I have spent the last several weeks reading up on the extractor problems with the original Model 39.

I have came across a really nice one and want to give it to my Son for a Christmas present. Also understanding that the best way to avoid an extractor break is to load the pistol via the magazine not dropping a cartridge into the chamber then allowing the slide to ride forward.

With that said has anyone had a breakage just from shooting? Is it normally the event above that breaks the extractor?

Has anyone found a gunsmith or machinist who can make these? There has to be someone. You would think with all the 39's out there someone would repair these.

Many thanks

I owned a no dash, it broke the extractor at about 300 rounds. Smith fixed it.

I sold the gun, and the new buyer broke the extractor test firing it.

I took it back, and durn near gave it away, to someone else.

I believe the dash 1 models had the same extractor. (correct me if I am wrong)

I would not touch one of the earlier ones now.

__________________
NRA Instructor

A S&W Model 39-2 has to a better choice for the money and the reliability over the collector value of a S&W Model 39 (no dash).

Orignial Model 39 (no dash) came with a wide, long, one piece extractor. Il State Police purchased a quantity of these as soon as they were released and identified them right away as problematic and prone to breakage. ISP armorers work closely with S&W to correct the problem.

500 of their M39's were returned to S&W and a replacement extractor was installed. It was still a wide version but was a two piece split extractor. They worked just fine then and continue to do so today.

With the advent of the 39-2, a narrower width, shorter extractor was developed that you regularly see in that model.

If you have encountered an original with the one piece extractor and do want to purchase it, I recommend that it is not used in an environment where acceptable functionality is required, like CCW.

Dropping a round in the chamber and allowing the extractor to override it going into battery is a very poor practice and will eventually damage any semi-automatic.


*** JOHN K. - No Model 39-1 was ever produced. Standard Catalog, page 286, 1st paragraph.

^^^^^ That's a nail in a thread if I ever saw one! Not much else to say...

I would still own a 39 regardless but only to have one for what it is...I have two 39-2's so I'll shoot those.

Traded with my buddy for a Hi Power. Got a (it's been a while but I still remember) big Planters Peanut can full of cone nosed cast bullet hand loads. He said they were 'hot'.
Took the Hi power and my near new 39 out for a shoot. Those rounds were hot.
The Hi Power liked them. I am shooting the 39 when I see something sticking out from the right hand side of the gun.
I stop, clear and check. It's the extractor. Completely broke in half.
Yes I still have my 39. No more cast bullet hand loads!
And I have 2 extra extractors in my parts box.

__________________
NRA LIFE MEMBER

Here is some history on the 39 about this issue:

39 No dash ISP pistol/Range results added 8/21

Thanks all. It's a shame that S&W won't do the fix on these like the ones the ISP had.

Plus I assume not one gunsmith makes this modification. Oh well guess I go on the hunt for a 39-2.

As was mine. The split extractor is held in place by a roll pin which can be seen on the top of the slide just forward of the slide grooves.



No more hot duty rounds for my 39-nothing. I'd be sick if I tore up mine. They are amazingly accurate for a duty type pistol. Many say for a duty pistol that 4" at 25 yds is standard. I remember when first issued mine and we were shooting at a bullseye target at 25 yds. Xs and 10s were the norm when you did your part. It's still my favorite of all the duty guns I had.

__________________
183rd FBINA

Wonder if there are any older smiths still at S&W that recall doing this and would still repair it like this? Back in 2004 one actually worked on a Registered Magnum for me.

I've still got my 39 no-dash 31xxx serial range, it's been shot a lot since the early 70s, and is still on the original extractor. It doesn't look very nice as the first owner was a corrections officer who must have carried it a lot. The frame was pretty scarred up from repeatedly scraping on the snaps on the holster.

As for its accuracy, it's better than any of my other semi autos of the same barrel length.

That's where I wonder if they are hit or miss. I had a very early 39 that I picked up in a pawn shop years ago. A DC cop carried it off duty. Had three of those early magazines. I put a lot of rounds out of that gun. Never had a problem. But it is somewhat solved. Found and purchased a NIB 39-2 local today. Will get the 39 no dash and make my own evaluation on that.

Apart from the tip-up barrel Berettas, I cannot think of a semi-automatic pistol that does not require the first round to be loaded from the magazine. I have no idea who started the rumor that it was a good plan, perhaps shooters of certain rifles.

Come to think of it, a bolt rifle with a controlled feed does not do well with a round simply dropped in a chamber. I don't recommend it with most push feed rifles if you can avoid it. Only the SMLE and some Mosins seem tolerant of a round dropped in the chamber in my experience.

Sorry to drudge up and old thread but thanks to all who recommended Jack First! I have an early 39 that I occasionally shoot but had issues about extraction. Looked at the Jack First site but no extractor. So I called, victory! Just because its not listed doesn't mean they don't have one "fill in the blank". Great info here on the forum and great service from Jack First. Thank s everyone.

Also submitted form to get it papered. It was my uncle's backup when he rode motors for the California highway patrol. A model 39 to backup his 6" Python! Whole lot of iron to lug around back in the day.

I was issued my 39 (nothing), serial #838xx in the IL state police academy in 1968. Around 1981, I bought it back when ISP went to the 439. So I've had it and shot it for 50 years. No extractor problems (it has the 2 piece extractor), but recently the 2 piece safety/decocker separated (apparently, the external part that you flip with your thumb is a press fit over the internal part).

Mine came with the one piece long extractor hence my concern. My SN is 65XXX I think, I'll have to look

It is my understanding from another Model 39 post on this forum that Jack First is manufacturing the early no dash extractor.

PJO1425,

The Model 39/59 etc. safety is two part, it is assembled by induction brazing. This same safety was used on many models and I would be surprised if S&W didn't still stock this part. Or try the usual after-market sources,someone will have one.

Dont buy , shoot, and depend on any early 39. Buy a Mod-10 and put your concerns to sleep.

__________________
Mike 2796
SoFo Bunch member

Google Jack First. He carries a vast amount of S&W parts.
More pointedly, I understand he has had the original 39 (one piece) extractor re-manufactured and they function flawlessly as a drop in part.
If it were mine, I’d order one and install it and set the original aside for posterity.
You are correct in loading procedure, load only from the magazine. Dropping a round in the chamber and
Releasing the slide forces the extractor to jump over the case rim potentially causing breakage. Never a good idea with any semi-auto pistol.

Got my 39 papered. It was sent to a local clothing store where all the CHP's bought their uniforms. It was in a package of three in 1965. I can remember one of his buddies name but can't think of the other. I can imagine all three getting them just to be "unique". They all rode together so if you really needed a backup at least they could swap mags between each other under fire. Now to figure out how to do something similar with his Python.

Hay BruceHMX!

Methinks this whole "long extractor" thing is a too -ong overblown issue.

Now, first of all, my opinion is likely tainted because I like the Model 39 as much as this Forum's founder likes his wheel guns.

However, the road to Hades is paved with good vibrations, or, maybe, that should be "intentions." Ah, old age. Doncha just love it?

Having noted the above, I've been researching this subject nigh on three years. Admittedly, it's not a 24/7 enslavement, but the mass of materials I've collected on the subject has surprised even yours truly.

The greater number of complaints came from those who were all but forcibly switched from revolvers to the Model 39, for the Model 39 then was on the cutting edge of "future firepower" as much as is found any handgun today.

I'll get far deeper when I finish my research and present its results for peer review, but I am going to throw something out there for others to consider: When the M16 was introduced in VietNam, there was nothing it could do right. The hue and cry from the jungle as to the terrible nature of the new battle rifle was deafening.

After considerable research and investigations by not only the armed forces but Congress as well, discerned the biggest problem: Troops failed to properly and frequently enough clean their weapons; The previous battle rifle chambered a .308, whereas the M16 chambered a measeley .223. The big round went "Boom!"; the smaller round went "boom."

Bottom line: The M16 was seen as deficient to the AK before it really had a chance.

A similar mindset was encountered by the mass of law enforcement officers when the Model 39 was introduced.

You are completely correct, BruceHMX, in noting the need of chambering a round from the clip, then dropping the clip for a refill to reach the maximum available rounds. I applaud you for your research.

It was this shortcut that was seen as the most likely culprit in breaking the extractor, which is not the same thing as an "ejector," i additionally note. It was and is the extractor's job to drag a spent casing from a chamber, present it to the ejector - a separate process within the overall process - which kicks that spent case out and away.

Now, please keep in mind that an extractor can look perfect but break on the very next round if, in the past, it has been frequently subjected to someone else's improper technique. About the only way I think one can determine an extractor's viability would be to use a technique known as magnafluxing, which uses fluids and blue light to locate metal fatigue and cracks otherwise unseen with the naked eye.

Without using the above technique, methinks the only way you could find a solid extractor would be to purchase a New, In Box (NIB) Model 39. They are available and, I suggest, will become even more available over the next few years. You might allocate something in the lower end of four figures, but you or your son should not be disappointed at what you get in return. Be as amart as you have with your extractor research and I'm sure you'll get a darn good 39.

Lastly, the five Model 39s I've purchased over the preceding month and the three purchased the month before are a fraction of the Model 39s (no-dash) I keep. While I believe a gun is made to be fired, and do that to many, it's also clear I can't fire all of mine and don't intend to do so.

But I do have a couple of favorites that are discharged every two weeks because they are my "go to" firearms should a situation so warrant. It is likely I've put nearly 5k worth of rounds through the two over the last couple or three years, but to be frank I have no real earthly idea.

But they, nor any other Model 39 in my inventory, has had an extractor failure. Should they, I'm nevertheless prepared.

Later.