Does anyone know if there is more than one barrel bushing for the Model 39 (nothing)? I bought one from Numrich ; it looks identical to the one that came with the pistol, but it won't engage the slide enough to line up the hole for the guide rod with the slide. I tried persuading it with a plastic hammer, but no go.
Model 39 barrel bushing
- Thread starter PJO1425
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
The only variation I know of is the one for the later 39-2s, which has two spurs on the botrtom like a M1911 bushing. I suggest you return it to Numrich and tell them exacly why it won't fit. Perhaps they'll be able to send you one that will. My one experience with the Numrich return system was very positive.
Engine49guy
Member
IIRC the two variations are the early style fully enclosed bushing that captures the recoil spring and guide rod and the later horseshoe shaped ones that rely on a cut in the slide to capture the rod and spring,
I have run into instances when a spare bushings lug did not fit or turn in smoothly so they may also require a little hand fitting.
I have run into instances when a spare bushings lug did not fit or turn in smoothly so they may also require a little hand fitting.
lhump1961
US Veteran
I have 4 39's and there was one (can't remember which one without looking) that the bushing was not a good fit. I fixed it with a little sanding...didn't take much.
Alk8944
US Veteran
I bought a Model 39 bushing from Numrich a few weeks ago. It had to be fit on both the outside diameter but by filing the locking lug too. Numrich contracts some parts and notes they are manufactured by NAC. Although they didn't show the barrel bushing as a NAC part I am sure it was. The plate portion of the bushing is significantly thinner than the original S&W part! And the bluing wore off just handling it enough to fit it to the slide!
I'm Wit Him
Oh, does my head ever hurt, especially when I hear someone say a hammer was used in a (usually) failed attempt to accomplish something like seating a slide stop.
A proper slide stop alignment should result in it sliding in and out as if a knife cutting through butter.
Okay, maybe not as easily, but it really shouldn't be far from it.
But, like Cyrano (and I do like Cyrano; an upstanding, knowledgeable sort not given to Chicken Little actions), the only barrel bushing mods of which I'm aware date to the later Model 39-2 and its double-stack derivative, the Model 59, and which continued for as long as the eye could see. Or something like that.
Indeed, if memory serves (and it does less and less of it nowadays because I'm an official Old Guy), the "horseshoe" (thanks to EngineGuy49, I think I'll use that particular description unto the grave) became so popular that 39 and 59 owners did and will abandon a fitted barrel bushing in favor of the "horseshoe" only to blame something else for the gun's sudden inaccuracy or jamming of the barrel, recoil rod and etc.
"It didn't do it before. And I don't understand why it all-of-a-sudden decided to start jamming."
Well, while it may have even formerly shot a five-round pattern covered by a quarter at 25 feet, "the gun" doesn't decide a darn thing. It's the human that'll do so and then blame the gun.
What a life.
In what I surmise as a cost-cutting move (multiply 100,000 barrel bushings by a little less metal and one starts talking real money) Smith & Wesson doubtfully conceived of the change as having as much "cool factor" as it has. Indeed, I didn't even see it coming and I was once sure I had "future vision."
But, given the angst expressed herein, I went to the safe and pulled out the box having a 439, 459, 539, 559 and etc. (nine guns, total), each having a horseshoe and each fitting the guide rod and, as importantly, the barrel which passed through each.
I dunno, but those who are sanding might want to find a good ol' Arkansas honing stone and then continue the whittling of the replacement bushing. But you might also search YouTube for some of Bluebelly2's [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6qUBHIdWX4"]stuff[/ame] content and see if you might find something he's done with the bushing. Note that I don't know that he for-sure has posted something, but if such be the case it'll be high quality and an incredibly inexpensive teaching tool.
I've learned a bunch from Bluebelly and that despite the moniker (I'm a Southerner whose forefathers hurled more than a few "bluebelly" insults, invective, or more, at Yankee invaders).
Whatever the course of action: "good luck!"
Later.
Oh, does my head ever hurt, especially when I hear someone say a hammer was used in a (usually) failed attempt to accomplish something like seating a slide stop.
A proper slide stop alignment should result in it sliding in and out as if a knife cutting through butter.
Okay, maybe not as easily, but it really shouldn't be far from it.
But, like Cyrano (and I do like Cyrano; an upstanding, knowledgeable sort not given to Chicken Little actions), the only barrel bushing mods of which I'm aware date to the later Model 39-2 and its double-stack derivative, the Model 59, and which continued for as long as the eye could see. Or something like that.
Indeed, if memory serves (and it does less and less of it nowadays because I'm an official Old Guy), the "horseshoe" (thanks to EngineGuy49, I think I'll use that particular description unto the grave) became so popular that 39 and 59 owners did and will abandon a fitted barrel bushing in favor of the "horseshoe" only to blame something else for the gun's sudden inaccuracy or jamming of the barrel, recoil rod and etc.
"It didn't do it before. And I don't understand why it all-of-a-sudden decided to start jamming."
Well, while it may have even formerly shot a five-round pattern covered by a quarter at 25 feet, "the gun" doesn't decide a darn thing. It's the human that'll do so and then blame the gun.
What a life.
In what I surmise as a cost-cutting move (multiply 100,000 barrel bushings by a little less metal and one starts talking real money) Smith & Wesson doubtfully conceived of the change as having as much "cool factor" as it has. Indeed, I didn't even see it coming and I was once sure I had "future vision."
But, given the angst expressed herein, I went to the safe and pulled out the box having a 439, 459, 539, 559 and etc. (nine guns, total), each having a horseshoe and each fitting the guide rod and, as importantly, the barrel which passed through each.
I dunno, but those who are sanding might want to find a good ol' Arkansas honing stone and then continue the whittling of the replacement bushing. But you might also search YouTube for some of Bluebelly2's [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6qUBHIdWX4"]stuff[/ame] content and see if you might find something he's done with the bushing. Note that I don't know that he for-sure has posted something, but if such be the case it'll be high quality and an incredibly inexpensive teaching tool.
I've learned a bunch from Bluebelly and that despite the moniker (I'm a Southerner whose forefathers hurled more than a few "bluebelly" insults, invective, or more, at Yankee invaders).
Whatever the course of action: "good luck!"
Later.
Engine49guy
Member
As stated above using the horseshoe in a slide made for a fully enclosed bushing is a No No.
The fully enclosed bushing ( used on the Pre 39 , 39 no dash and Model 39-2's made until around 1973 or 74) captures the guide rod spring,
Notice in the pic the guide rod hole is large enough that rod and spring will pass through the front of the slide with the bushing removed (Basicly unnecessary since the 39 has a solid guide rod and does not break down like a 1911).
The early design bushing is thinner and since it retains the spring it also bears its full force during recoil.
More importantly if the bushing is bent or broken it can render the gun inoperative and therefore is a weaker design IMO.
The "Horseshoe" style (Top in pic) also has a new smaller guide rod "Hole" cut in the slide ,
The new design uses the thick metal of the slide to capture the guide rod spring at the muzzle and the horseshoe shape simply prevents the bushing from rotating left or right with the guide rod in place.
Interestingly the removable barrel bushing was eliminated in my 3rd gen compact 9 utilizing a fluted barrel system instead.
On a side note there are two other designs that S&W used that Im aware of,
The Model 52 bushing which screwed in with a spring loaded stopper making it adjustable
and the later Briley brass swivel bushing found on many Performance center autos.
The fully enclosed bushing ( used on the Pre 39 , 39 no dash and Model 39-2's made until around 1973 or 74) captures the guide rod spring,
Notice in the pic the guide rod hole is large enough that rod and spring will pass through the front of the slide with the bushing removed (Basicly unnecessary since the 39 has a solid guide rod and does not break down like a 1911).
The early design bushing is thinner and since it retains the spring it also bears its full force during recoil.
More importantly if the bushing is bent or broken it can render the gun inoperative and therefore is a weaker design IMO.
The "Horseshoe" style (Top in pic) also has a new smaller guide rod "Hole" cut in the slide ,
The new design uses the thick metal of the slide to capture the guide rod spring at the muzzle and the horseshoe shape simply prevents the bushing from rotating left or right with the guide rod in place.
Interestingly the removable barrel bushing was eliminated in my 3rd gen compact 9 utilizing a fluted barrel system instead.
On a side note there are two other designs that S&W used that Im aware of,
The Model 52 bushing which screwed in with a spring loaded stopper making it adjustable
and the later Briley brass swivel bushing found on many Performance center autos.
Last edited:
Excellent!
Excellent, Engine49guy!
Excellent, Engine49guy!
Engine49guy, thanks for the info. I was issued my 39 (nothing) in the IL state police academy in 1968. I was allowed to buy it when the ISP replaced it with the 439 around 1980. My final ISP sidearm before I retired was the S&W 5904 (1989?). I went looking for a 5904 at a local gun show recently, and ended up buying a 659 when no one had a 5904 for sale.
Mtnfolk325
Member
FWIW, my Model 59 from 1976 has the Full Style Bushing like the early 39's.
Um, Oops?
Having written my first contribution to this thread in the morning's wee hours after a long, long day at work, it wouldn't be unusual for this author to err.
Nor, as he has found while amassing his 42-gun "39" collection, have others been disinclined of erring, too; some having used a "horseshoe" barrel bushing on a no-no 39 despite the recoil rod spring's more than obvious appearance.
Laughable is a resultant "the action doesn't work very well, anymore," while witnessed is an owner/user's complete disassociation with cause and effect. Such being obliquely mentioned, as well, in my rant of earlier today.
Nevertheless, in a re-read of what had been written it appears my broader reference to the "39 and 59 owners" was interpreted as a specific reference rather than in an intended broader context - speaking to the 39 line as a whole.
General references absent of engineering change distinctions are found in many reference materials across many lines, including the vaunted "Standard Catalog of Smith & Wesson," Third Edition and P.J. Fjestad's 37th "Blue Book of Gun Values," two of this writer's more-favored references. (Betcha no one could tell.)
Many references entirely omit engineering-change distinctions, stating only written atrocities along the lines of "the Model 39 was manufactured from 1958 to 1981," which is just plain wrong on a couple of fronts, huh?
Furthermore, this author's "59" reference in the same sentence as the "39" should've been entirely omitted, inasmuch as a reader could intone the 59, too, once shared the same barrel bushing design found in the "no-no" Model 39.
Indeed, such speaks to one of firearms' weakest points of overall reference, in that the Smith & Wesson "1911" differs markedly across its own line, not to mention the differences between it and the 1911 lines of still other manufacturers.
Yet, they all are generally referred to as a "1911," no matter when made or, even, by which manufacturer.
Smith & Wesson's durable Model 10 is yet another example of a model's singular reference, despite 14 engineering changes made to date.
PJ01425, I could've done better and appreciate your pointing to the weaknesses of my thought line and therefore providing an opportunity at clarification.
English is an amazing language. It is not the language of science, commerce and in many other arenas of discourse because "we American's" forced it on others.
Instead, it is the chosen language of general world discourse because of its specificity. The pilot flying me to France speaks English when landing at Paris' Orly Airport, just as he does when departing Tokyo.
I'll endeavor to better utilize our rich tongue no matter the time of day - and I appreciate your bringing that need to my attention, "PJ."
Later.
Having written my first contribution to this thread in the morning's wee hours after a long, long day at work, it wouldn't be unusual for this author to err.
Nor, as he has found while amassing his 42-gun "39" collection, have others been disinclined of erring, too; some having used a "horseshoe" barrel bushing on a no-no 39 despite the recoil rod spring's more than obvious appearance.
Laughable is a resultant "the action doesn't work very well, anymore," while witnessed is an owner/user's complete disassociation with cause and effect. Such being obliquely mentioned, as well, in my rant of earlier today.
Nevertheless, in a re-read of what had been written it appears my broader reference to the "39 and 59 owners" was interpreted as a specific reference rather than in an intended broader context - speaking to the 39 line as a whole.
General references absent of engineering change distinctions are found in many reference materials across many lines, including the vaunted "Standard Catalog of Smith & Wesson," Third Edition and P.J. Fjestad's 37th "Blue Book of Gun Values," two of this writer's more-favored references. (Betcha no one could tell.)
Many references entirely omit engineering-change distinctions, stating only written atrocities along the lines of "the Model 39 was manufactured from 1958 to 1981," which is just plain wrong on a couple of fronts, huh?
Furthermore, this author's "59" reference in the same sentence as the "39" should've been entirely omitted, inasmuch as a reader could intone the 59, too, once shared the same barrel bushing design found in the "no-no" Model 39.
Indeed, such speaks to one of firearms' weakest points of overall reference, in that the Smith & Wesson "1911" differs markedly across its own line, not to mention the differences between it and the 1911 lines of still other manufacturers.
Yet, they all are generally referred to as a "1911," no matter when made or, even, by which manufacturer.
Smith & Wesson's durable Model 10 is yet another example of a model's singular reference, despite 14 engineering changes made to date.
PJ01425, I could've done better and appreciate your pointing to the weaknesses of my thought line and therefore providing an opportunity at clarification.
English is an amazing language. It is not the language of science, commerce and in many other arenas of discourse because "we American's" forced it on others.
Instead, it is the chosen language of general world discourse because of its specificity. The pilot flying me to France speaks English when landing at Paris' Orly Airport, just as he does when departing Tokyo.
I'll endeavor to better utilize our rich tongue no matter the time of day - and I appreciate your bringing that need to my attention, "PJ."
Later.
LOL DCW, it's obvious to me that you know a lot more about S&W semi-autos than I do, and I appreciate your input. My experience has been largely limited to shooting & cleaning them. I thought it would be a good idea a while back to pick up a spare barrel bushing...in doing some research I was shocked to find that Model 39 parts are scarce; how could parts for a pistol that I was (seemingly) issued just yesterday become scarce overnight? ...it turns out that "just yesterday" was 47 years ago...
Engine49guy
Member
Out of curiosity I pulled my highest 59 with an enclosed bushing at serial A-265338 shipped Oct 1975 so appears the change may be closer to late 1975 to early 1976,
Wondering what your serial is around to maybe narrow it down a bit, Also does it have the large or smaller guide rod hole ?
Reason im asking is Rule no# 1 with S&W is Anything is possible with S&W and sometimes the parts guys stumbled on a cache of old parts ,
IIRC using an enclosed bushing in a small hole slide intended for a horseshoe bushing will have no adverse affect that Im aware of ,
The problem occurs when using the new horseshoe style on the older frames intended to use the fully enclosed bushing.
On a side note the Model revision system can be a bit confusing and is complicated by the fact that S&W did not use a new revision number with every single manufacturing , engineering or part change , In other words there are changes throughout most S&W models that had no resulting revision change,
Besides the barrel bushing and guide rod hole diameter change early 39 / 39-2 safety levers did not initially have enough clearance for the wider model 59 frame introduced in 1971 so those early 59 frames required machining below the lever to clear the 39's tightly spaced safety lever,
At some point early on the engineers realized by changing the spacing of the safety lever so it stuck out a bit more it would clear the wider 59 frame and eliminate the extra machining steps ,
For this reason a Model 39-2 or 59 slide made in 1971 will not fit on Model 59 frame made in 1976 without replacing the safety lever with the new wider spaced lever.
Last edited:
Engine49guy
Member
Wondering if your ISP Model 39 has the special "Two piece" wide staked extractor like this
or if its a standard one piece wide extractor like this:
Last edited:
Mtnfolk325
Member
" Wondering what your serial is around to maybe narrow it down a bit, Also does it have the large or smaller guide rod hole ? "
Mine is A3313xx, it has the smaller hole. Hope that helps.
Mine is A3313xx, it has the smaller hole. Hope that helps.
Engine49guy, my 39 (nothing) has the two piece extractor, but it may have been modified at some point by the ISP armorers, can't remember after 40 some years...I think that some of the troopers after my cadet class were issued 39-2s. ispcapt (a member of this forum) has posted some good info on ISP semi-autos, also on ISP issued ammo (from 1968 to 1993, when I retired, we were issued 8 different 9 mm rounds, starting with FMJ and proceeding to the +P+ that we carried in our 5904s.
Similar threads
