the revisions and manufacturing changes did result in subtle improvements.

The ejector revision helped reduce the potential for the tip to develop a stress riser and break off, and the longer tip also resulted in faster ejection, which was considered helpful when LE were using higher pressure loads (+P & +P+).

The drawbar received some changes in machining cuts that also helped reduce the potential for some cracks.

The elimination of the rounded shoulders machined into the breech face might have helped feeding reliability, in the respect that there was no longer a raised metal shoulder surrounding the case base & rim which might accumulate fouling & dirt (perhaps taking up space needed by the chambered round's case). Conjecture on my part.

Now, going to MIM hammers did make for better trigger DA triggers, since the variable sharpness of the cutters used to make the machined hammers could vary quite a bit. I've seen hammers that had rounded surfaces (over which the sear nose rubbed during the DA stroke) that were anywhere from smooth, to something approximating a shale outcropping.

Ditto the smoothness of a relief cut underneath the back of the hammer, in which the tail of the drawbar could rub during the beginning of the SA trigger pull.

Extractors received some attention, reportedly to allow for a further contribution to reliability when being fit (making good even better).

The MIM triggers seeming had more uniform "ears", in both dimension and smoothness of the hook tips (which are what center themselves in the rear of the drawbar head for the trigger's movement).

The plastic (nylon) disconnector and mainspring plunger (spring cup, so to speak) made for some subtle improvements, too. The plastic disconnectors were really consistently sized and smooth (making for some better inherent lubricity of the tail against the drawbar's disconnector notch), and the edges of the spring plunger were smooth, allowing the mainspring to compress within the plunger (cup) without the resistance of metal-on-metal, as each coil passed the plunger's lip. Both plastic parts have well withstood usage in working guns, too. As a matter of fact, when I first asked (skeptically) about the reliability of the plastic disconnector, I was told in-house factory testing had revealed the plastic part to last as well as the older steel part ... if not a bit better.

The Novak Low Mount dovetail cut allows for more rear sight options.

I wouldn't "dump" an older model 3913 just to get a newer one. I'd keep it and buy the newer one.

I feel the same way about the hypothetical situation of choosing between an early model 6906 or one made from the last part of the model's production. If given the choice between them, I'd go with the newer one, just for the refinements and improved manufacturing which occurred over the years. On the other hand, I'd be happy to own and use either. (I'd just go through the older one and "upgrade" any parts I felt would benefit the gun. )

Just some thoughts.

__________________
Ret LE Firearms inst & armorer

Thank you

Does the 908 enjoy the improvements of the late production 3913 ?
Thanks