Q: Has anyone accurized any or all of these guns. What exactly was involved and what was done, ie frame tightening, bushings etc? I completley stripped a just aquired model 659, internals look unfired but the gun displayed that definite fails the "shake" test ...and seems to have a lot of run out at the frame to slide fit clickity...clack ! ...just seems to me the gun woud have a lot more accuracy potential if tightened up some? Say?

Yes, Smith & Wesson did. It's called the Model 52......or in the case of the one pictured below, the Model 52-2. It was based on the 39.

Keep in mind that the guns you listed were designed as self defense weapons, not target pistols. As such they were designed with loose tolerances so they would function under extreme conditions. Yes, you could tighten them up with the tricks you mentioned and probably increase accuracy but they were never intended to be target guns.

The Model 52 on the other hand was intended to shoot 2" groups at 50 yards when it left the factory.

I looked into that at one time myself. I had a 639 that wouldn't groups to save its life but I love the feel of that grip frame.
Unfortunately, these guns have been out of production long enough that there are no speciality parts for them, at least that I could find.
No custom bushings, no custom barrels and as far as I'm concerned thats a huge percentage of an accuracy job. So anything you do will be a custom (read high dollar) proposition. As one of the big shops told me, "If you want it to shoot like a 952 just do yourself and your wallet a favor and get a 952."
In the end I had to agree, it just wasn't worth it.
You could at least do the trigger that shouldn't be any big deal and if you know a good gunsmith with a soft heart maybe he could tighten up the barrel bushing fit, that would have to help.

You are right about them not being target guns. I have a 39-2 that seems to be, but I also have 639 that shoots to the left no matter how far you turn that adjustable sight.

I would chalk the OP's gun up to bad maintenance over its life more than it being inherently inaccurate.

Shooting a metal frame semi auto without lubrication or cleaning over 20 years of use can have disastrous effects. The military M9's ive handled are a great example of this. Lots of shake, rattle, and roll in the issue weapons.

By comparison, my ex LE Beretta 92F is a tack driver. No failures or accuracy problems with that sidearm, and it was built in the same factory at the same time as the military 9mms were. I swear it handles better than a brand new 92FS a pal bought recently.


Rather than "accurizing" a gun that someone's been abusing for 20 something years, it may be best to find a better acquisition.

Smith and Wesson definitely let at least one through that didn't shoot well. I know because my 639 was it and the pistol was in unfired condition when I got it. I believe the main reason was that the bushing flopped around like a trout on the bottom of a boat.
I don't want to tick off those that love them but that particular gun was a friday gun pure and simple. Its possible that the OPs is too.
Even though they are service grade pistols there is no reason they couldn't be a tack driver, same as a 1911 can be made to and still work. Its just not worth the money to do it IMO.