Questions about the 4006 series

[Kavinsky]

When it comes to the 4006, I believe smith's first auto rigged up for the .40 smith and wesson did the gun have any sort of teething issues like the glocks in the same caliber?

namely that unsupported chamber problem I heard some of the early glock .40's had, although I dont know how widespread that was in the case of the glocks, nor the real backstory behind that

and also what was the story with the performance center tactical version of this gun and does anyone know how many they made?

 

[BUFF]

I don't remember any problems with the 4006 when they were intoduced. The California Highway Patrol was S&W's first big customer to order them in 1990. They have just recently started replacing them with new manufactured ones, the original CHP guns now being more than 20 years old. I believe that the CHP shoots MONTHLY, so these guns have shot a lot, with very few problems and as they worked so well, CHP is replacing old 4006's with new 4006s.

S&W made several variants of the 4006 / 4013 / etc. series called the ".40 Tactical Smith & Wesson." They have the suffix of "TSW" added to the basic model number, such as "Model 4013TSW" for an example. Most TSW guns had an accessory rail with rivets or some other hardware attached to the frame under the front dust cover. as well as a prominent logo on the slide.

In addition, they also had models made in the Performance Center, several series of guns called the "Shorty Forty" that was a deluxe gun, many having Bar-Sto barrels and spherical bushings, Noval sights, aluminum frames, lightening cuts for style and unique markings and logos.

The Standard Catalog of Smith & Wesson Third Edition is your current bible, with an excellent rundown of what was made. They have an entire section devoted to Performance Center guns, some of which are part of what you are asking about.

The plain Model 4006 is a very solid and reliable gun, I can't offhand recall any recall issues. My department bought and began issuing them in 1991. Both the gun and the cartridge have proven themselves. Deputies and offficers that were issued the M-4006 in my department are carrying them still, 21 years later. I bought one, because I figured it might be the next new big thing. I have never carried it to work, but two fellow officers borrowed it to use in their revolver-to-semiauto transition courses, 3 day affairs in which a deputy or offier would fire 750-1,000 rounds. My gun has about 2,500 problem free rounds shot through it.

I also own a 1983-made Shorty Forty, a Model 4013TSW and a Chiefs Special Model CS .40, all bought new by me but none of which have been fired. My first 4006 is an adjustable sight gun. I bought it in August, 1990. It has a few thousand rounds trough it without bobble. I like it a lot.

My department, the Salt Lake County Sheriffs Office, bought quite a few in 1992 for an issue piece for deputies, court bailiffs, corrections officers and a few others. We have seen no chronic problems of any sort.

By the way, the TSW guns were not made by the Performance Center. The Shorty Forties were.

 

[lawman90]

I have two 4006's, they are outstanding guns. Very well built, more chamber support than the GLOCK 22 if you're worried about that. Remember, these were the guns originally designed for the caliber, by the designer of the caliber. Would not hesitate to carry one, oh wait, I do carry one!

 

[butch1942]

I have a 4006,purchased it in 1991, the first 500 rds fired I had a few faliures to extract. I sent it to a S&W warrenty center in my state and they corrected the problem plus I had them do a action job while they had it. No problems since,one of my favorite 40's!!

 

[amazingflapjack]

I have a 4006 that is labeled "Heavy barrel" and I have been unable to find info as to the difference between it and a "standard" barrel model. Someone suggested that it was a modification on early models to address some kind of issue, but I don't know. I have posed the question on here, and e mailed S&W more than once, and gotten no response at all, not even an "I don't know," but that said, I am very fond of the pistol.

 

[Kavinsky]

this one is the one I was talking about when it came to the performance center one.

I'm not sure of the model other than what I saw on the side when this poped up while browsing, plus I'm seeing alot of TSW and Chief Special .40 ones showing up at the website of a somewhat local gunshop.

anyways thanks for the info by the way, I was abit worried about that glock thing as well I didnt know what models had been effected and wither or not the 4006 was one of them as well the more I think about it the more I'd rather go for a .40 than another .45 single stack.

 

[Mike-4]

The first Gen 4006s issued to the CHP in 1990 were very robust pistols. There were a few issues but these were rare, a cracked bbl being the most serious. CHP officers shoot once a month, 50 rds per shoot with the pistol. They differed from the civie 4006 as they had a steel recoil guide rod, bobbed hammer and a beveled mag well. They also had adjustable sights and decock/safe ambidextrous levers.These were reliable, built like a tank although a bit heavy.

The 2nd gen 4006's were issued in 2007 and were the 4006TSW model. The new 4006's had all the features of the gen 1 4006 except they came with a machined accessory rail, Novak fixed sights and decocker lever only. Again, a very robust and reliable pistol, easily tames the .40 S&W recoil.

Unsupported chambers were not an issue with either generation 4006.

 

[FirebirdV8]

I'll echo what everyone else has said and mention a short story. I got my 4006 in 2007, used from CDNN. On the way home before I cleaned it, I stopped by the range and shot it. It seemed like a nice gun and it was fun to shoot. When I get it home, I start taking it apart to clean it and the firing pin channel was so filled with gunk from the previous owner, that you couldn't see light through the hole for the firing pin. The rest of the gun was quite dirty as well. Even with sitting at CDNN's warehouse for who knows how long, and was filthy, it still shot fine. I knew I had a great pistol then.

If you are looking at a good 4006 at a reasonable price, you won't be disappointed.

 

[SMSgt]

CDNN buys and sells, they don't clean. All of m guns purchased as used thru them have been dirty but fucctioned well.

 

[QXSOUP]

Speaking of 4006's, here is a pic of mine...
It's a California State Parks 4006. These were piggybacked on the CHP order; it's a CHP spec gun, even down to the "missing" spring.

I remember seeing park rangers with these when I was younger...

 

[sniper47]

Speaking of 4006's, here is a pic of mine...
It's a California State Parks 4006. These were piggybacked on the CHP order; it's a CHP spec gun, even down to the "missing" spring.

I remember seeing park rangers with these when I was younger...

Got me one of these. It is my fourth 4006, although the others have new homes. I like the bear.

 

[Kavinsky]

So basically unlike say the 645 or the 686 theres no major teeathing issues or unrefindedness to look out for with a 4006 regardless of its make or model?

like with the 645 where they used the same checkering for the front strap that they used on the trigger guard in order to save costs (glock has done the same thing on the second gen 17's to my knowledge) or that deal with the right side safety lever where it can shoot itself loose if its not locktighted and no hitch in the trigger or a rough brushed stainless steel finish that gives it a scratchy feel like an interarms Stainless Steel PPK I had.

or with the first 686's where they screwed up the gap between the cylinder and the barrel causing the gun to jam up with the first load of magnum ammo in 81' which is exactly what happened with my dad and thus him and smith and wesson parted ways permanently.

mind you they did have a recall and it got fixed before he got rid of it (the M modification) but after that he lost all faith in smith and wesson and went purely the way of the ruger and has never come back.

and yeah I know I'm talking about the second gens here but still I just want a gun that wont need any sort of work to work great all of the time, nor feel realy rough around the edges like those two and also while I think of it how close is the frame in thickness to the second gen double stack 9mm with its 11 round mag in .40?

as I really liked the chunky feel of the 669 and 659, although I'm sick to death of single stacks and 9mm's living here in MA where double stacks are hard to come by regardless of caliber in anything but 9mm, where in that case they're plentiful.

 

[RobG5589]

I cannot tell you about any "teething" issues but, I can say without question, mine is a solidly built, accurate weapon. I would guess if you are looking at one, especially a LE trade in, any issue would have been dealt with and/or that particular weapon retired from service.

 

[gunblade]

...or with the first 686's where they screwed up the gap between the cylinder and the barrel causing the gun to jam up with the first load of magnum ammo in 81' which is exactly what happened with my dad and thus him and smith and wesson parted ways permanently.

mind you they did have a recall and it got fixed before he got rid of it (the M modification) but after that he lost all faith in smith and wesson and went purely the way of the ruger and has never come back.

That problem was not the barrel/cylinder gap but the size of the firing pin hole in the recoil shield. With certain types of ammo the primer could flow back into the firing pin hole and lock the gun up.

 

[tinfinger]

I'm no expert, but I believe the 4006 was one of those hits that manufacturers strive for and rarely achieve.

It's terrific debut is what drove Glock to hurriedly prepare a 40S&W of their own. And as the OP alludes to, Glock's first effort did not go smoothly.

People say they are tank tough and after handling and shooting them some I would not disagree.

 

[Mike SC Hunter]

No "teething" issues with mine. Bought it when they were first announced I believe back in 89. Got 1BOX of WW ammo with it as NO AMMO was available as it was so new. I made cases out of cut down & inside reamed 10mm cases. They worked fine until ammo made it into the mainstream. Mine has adjustable sights and is a chunky heavy gun. Don't shoot it much now. It sleeps in the safe.

 

[Kavinsky]

That problem was not the barrel/cylinder gap but the size of the firing pin hole in the recoil shield. With certain types of ammo the primer could flow back into the firing pin hole and lock the gun up.

So what did they do with the guns that were effected? weld extra steel into the firing pin hole?

but basically so nothing to worry about then with the 4006, its good to go then as is.

 

[Tracer_Bullet]

Zero problems.

Regarding the 686, I believe that they just installed a bushing with a smaller firing pin hole. At least that is what it appears they did on mine. The only problem I've had with the 686 was my own fault; I used a bronze brush that I should have pitched to clean the cylinder face and a piece of one of the bristles broke off and got stuck between the cylinder and the yoke, preventing the cylinder from closing.

 

[Glenn H]

Tactical 40 value?

So, ran into a Tactical .40 with 5 mags box and paperwork for sale. $600 for the whole kit and kaboodle.

Seems like a good price to me but wanted to see what the consensus is.

 

[Tracer_Bullet]

If it is in good condition $600 would not be unreasonable in my neck of the woods. I think the last used one I saw was priced at $589 or something close to that, but it only had two mags.