I briefly carried a 4006 when I worked for a state agency in the 90's. Was told same as CHP. ( except they ordered them will a flush hammer. never could get answer why. Issued Banchi holster wasn't snug.) Went to personally owned G#### 23C when I became dept Firearms Instructor.
With a new Chips movie coming out ( good or not) I seek info from those in the know. History of 3rd gen with CHP, problems (again I was told they had some kabooms early on). Issues with manufacturer, most recent run.
All of us gun guys will be questioned when the public doesn't see black plastic. Having answers is a way to look better in the eyes of the young for us old timers. Thanks in advance!!

I have a nice one with a very nice trigger , it must of been a gun guy that had it back then. has fact bobbed type hammer and has a cut at grip base so they could pull a stuck mag which I never saw happen . and I think the front trigger guard is smooth.have not looked at it for a while . They had good luck with the S mith had some cracked barrels they just were Waring out.

Pictures of the mods please my friend.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

If your question is why they went with a spurless hammer option, the info I heard over the the years (from S&W and CHP sources) is that the agency didn't want its officers to be tempted to try and cock their weapons into single action for the initial shot.

Yes, subsequent shots were in the shorter & lighter SA mode, but it was the initial shot they wanted to be in the heavier DA mode.

There was probably some lingering effect of the days when service revolvers could be cocked into SA mode and have a much lighter trigger, and which might lend itself to a ND in the wrong circumstances. There were a few major agencies who had their service revolvers set up to be DAO back then.

I had a buddy who was a CHP traffic officer, and one day (in the early 80's) he told me about a situation where another CHP officer had a friend, from a local PD, ride along with him on a shift. The off-duty friend was carrying a revolver.

During the shift the CHP officer made a traffic stop, during which the ride-along off-duty officer drew his revolver to cover the CHP officer. At one point the off-duty ride-along apparently cocked his revolver into SA, and it discharged (via unintentional trigger press) killing the stopped motorist.

Why did my friend tell me about this? Because he invited me to be a ride-along with him one night, but told me that it was the policy of his field office that I couldn't carry an off-duty weapon, even as an off-duty cop, and that was the explanation offered (and it was his field office in which the unfortunate shooting had recently occurred).

__________________
Ret LE Firearms inst & armorer

Not an expert but here is my take: The CHP 4006TSW was a big improvement from the early issued S&W 4006. The original issue 4006 had an adjustable rear sight. S&W also incorporated a beveled mag well and steel guide rod that they did not offer on the commercial versions of this pistol. Circa 2005, after winning a bid over the Sig P229, the CHP began fielding the S&W 4006TSW to replace the aging 4006 models. This version incorporated the same features as the original except the sights were now fixed, Nova type sights and it featured a machined integral rail. The quality of the gun, machining, etc. was excellent.

Critics say these pistols say they were heavy and they were compared to a Glock 22. The weight went a long way to reducing felt recoil. These pistols in my experience were extremely reliable as most 3rd Gen S&W fans know. I loved both of my issue 4006's as I have never had a malfunction in the thousands of rounds I fired. I heard of case of a broken extractor but that was it.

Rumor has it that the CHP is looking at the S&W M&P pistols to replace its aging 4006TSW because Smith no longer supports these 3rd Gen pistols.

After I retired, I was able to purchase my 4006TSW for $350. Its sits in my safe enjoying its well deserved retirement

Hope this helps.

Regards

Congrats on retirement.

I was told a couple years ago that when the agency decided to replace their 4013TSW's (for the plainclothes/UC/task force officers), that after testing some of the different plastic .40 compacts they decided upon the M&P 40c. At that time it was unknown if/when they might decide to look to replace the 4006TSW's with plastic, as well.

__________________
Ret LE Firearms inst & armorer