Early 4006

[NavyEngineer]

I recently purchased an early S&W4006 that was sold by the family of gun writer Charles Petty to a local shop. Mr. Petty wrote several articles about the development of the 40 S&W cartridge and the pistols of that era, and included this pistol and 4 others in some accuracy testing he did for an article in the January 1991 issue of American Rifleman. The seller included a historical letter. The letter mentions the pistol shipped with adjustable sights, but the box label indicates fixed sights. The pistol appears to be in original condition and doesn't appear to have been fired much, so I suspect the letter is in error. I'm a big fan of the 3rd gens and always enjoyed Mr. Petty's articles, so am very happy to have this one in my collection.

 

[Sevens]

That’s extremely cool!

 

[NavyEngineer]

That’s extremely cool!

Thanks! I was surprised to see this pistol's serial number when I read that old article, which has a lot of interesting information from the early days of the cartridge and 4006 pistols.

 

[Sevens]

JohnHL is our resident expert on everything related to S&W and the .40cal 3rd Gens, I hope he jumps in here with something to add.

The letter mentions the SHOT Show in Vegas 1990. I’m not certain but I believe this may have been the infamous location where Glock reps (allegedly!) grabbed a few .40 S&W cartridges from the S&W display. These would have been wildcats at the time as no factory was yet producing them for commercial sale to the public. Glock (allegedly!) took these samples back, reverse engineered them and then built the Glock 22 around them… and then punched S&W in the face by debuting a .40cal Glock and selling it before S&W actually released the 4006.

This is well detailed in Paul Barrett’s book, Glock: The Rise of America’s Gun. This book — read it if you like Glock… definitely read it if you hate Glock and also, read it if you want to see things from a business side in a way us longtime gun cranks don’t typically think about guns.

 

[DUSTYDOGDAN]

Very cool.Thanks for sharing. Do the magazine's have the yellow followers?

 

[JohnHL]

JohnHL is our resident expert on everything related to S&W and the .40cal 3rd Gens, I hope he jumps in here with something to add.

I can add a little something, Brother Sevens.

Thanks for asking!

First, on a general, seasonal note, as it is almost two hours into Christmas Eve here on the Ridge, Merry Christmas to everyone on the Forum.

Second, on a more personal level, I know the O.P. (NavyEngineer) so, "Hi, Hank! I still have the CS9S you sold me almost three years ago and it is a fine companion to my CS40/45 about which I have written numerous times on this Forum."

Third, on another personal level I got to know Charlie Petty by virtue of a collectable I almost accidentally acquired with some other S&W "curiosities".

It was an N Frame side plate laser engraved by S&W with Charlie's name.

I related the story here:
http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-re...gunwriter-mystery-solved.html?highlight=Petty

Charlie was a terrific Gunwriter and a good friend to S&W and early booster to the 40s&w cartridge.

S&W management appreciated Charlie's efforts and welcomed him to the Factory on many occasions.

Charlie lived in NC and as I have some family there, I had hoped to pay him a visit.

Alas, time and tide waits for no man, and Charlie's time ended last November.

Lastly, congrats, Hank on that very special early model 4006.

My earliest 4006 wears a "TFF" prefix and is much like yours.

As I had mentioned in a previous thread, the model 4006 was the first stainless model to have a black hammer instead of silver (as was their convention, at the time) and Charlie explains why in the AR article that you posted.

Also, when the 4006 was introduced, the mag wells had sharp rear corners (as opposed to the rounded rear corners on the 59XX series) so that the 59XX series magazines could not be inadvertently inserted.

Within a few years, there was an engineering change to rounded rear corners in the magwell, allowing insertion of the 59XX series mags.

Roy Jinks has said he would look into this and try to find the reason.

Hank, if you have any other double stack 40s or 9s, take a close look at the magwells as compared to this early model.

John

 

[NavyEngineer]

Very cool.Thanks for sharing. Do the magazine's have the yellow followers?

They sure do. I don't know when they changed over to the blue followers, but expect many here do!

 

[NavyEngineer]

JohnHL is our resident expert on everything related to S&W and the .40cal 3rd Gens, I hope he jumps in here with something to add.

The letter mentions the SHOT Show in Vegas 1990. I’m not certain but I believe this may have been the infamous location where Glock reps (allegedly!) grabbed a few .40 S&W cartridges from the S&W display. These would have been wildcats at the time as no factory was yet producing them for commercial sale to the public. Glock (allegedly!) took these samples back, reverse engineered them and then built the Glock 22 around them… and then punched S&W in the face by debuting a .40cal Glock and selling it before S&W actually released the 4006.

This is well detailed in Paul Barrett’s book, Glock: The Rise of America’s Gun. This book — read it if you like Glock… definitely read it if you hate Glock and also, read it if you want to see things from a business side in a way us longtime gun cranks don’t typically think about guns.

I've heard that story before, but couldn't remember where. I do have a copy of that book - maybe it's time to reread it!

 

[toddimusnimski]

Spec Order 0193, so boxed up on July 12 1990 and shipped to him on the 13th. Mr Petty was definitely a high priority Gunwriter for them! Looking at the Accuracy Results chart, he kept the one that gave him the best average group.

Excellent find and post! Thanks.

Todd

 

[mikerjf]

It's interesting to read they developed them on the 5906 chassis. Why do I feel like I remember that the first .40's were built on the 45 chassis? (as per those folks converting them to 10mm)

 

[Sevens]

I would say your memory is playing tricks as the 10mm predated the .40cal. Colt, Glock, S&W all had 10mm guns out before S&W debuted the .40 S&W cartridge. As mentioned above, Glock rushed their .40cal Glock 22 out before S&W actually made the 4006 available for sale.

Colt’s 10mm was built on the 1911, obviously well known as a .45 frame. Glock’s G20 even predated their own .45, but the G20 and G21 are very nearly the same gun (as are the later G29 and G30) and S&W’s 10xx series does share frame size with the .45, but I was only recently taught by one of our forum greats (hint hint, he’s in this thread!) that S&W built the 10mm frame and gun and only after that, they moved the .45 to the new 10mm frame style.

Unless it has changed recently… basically nobody builds or has built their .40cal pistols based on their existing .45/10mm guns. There is probably some existing outlier that will prove me wrong but by and large, the driving purpose of the .40 S&W was to made a “powerful enough” .40cal gun that worked in a doublestack 9mm sized package RATHER than a large, single stack .45/10mm type of handgun.

 

[NavyEngineer]

I can add a little something, Brother Sevens.

Thanks for asking!

First, on a general, seasonal note, as it is almost two hours into Christmas Eve here on the Ridge, Merry Christmas to everyone on the Forum.

Second, on a more personal level, I know the O.P. (NavyEngineer) so, "Hi, Hank! I still have the CS9S you sold me almost three years ago and it is a fine companion to my CS40/45 about which I have written numerous times on this Forum."

Third, on another personal level I got to know Charlie Petty by virtue of a collectable I almost accidentally acquired with some other S&W "curiosities".

It was an N Frame side plate laser engraved by S&W with Charlie's name.

I related the story here:
http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-re...gunwriter-mystery-solved.html?highlight=Petty

Charlie was a terrific Gunwriter and a good friend to S&W and early booster to the 40s&w cartridge.

S&W management appreciated Charlie's efforts and welcomed him to the Factory on many occasions.

Charlie lived in NC and as I have some family there, I had hoped to pay him a visit.

Alas, time and tide waits for no man, and Charlie's time ended last November.

Lastly, congrats, Hank on that very special early model 4006.

My earliest 4006 wears a "TFF" prefix and is much like yours.

As I had mentioned in a previous thread, the model 4006 was the first stainless model to have a black hammer instead of silver (as was their convention, at the time) and Charlie explains why in the AR article that you posted.

Also, when the 4006 was introduced, the mag wells had sharp rear corners (as opposed to the rounded rear corners on the 59XX series) so that the 59XX series magazines could not be inadvertently inserted.

Within a few years, there was an engineering change to rounded rear corners in the magwell, allowing insertion of the 59XX series mags.

Roy Jinks has said he would look into this and try to find the reason.

Hank, if you have any other double stack 40s or 9s, take a close look at the magwells as compared to this early model.

John

Hi John,

Merry Christmas, and I'm glad you're still enjoying the C9S! It's too bad you never had the chance to meet Mr. Petty in person. I never had any contact with him, but enjoyed reading his articles over the years.

Thanks for replying and the information. I had never looked closely enough at the early and later 4006s to notice the magwell differences. As you mentioned, the 5906 mags cannot be inserted into the early 4006, but they insert and lock into place in my late production (MIM parts and all external markings made by laser) Brink's-marked 4046, as well as my 4006TSW former CHP pistol. My Shorty 40 and Shorty 40 Mk2 also have the older style magwell, but my Shorty 40 Mk3S accepts 5906 mags as well. It would be interesting if Mr. Jinks can provide some insight into the change!

The photos below show the early and later style magazine wells.

Petty 4006, Brinks 4046, 5906

Petty 4006, Brinks 4046

Petty 4006, Brinks 4046 with 5906 magazines

 

[mikerjf]

the driving purpose of the .40 S&W was to made a “powerful enough” .40cal gun that worked in a doublestack 9mm sized package RATHER than a large, single stack .45/10mm type of handgun.

Understood... but then that doesn't explain why the early 40 compacts (guns like the 4013, 4053, et al) have a spacer at the rear of the magazine to "pad" the width down from 45/10mm size to 9mm/40 size, if the frame was 9mm size to begin with.

I searched a little and came across one thread (4014 conversion to 10mm post #6, 7, 10) where it says the compact 40's were built on a 4516 frame.

And so, when you want to convert to 10mm, you just remove the spacer from the mag to allow the 10mm (and 45acp) length, rechamber the barrel, maybe a spring or buffer, and Bob's yer uncle. You couldn't do that on a 9mm-size frame (like the later 40 Compacts).

 

[Sevens]

Right, and I agree, but those pistols came well after the introduction of the .40 S&W round.

 

[JohnHL]

Understood... but then that doesn't explain why the early 40 compacts (guns like the 4013, 4053, et al) have a spacer at the rear of the magazine to "pad" the width down from 45/10mm size to 9mm/40 size, if the frame was 9mm size to begin with.

I searched a little and came across one thread (4014 conversion to 10mm post #6, 7, 10) where it says the compact 40's were built on a 4516 frame.

And so, when you want to convert to 10mm, you just remove the spacer from the mag to allow the 10mm (and 45acp) length, rechamber the barrel, maybe a spring or buffer, and Bob's yer uncle. You couldn't do that on a 9mm-size frame (like the later 40 Compacts).

Right, and I agree, but those pistols came well after the introduction of the .40 S&W round.

Harkening back to the era in question (late 80s/early 90s), folks were cautious about higher pressure rounds in alloy frames.

S&W admitted that their alloy framed guns did not have the life expectancy of their steel frames, but were easier on the already overloaded leo.

Some have speculated that the single stack, compact, alloy 40s were originally designed for the 10mm, although among S&W "insiders", there seems to be no evidence of that, and much more likely were part of testing for an alloy framed, compact 45 (a low pressure cartridge).

Indeed, S&W produced no alloy framed, compact 45 until the 457, and no compact double stack 40 until 1997 with the advent of the non-rail 4013TSW.

It is axiomatic that a given cartridge will "beat up" a lighter compact gun faster that a full size pistol.

S&W realized their new, eponymous 40 round was tough on guns, so when the clamor arose for a compact 40, they erred on the side of caution, and utilized their large frame, experimental compact design as a temporary platform for their new, hot cartridge.

The 40S&W was always intended to be a double stack round.

John