What are your thoughts - 5906 or 659?

I've had a 59, 659, 5906, and a 5026. Sold them all. They do nothing my Beretta 92FS and Centurion can't do. Instead, for my 9mm S&W itch, I kept my 3913 and 6906, and got a 909 and a 5903 SSV too.

aMe6jsB.jpg


xpdoqA6.jpg


Honestly, the 5903 is a fantastic pistol and the SSV setup is even better. All the benefits of the 3rd Generation with lightweight frame and shorter barrel and slide.
 
Geez, thanks everybody! I have a lot of great information to digest!! Thanks to those that have shared what they like and especially to those who took the time to post pics and to share the model's history. My go-to is an updated Glock 19 but taking one of these history-makers to the range would be fun!
Dave
 
Given a choice between a Model 659 and 5906 for a shooter, I'd take the 5906. Tons of 5906's made, plenty of spare parts available, better ergonomics and usually a better trigger, especially those with MIM parts. Also, the fixed barrel bushing in the 3rd gen pistols tends to make them more consistent in terms of accuracy. The removable barrel bushing in the 1st and 2nd gen pistols usually has a sloppy loose fit in the slide and generous clearance around the barrel, this is not conducive to consistent accuracy.


If I was in the market for something collectable, the 2nd gen pistols have long been overlooked. Given their relatively short production run and somewhat poor reception by shooters, I think collectors are starting to eye the 2nd gen pistols as something desirable. Will the 3rd gen pistols ever be collectable? Sure, but maybe not in what's left of my lifetime.
 
Last edited:
I have a 639 , 645 and a 659 , I also have a 5904 and a 5906 among other 5900 pieces . It's true the 659 feels big in my hand , but the trade off is mine has an adjustable rear sight . Many don't like them , but I do . With my eyesight I need all the help I can get .

Really any of the 5900 series are good . There are good and then there are great . You also have the TSW models . If I was you I would see if I could find someone local that has one and try it out . That way you know for sure .
 
A 3 number gun any day of the week vs a 4 number gun. I prefer the grips, & I hate cheap MIM parts. Forged parts are far superior, & MIM parts were invented to save $ for the mfr. When S&W started with 4 number guns, they were introducing new variants every other week by juggling the numbers around. Sure, I have a 3913, & 4516, but those were never made as 3 number guns. And mine were early enough to be made with forged trigger parts. And my CS45 would not feed hollow points. Sure, 4 number guns are OK, I just prefer the 3 number guns. GARY.
 
Last edited:
FWIW - I'll take forged parts over MIM any day. I've had an MIM part snap in two on me. With some guns MIM are unavoidable, like the TSW series guns.

Earlier 3rd Gens with forged parts and rounded trigger guard tend to be my favorites, but I like some of the TSWs too.
 
[FONT=&quot]Pulled from an old repost re: MIM (Metal Injection Molding) parts[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Here is an interesting item on MIM parts from a S&W manager, which I copied from this forum some time ago (it is at least eight years old, maybe older, but still pertains):[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

FAQ's: FAQ's for the 'original' letter.

I have read with much interest the many comments in this [Smith and Wesson] forum pertaining to MIM, MIM Parts and the use of same in a S&W product. So far I have come away with several impressions and they are, "people in general don't like/trust MIM parts", and, "no one has said why." I will take a stab at this issue and see where it goes.

As background to our decision to use MIM in some areas of our Mfg Process we took a long hard look at our "Life Time Service Policy". It was clear to us that any change in any of our products such as the use of MIM components had to show equivalent or better performance and durability to those components that were being replaced or the "Lifetime Service" would haunt us forever. The second consideration was to determine if the change was too radical a departure from S&W mainstream design.

For the performance and durability issues we decided that if MIM could be used for the fabrication of revolver hammers and triggers successfully this would truly be an "Acid Test". There is nothing more important to a revolver's feel than the all-important Single Action that is established between the hammer and the trigger. Mechanically few places in a revolver work harder than at the point where the hammer and trigger bear against each other. If these surfaces wear or lose their edge the "feel" is lost. Initial testing was on these two critical parts.

Over time we arrived at a point where our best shooters could not tell the difference between a revolver with the old-style hammer and trigger and the new MIM components. Special attention was given to their endurance when used in our very light magnum J-frames such as the early prototype 340 & 360 Sc's. None of our revolvers work their components harder than these small magnum revolvers. Throughout this testing MIM held strong and finally we determined that this change judged on the basis of durability and feel was a good one.

The second area of concern to S&W was our customer's reaction to this departure from the traditional. Many heated, intense discussions resulted but in the end the decision was made to move ahead with MIM. The issue of cost was only one of the considerations in making this decision. Equally as important was the issue of part-to-part uniformity and the result of this of course is revolver-to-revolver consistency. We found that revolvers that used MIM hammers and triggers required almost no fitter intervention in those areas during final assembly and final inspection and trigger-pull monitor rejection rates dropped markedly on finished guns. From an internal process point of view it appeared a "Winner".

Let's shift gears for a moment and talk about the MIM process. It is unclear to me as to the reason for many of the negative feelings on the forum concerning MIM. Typically when people complain and aren't specific in the reason why, the problem is often created by a departure from the "Traditional". Perhaps that is indeed what is bothering some people when they view MIM.

The term MIM stands for Metal Injection Molding. It holds some similarities to Plastic Injection Molding and many differences as well. To start we would take a finally divided metal powder. This could be stainless or carbon steel. Today even titanium is being used in some MIM fabrications. We would mix the metal powder and a thermoplastic binder (generally a wax) forming slurry of sorts when heated and inject this mix into a precision mold and finally form what is known as a "green part". This part is roughly 30% larger than the finished part it will become at the end of the process. Interestingly enough the green part at this stage can be snapped in two with simple finger pressure. The green parts are then placed in a sintering furnace filled with dry hydrogen gas and the temperature is brought almost to the melting point of the metal being used. Over time the wax in the green part is evaporated, the metal fuses and the part shrinks 30% to it's final correct dimensions. At this stage of the process the MIM part has developed 98 to 99%of the density of the older wrought materials and a metallurgy that is almost identical. Dimensionally it is finished and no machining is required. However the job is not yet done and the MIM parts are brought to our heat treat facility for hardening and in the case of hammers and triggers, case hardening. Depending on the particular metal alloy that was used at the start of the process we apply a heat treat process that is the same as would be used if the material were the older wrought style. Final hardness, case thickness and core hardness are for the most part identical to parts manufactured the older way.

Lets look for a moment at how we achieve dimensional precision when comparing these 2 processes. The old parts were each machined from either bar stock or a forging. Each cut and every resulting dimension was subject to machine variations, cutter wear, operator variations etc. If every operation was done exactly right each and every time and the cutter didn't let you down you would have produced a good part but sometimes this didn't happen, resulting in a rejected gun and rework or in the worst case an unhappy customer. With MIM parts you must still machine to very high tolerances and your cutters have to be perfect and your machinist has to be highly qualified but all of this only has to come together one time. That time is when the injection mold is made. Typically a mold for this process costs S&W between $30,000.00 and $50,000.00; once it is perfect every part it makes mirrors this perfection and you have, in my view, a wonderful manufacturing process.

Hopefully this description will help us all better understand the MIM process. Please forgive the spelling errors and misplaced punctuation. I have no spell checker on this and the phone continues to ring!

Have a Great Weekend,

Herb [Belin, Project Manager, Smith & Wesson]


Additional Point:

Currently S&W is paying about $1.20/Lb for stainless steel bar stock. Raw MIM stainless steel inject able material costs $10.00/Lb.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]__________________
S&W Rover [/FONT]
 
FWIW - I'll take forged parts over MIM any day. I've had an MIM part snap in two on me. With some guns MIM are unavoidable, like the TSW series guns. .
So you are dropping this nugget that strongly suggests that you have had a S&W 3rd Gen MIM part snap on you. Now you didn't actually say that specifically, so let's hear about that particular part.

I knew a guy in my local organization that had a Para Ordnance 1911 slide snap in half on him. And I'm certain that in odd cases of lemon parts or lemon guns, things will break. I've never expected perfection from a small machine.

If you'll tell us now that you have had a S&W 3rd Gen MIM part snap on you, it will be the first occurrence of this that I have seen or read about, even on the danged old internet. I've been shooting S&W metal pistols since 1994 and I own dozens of them so I've got a little hands-on with them also and I'd like to hear examples of S&W 3rd Gen MIM part failure if you have these to share.
 
The problem with MIM isn't the process, but rather the execution. If done properly it results in a part that is adequate for most related tasks. When done poorly the opposite results. S&W has used MIM parts across the board since the 90s and I've never seen a part fail. On the other hand, I've seen lots of poorly made Mim parts from other companies fail right and left.

If you're afraid of MIM parts, don't ever again ride in a plane or an automobile. Those means of conveyance are littered with them and those parts are under greater stress than anything in a firearm.
 
So you are dropping this nugget that strongly suggests that you have had a S&W 3rd Gen MIM part snap on you. Now you didn't actually say that specifically, so let's hear about that particular part.

I knew a guy in my local organization that had a Para Ordnance 1911 slide snap in half on him. And I'm certain that in odd cases of lemon parts or lemon guns, things will break. I've never expected perfection from a small machine.

If you'll tell us now that you have had a S&W 3rd Gen MIM part snap on you, it will be the first occurrence of this that I have seen or read about, even on the danged old internet. I've been shooting S&W metal pistols since 1994 and I own dozens of them so I've got a little hands-on with them also and I'd like to hear examples of S&W 3rd Gen MIM part failure if you have these to share.

I didn't strongly suggest anything. You know what happens when you assume something.

The part that broke was a slide stop for a Kahr E9. Half of it went flying off somewhere while shooting at the range.
 
I didn't strongly suggest anything. You know what happens when you assume something.

The part that broke was a slide stop for a Kahr E9. Half of it went flying off somewhere while shooting at the range.


The Kahr E9 is not a Smith & Wesson product. I think it is unwise to judge all manufacturers based on experience with one firearm, especially an economy grade firearm.
 
The Kahr E9 is not a Smith & Wesson product. I think it is unwise to judge all manufacturers based on experience with one firearm, especially an economy grade firearm.

Just an FYI - The E9 uses the exact same slide stop as the K9. It can be had in black or silver. Not exactly an economy grade firearm.
 
Last edited:
Here's a K9 that's been rocking for nearly thirty years without issue.
154609667.wIg20XuE.003.JPG


The last part I replaced on a handgun due to failure was an old school tool steel forging. If I was going to make a blanket judgement on manufacturing methods based upon a sample of one I'd hate tool steel parts, something that doesn't strike me as sensible.
 
Last edited:
Some 5906 pistols are more special than others...

Actually you can say that several times over. ;)

S&W used the 5906 model designation for many pistols. Some were/are more 5906ish than others.

Dave Baird, that 5903 is sweet. Nice choice.

Jim
 

Attachments

  • 7866B127-B107-454E-A7D0-A8AC514082C7.jpg
    7866B127-B107-454E-A7D0-A8AC514082C7.jpg
    44.5 KB · Views: 16
  • 3FA804B0-536B-4994-8CA1-3236CDD1F8BC.jpg
    3FA804B0-536B-4994-8CA1-3236CDD1F8BC.jpg
    29.7 KB · Views: 16
Thank you, Jim, I appreciate that. It wasn't advertised as a special order, but the added porting looks the same as other S&W special orders. I was mostly attracted to it from what I learned here; and, that it has the squared trigger guard and older rear sight which I think look retro, yet very futuristic in a way!
May I ask what your attachments are?
Dave
 
Back
Top