Shot the Model 3913 and the P239 (9mm) the other night. Both were reliable and accurate, and shooting them together reinforced the idea that these are similar pistols. This comparison has been made before, but following are some observations and comments:

Both have steel slides, aluminum frames, and traditional double actions (aka “DA/SA”). Both have decockers; only the 3913 has a safety. Both hold 8 rounds in their standard magazines (10 round magazines are also available for the P239). .

The P239 remains in production; the 3913 ceased production in 1999, although some small scale bespoke production continues(d) intermittently for LE customers. P239’s list for $777, and 3913’s in good shape can be had in the $400-500 range on auction sites.

P239

Overall length 6.6
Overall height 5.1
Width 1.2
Barrel length 3.6
Weight (ounces) 29.5

Model 3913

Overall length 6.75
Overall height 5.0
Width 1.0 – 1.4 (at decocker)
Barrel length 3.5
Weight (ounces) 25

The sights on both pistols are versions of the Novak Lo-Mount style. My P239’s sights are larger and easier to see than my 3913’s.

Both guns were well-oiled with Breakfree LP prior to the session – perhaps more than necessary. The 3913 has a tendency to push oil out the back of the rails, next to the hammer – copious amounts of oil. (I may switch to using grease in the future).

My 3913 throws the brass further – even though it has a new recoil spring, the slide seems to cycle a bit faster.

The 3913’s factory Xenoy grips are excellent, in my view a little “grippier” than the stock P239 grips were – but I had replaced those a while ago with Hogue G-10 grips, which are excellent and better even than the S&W grips. Neither pistol can be faulted in the grip department, though. I added some 3M stair tape (aka skater tape) to the front strap of the P239, where the 3913 has cut checkering that works pretty well.

The P239 is easier to field strip. In terms of mechanical robustness, the P239 enjoys a simpler and perhaps more elegant design, with fewer parts. And these parts are available from Sig, if needed, whereas the 3913 has been out of production long enough that many parts are in short supply. A threaded barrel, suitable for a silencer, is available for the P239, but a similar barrel for the 3913 would be hard to find. I can see the virtue in a silencer for a pistol of this size, particularly if one ever has to use it for self-defense in a closed-in environment.

Both guns fit the same niche – somewhat heavy TDA single stack 9mm pistols, good at controlling recoil, easy to conceal in a holster. The 3913 was introduced a number of years before the Gun Control Act of 1995, and the P239 was introduced right after it, but both meet the below-10-rounds requirements of the law, which probably contributed to their popularity in the later 1990’s. It’s funny in a way that we think of the 3913 as an “old” design, part of the family of 3rd Generation S&W pistols that are slowly disappearing. The P239, from roughly the same era, has survived and is still in production so may be said to be thriving, although I see it criticized on the forums for being large and heavy for its relatively low ammunition capacity – especially when compare to the polymer striker-fired pistols of the current generation.

Overall, I think both the P239 and the 3913 are underappreciated by most, but generate strong loyalty among those who have chosen them for keepers. Which is the “better” pistol? That depends on personal preference. This is my favorite size pistol, with a nice compromise between number of rounds, size, and weight. I shoot both well. I’m keeping both of them.

__________________
S&W Rover

If add in the popularity of the used Sig 225 / P6 and the single stack H&K squeeze cockers the metal frame single stack 9 is a popular option.
You can tote them pretty well but the biggest thing is how easy they are to shoot. They aren't snappy and you can get a good grip without having NBA player hands.

__________________
Straight shootin'
SWCA#2439

The Sig 239 is a bit fatter and heavier than the 3913/14s....... fatter at the slide is a minor issue with IWB carry......

If I hadn't had 4 years invested in the 3913 series (guns, mags, holsters) I'd probably be carrying a 239 today.

That said my concealed carry .45 is a Sig 245..... as it was lighter than the all steel 4516 that proceeded it......

To make the comparison more realistic, the Sig P239 can be had used for a range of $450 to $650.

Edit: Wide price range is due to the various options available the P239 such as night sights.

__________________
So many S&W's, so few funds!!

Thanks Rover, thanks for the review comparison.
I want to add that I have the Sig P239 in 9mm and 357 Sig.
The 9mm version weighs in at only 27.6 oz vs 30.2 oz for the 357 Sig. As you can see, the 9mm version is very close in weight to the 3913 making it a great alternative for those struggling to find a 3913.
My 239-9mm loaded, weighs in at 31.5 oz vs 24.1 oz for my Shield 9mm with the 7 round magazine.

I've had the 239 40 before. Just looking at your measurements you'd think that the 239 & 3913 would feel pretty close. Not so once you have them in hand. To me the 3913 just feels way thinner, very noticeable. Even a friend who has a Shield and has shot both my old 239 and my 3913 always mentions how thin the 3913 is. He's never said that about the 239.

Also grip shape. The 239 has a square edged flat front grip face. Many comment on that and aren't comfortable with that. That one reason the 225/P6 and new 225A-1's are so popular. They feel more natural to many. That's also why I prefer my 3913L. It feels more natural, slimmer, and a bit easier to conceal than the 239's and the 225 family.

Nice to have choices.

Rover, I found your thoughts and comparisons of these two pistols very rational. That seems to be in short supply some days. I carry the Model 60 no dash and have been shopping for a 3913. Why? Capacity (model 60). Why not? Size, weight, capacity (3913)!
Then along came the Sig 365, Capacity, 10+1 or 12+ 1. Size and weight similar to my Model 60. The Sig capacity is 260 % of my Model 60. That's over 2 and a half reloads without having to reload.

So I have tried to make the comparison of the 3913 and the P365 in my own head but I have not held either and have not shot either. I thought I wanted the 3913 but I'm not so sure now. I wonder if someone out there is able to make that rational comparison.

I'm quite satisfied with my 3913. The only modification I've made has been to install tritium sights for low-light use. I see no reason to change, and consider it to be the best discreet carry 9mm pistol S&W ever made.

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

Neither carries like a micro 9 kimber solo or even my diamond back which I have found amazingly accurate. It is impossible to carry a 3913 without imprinting either in an ankle or side holster. Like has been said above the grips are thin actually all 3rd gen 9 mm smiths are too small for my hands. My shorty 40 conceals better than either my 6906 or 3913 ever did and it is a 40 cal.

You all need a small fire arm then a chiefs special, colt maverick or even the solo kimber are all great choices.

Guess I can understand the love affair with the smith 9mms, ammo is cheaper and the 3rd gen 9mm smiths are not commanding the prices of their 40, 10 mm, or 45 caliber counterparts

James I'm confused ..... the 6906 and the Performance Center" Shorty 40" use the same frame and slide......the grips are interchangable

The 3913 has the same slide as both the 6906 and PC Shorty 40.

Each would disappear in the others shadow.....profiles/outlines are the same.


The 6906/Shorty 9 both feel good in my hand... I prefer the 3913 with Hogue grips..... preferably, checkered wood.

How is a 4006 frame the same as the 3913 or 6906 which I’m its case would be a double stack. The barrel bushing is different along with barrel and trigger on the PC models. I ran the standard smith grips on all my 3rd gen smiths with the exception of my 10 mm which I use a hogue sleeve with. The shorty 40conceals better than either of my 9 mm smiths did and I carried them all. Of course I wasn’t wearing the loosest of clothes either but the 3rd gen smiths in 9 mm are nice just not my preference for a 9mm. They are too snappy and not as smooth as the others of course it could be comparing a PC 40:to a regular 9mm nut the 45 and 10 mm smiths I have shot haven’t done that either.

There were a number of runs of the Shorty 40 MKIIIs built on the compact 69xx frame.......w/ 3.5" barrel and slide. I think they were.........

much more common than the "4006 Shorty 40" (p.464 SCS&W)

As I said I carry a Shorty 9...... as a footnote: IIRC, the first PC compact 9mm was identified as a "Compact 5906'' on the box.

He is comparing the size of the guns. My Shorty 40 and 6906 are almost exactly the same size.

__________________
My sgntr is mor thn 30 chrctrs

The Shorty 40 and 6906 are pretty much the same frame, and same footprint based on my research: both doublestacks, with the same grip. There would be no difference in carry-ability/concealability as far as I can tell. Some of the PC shorty guns were labeled as the full sized models (4006, 5906) but I'm thinking that was just weird semantics: seems like they're still based on the compact models, regardless of what's printed on the box.

The 3913 is the same as the 6906/Shorty 40, but it has a thinner frame/grip.

I find that my pre rail 3913TSW carries quite well in either a FIST #1 or Bianchi Pistol Pocket IWB. I don't have a printing issue with either.

__________________
Can open, worms everywhere.

Man... I need to buy back my pre-rail 3913TSW from my buddy. I miss that thing.

But, pursuant to the theme of this thread, I found I shot my P239 (and 6904) better. But I kinda wanna give the 3913 another shot--it carried soooo well. I'm thinkin that if I work a little magic with the Talon grip tape, I might have better results...

I always recommend; Hogue, wood checkered grips...... a little more palm swell with no practical effect on conceal-ability

I imprint less with the 40 for some reason maybe because it is a perceived thing being black in fact most of my carry guns are black instead of shined metal stainless. I carry a sig 229 in 357 sig and it does things a 9 can not but I do range shoot a 228 gun in 9mm which I love better than any 39xx series I have ever owned.

Regardless of what you say if any of your have the chance just shoot the two, a shorty pc model compared to the 3913 even in tactical and tell me which gun is better. There are obvious differences in quality and accuracy.

Thanks. Since I wrote the post in 2016, Sig-Sauer announced the P239 is out of production... probably because of the need for the factory to make P-320s for the Army contract. And perhaps the need to make P365s, if they catch on. And because of the similarity between the P239 and P225. Whatever the reason, and ignoring the fact the P239 is a great shooter, it is perceived as lacking in ammo capacity for its size and weight in today’s market... and there are some great guns fitting the single-stack (8 round) 9mm small pistol niche these days.

The P365 has gotten some rave reviews... but I personally wish it were a DA/SA pistol. Or that S&W made a Shield that was DA/SA... with a dedocker!

__________________
S&W Rover

The P239 is a great gun and I have two. My favorite is the one that is threaded for a suppressor and comes with an extended 10 round mag. That mag is a tad long. The standard factory mag, with pinky rest, is a tad short. With the extended mag and a suppressor, I bet the gun balances pretty well.

I've carried the P239 and it's fine. One area the 3913/3953 are better, IMO, is the grip. The extra round is nice, but it's really the extra grip for my pinky that the 3913 has with it's pinky rest mags. I don't have large hands, but that extra bit makes the gun easier to handle and more accurate. Two things you should want in a defense pistol.

I picked up the second P239 last week, after hearing they would be discontinued. I actually bought a Sig 938 and Glock 43, to test side by side and let my wife try. The fact is, the G43 was too snappy - again, no where to for the pinky. I know these aren't target guns, but the P938 shot very well. Pointed very well. Darn accurate too. Now, if the guide rod would just stay in the gun...but I digress.

Anyway, I traded the G43 back to the shop. didn't want the hassle of selling it and the new P239, with threaded barrel and two magazines, was $559. That's a good price and he had plenty of them. I didn't need it, but it pushes me one step closer to finally trying a suppressor. we'll see.

Rover thanks for the reply. I had missed the fact the P365 was not a DA/SA pistol. That may change the direction I was heading in. It's one of the things I like about my model 659 although it is too large for carry.

S&W Rover, thanks for the comparison review and thoughtful comments on a couple of great pistols. The thread has some additional food for thought comments. Still, I think I'll stick with my 3953 "N.P.D.188".

I have had both and carried both since the mid-90s. The 3913 is a great concealed carry gun which had an MSRP of about $ 400-450 IIRC......

The PC Shorty 9 is a great hi-cap concealed carry gun .........that thinks it's a target pistol!.... with an MSRP of about $1,000 again IIRC

A PC Shorty 9 is one of my grail guns. But they go for around 2 grand whenever they come up on Gunbroker. Unfortunately, I just don't have an extra two grand for a grail.

LOL I got mine about 1995/96 for IIRC just over $500.....my second a few years later set me back about $650

the .40 S&W was the hot new caliber .....in the minds of many the 9mm was a washed up has been!

High-cap PC guns weren't selling around here..... ......cops didn't seem to want to spend more than the price of a 6906 or 6904 for a duty gun.... and it was the middle of the 1994 Assault weapons ban and 12&15 rd Smith mags were going for $75 and up.................so private buyers were put off.....

I already had two 6906s a nice stash of mags. and holsters ........so I was GTG with a Shorty9

I havse the original law Horton distributor insert with my 40 and they were not near the grand mark more like 500 to 600 bucks new

Oh yeah, my pre-rail 3913TSW is a very low and sleek pistol, especially with the magazines it was designed for. It also shoots pretty darn well.

Here's my 21 @ 21 target . . . damn those two flyers at 11:30.

__________________
1st Signal Brigade, RVN '70

Reference: Quoting the SCS&W....pages 464-466

4006 Shorty Forty 1992,93,95 Average retail $850 (three runs of 500)

Shorty 40 Mk III 1995 Suggested retail $ 949
1997 Suggested retail $1024.95

Compensated 40 ???? NIB $1700
Tactical 40 1993 NIB $1,500
.40 S&W Tactical 1997 Suggested Retail $1,145.95

CQB .45 1998 Suggested retail $1,234.95

Damn. Nice shooting. I couldn't make mine do that.

But this pic is inspiring me to wanna try...

Thanks. Yeah, I was having a really good day about 10 years ago, before my right eye cataract was first noted by my eye doctor in 2012, the lens replaced in 2016. Ahhhh, young eyes . . .

And you know I believe my hand was a bit steadier back then, too.

__________________
1st Signal Brigade, RVN '70

well dam, that makes the 750ish dollars I paid for mine look like a bargain. The prices people are paying for these pieces these days are crazy craze. What do Shorty 40s sell for these days.

I am guessing 1500 ish beat to hell without box to 2 grand + for a pristine all box collection.

Attached Images

lewshorty40.jpg (99.0 KB, 39 views)