4006 Slide on a 4003?

[Liftrat]

As the title says. I can't find a part number for the 4003 slide in the parts list, though the 4006 shows P/N 235210000.
I've got a wild hair to mount a red dot on an extra slide for my 4003, either with an adapter plate in the dovetail, or maybe have the slide machined. Any help appreciated, even if it's just to say don't do it! .

[VASCAR2]

To my knowledge there shouldn’t be an issue using a 4006 slide on a 4003 frame. The only real difference is a 4006 stainless steel frame versus 4003 alloy frame. As long as both slide are in spec it should work even though I never tried it. In 9 mm it would be like using a 5906 slide on a 5903 alloy frame.

[Sevens]

I can't imagine any reason why there would be a 4003 slide part number -- I don't think it is a different part.

Much like a 5906 slide and a 3906 slide is likely the same part.

[ACEd]

I think it should work as long as neither is the TSW version. TSW and non-TSW slides and barrels are generally different.

But watch out for the width of the tab on the aft end of barrel vs the notch in the top of the slide - I know there were variations vs time in most of the 3rd generation pistols - the early pistols were about 1/4 in wide while the late pistols were wider. If widths are different, I think you could still switch slides but you would need a matching barrrel.

[Liftrat]

Thanks for the responses. That's pretty much what I was thinking, and a 4006 slide is a lot more common than a 4003 one. Sevens, even if both pistols have the same part, I would think it should be listed in the parts sheet. Maybe I'm missing it, but I couldn't find any listing for "Slide" in my 4003 list.

[Sevens]

Maybe I wasn't clear... what I'm guessing is that there does exist a part number for the slide you seek, I just can't imagine that part number is different than the number assigned to the slide of a 4006. I believe it is exactly the same part with no difference whatsoever in any way.

There should be two... one that is cut for the Novak lo-mount fixed rear sight and one that is cut for the gangly tank-mount adjustable rear sight.

[JohnHL]

Originally Posted by Liftrat

Thanks for the responses. That's pretty much what I was thinking, and a 4006 slide is a lot more common than a 4003 one. Sevens, even if both pistols have the same part, I would think it should be listed in the parts sheet. Maybe I'm missing it, but I couldn't find any listing for "Slide" in my 4003 list.

You are correct, Liftrat.

The 05/12/13 S&W parts list neglects the "Slide assy." part number listing on the 4003 page.

However, the 4006 and 4003 share the same slide assemblies.

I know this because I have swapped slides on various 3rd gen 40 models and I have a new slide from S&W with "4003/4006" printed on the underside.

John

[Liftrat]

Verrry interestink! Thank you both for your patience, and for the information.

[DUSTYDOGDAN]

Would the Model 410/411 work on a 4003/4006 as well?

[Sevens]

The Model 411 certainly would.

I think it's possible that the 410 would, but the 410 was the true Value Line and they made more changes to those than the 915/411.

[JohnHL]

Originally Posted by DUSTYDOGDAN

Would the Model 410/411 work on a 4003/4006 as well?

Model 411 as well as model 410 slide will work on the 4003/4006 because (unlike the 9mm value line pistols) the 40s&w value line pistols used the same barrel as the base models.

John

[Sevens]

I didn't know that! Any idea why they dumbed down the 9mm barrel for the 910 but they didn't dumb down the .40 barrel for the 410?

[JohnHL]

Originally Posted by Sevens

I didn't know that! Any idea why they dumbed down the 9mm barrel for the 910 but they didn't dumb down the .40 barrel for the 410?

I never heard an "official" answer, but my best guess: Caution.

9mm had been around for many years (and had been reloaded for many years) and many locking designs had been tried, so the engineers knew the margins of safety.

OTOH, the 40s&w was new and no one really knew where the "beta testers" (aka "basement experimenters") might take the round and where the liability might fall.

Perhaps the engineers did some testing and under microscopic analysis, didn't like some things they were seeing.

This is conjecture on my part, but I really do think it came down to an abundance of caution.

John

[Liftrat]

I continue to learn all kinds of neat stuff on this forum! Nice to have more options, too. Thanks.