I've got 1st and 3rd Gen pistols and have done a bit of research on the 459 and 5904. (I have a 639 but haven't shot it much.)
But I'm wondering if anyone who's shot these two can explain the actual user-felt differences between them.
I'd like to fill in my "accumulation" with a 459 but I guess I'd consider a 5904 even though I have a 59 and a 5946 that was converted to DA/SA.
It wouldn't be a carry gun, just something for the range and 'cause I don't have one.
Thanks.

Ergonomically, the two pistols would be the same for all practical purposes.
Very slight difference in the "feel" of the grip itself I suppose, but the grip angle and overall function of the gun would be the same.


Carter

__________________
Ret. LE, FA Instr, S&W Armorer

I carried both while a LEO. I've got thousands of rounds thru both.
The 459 is usually found with a straight backstrap. It comes with grip panels held on with 2 screws on each side. My 459 below has an arched backstrap that I installed because I didn't care for the straight. Made a world of difference in the feel. Altho it made it a bit more bulky feel. I didn't find that to be a problem but for someone with small hands it might not be good.
The 5904 has a 1 piece grip, usually with a more arched backstrap.
There's quite a bit different feel between the usual flat back strap on the 459 and the usual arched of the 5904. Even with the arched backstrap on the 459.
At the top of the grip the 459 has a circumference of 5-5/8". The 5904 circumference is 5-1/4". The arched backstrap on the 459 didn't change that measurement. At the base of the grip the 459 circumference is 6" and the 5904 is 5-3/4". So the 5904 is thinner.
As far as trigger I can't recall a difference as they came from the factory. I got the 459 in the early 1980s and our range people smoothed and tuned it. Now there's not a lot of difference between triggers with my 459 and my 5904.

Attached Images

	IMG_2333.jpg (144.4 KB, 41 views)
	IMG_2328.jpg (130.7 KB, 44 views)

__________________
183rd FBINA

Other differences you might find, up to you if these matter:

—5904 and all 3rd Gens have a very handy cut underneath the trigger guard where it meets the grip frame. Some may not find it noticeable, I really enjoy this ergonomic upgrade here. Where I would love it most isnon a 745, but this was an enhancement for 3rd Gens only

—if both pistols have fixed sights, the 5904 should have a Novak lo-mount unless it is a very early example. If both pistols have adjustable sights than the rear sights will be the same but the front sight of the 5904 will be in a dovetail and thus removable amd upgradable

—if both pistols have a right side ambi decock lever, chances are the 5904 will have the upgraded retention design while the 459 will have an ugly philips screw or a better looking hex-head screw holding the paddle in place

—the 459 will have the older removable barrel bushing while the 5904 will have the newer pressed-in fixed bushing. I’m not certain the newer style is a tangible upgrade, I would love to hear others’ opinions on this specific detail of comparison

I think a real argument could be waged that there are a higher availability of parts for the 5904 than for the 459, I base this on the length of production of the 3rd Gens versus the shorter length of the 2nd Gens. However at the same time I’d make another argument in that you are unlikely to need the parts that are specific to one and not the other.

Those parts that do NOT swap between the two would be the magazine catch parts, the MSH, the barrels and as mentioned above, that sneaky right side decock lever.

I think you could make the argument that a 5904 could possibly have seen less total units than the 459? But in all honesty, it might be pretty close.

I will close it out with this…

If you dug up 25 examples of each 459 and 5904, based on what I’ve witnessed over decades, I suspect that 20 examples of the 459 would have the protected adjustable rear sight… and that 20 examples of the 5904 would be wearing either the Novak or the fixed rear blade.

Based on that, I would find my pick of the litter — the adjustable rear sight is homely.

The 5904’s were produced from 1989-1998. The early ones had the squared trigger guards. While my 1990 5904 has the squared trigger guard it thankfully has the Novak’s.

The 459’s production run was 1981-1988 with the first ones having the fix in field short/wide extractor, (like the 439’s.)

To me the D/A trigger pull of the 3rd Gen is smoother. Maybe because of the “half cock” feature, (let’s see if the Forum program censors that,) of the 2nd Gen.

Currently I like the curved grip on the 5904 but I’ve got straight too so there’s a choice.

You have options of the options, 459 and or 5904.

Jim

Attached Images

IMG_0848.jpg (69.8 KB, 24 views)

Many good posts listing the differences between the 2nd gen 459 and the 3rd gen 5904.

The second most obvious difference is the integral front sight of the 2nd gen 459 vs. the dovetailed front sight on the 5904.

The number one most obvious difference is the grips.

Of course, every body sees that right off, and as soon as they pick them both up, everybody "feels" the difference and immediately ascribes that difference to the grips.

That is only "partly" true.

What few folks notice yet instantly "feel" (without being aware) is that the grip frame angle is different between the two generations.

S&W "straightened" (made more vertical) the grip frame front strap on the 3rd gens as compared to the more "angled" grip frame on the 2nd gens.

This helped reduce the circumference of the grip directly under the trigger guard.

I ran across this when I modified a set of 3rd gen grips to fit my 2nd gen pistol and also made a trial fitting of those 2nd gen grips on the 3rd gen pistol.

Here's the aforementioned thread:

3rd Gen grips on 2nd Gen Pistols (with pictures)

Here are a couple of pics from that thread showing the difference:

3rd gen grips on a 2nd gen.



Notice the angle of the front of the 3rd gen grips as compared to the angle of the front of the grip frame on the 2nd gen pistol on which they are mounted.

Some may wonder if the grips are not properly mounted, but look at the top of the grip and see that it is parallel to the slide.

2nd gen grips on a 3rd gen pistol.



Once again, observe the difference in the angle of the front of the grips to the angle of the grip frame.

The "uber-observant" will also notice that the 2nd gen grips are secured with a rubber band .

That is because I didn't want to drill and tap the grip frame frame on the 3rd gen pistol for the threaded bushings for the grip screws.

Once again, look at the top of the 2nd gen grips and see that they are parallel to the slide.

By my reckoning, the difference in the grip frame angles is only about 2 degrees (72 degrees on the 2nd gens vs. 74 degrees on the 3rd gens) relative to the slide and barrel.

When looking at the pistols with their respective grips installed, practically no one sees it.

But when holding the pistols, practically everyone feels it.

BITD, S&W caught a lot of "flak" about the 2nd gen grip "blocky" feel ("Like a 2X4", many said), so they redesigned the grips to the one piece.

But they also made the change in the grip frame to reduce the circumference of the grips directly below the trigger guard, which also helped to change the perception.

John

My understanding was there were significant internal changes between 1st-2nd-3rd Generations = 59-459-5904(and 5906 etc) regarding "safety". As a result of these changes the second generations (459) have a noticeable increase in trigger pull force required compared to the 59 as noted above.
This was resolved with the 3rd generation (5904/5906 etc) pistols. I dont have a 59 or 459 to compare but I dont notice a lot of difference between a 39-2, a 439, and a 3904/3906.
The 439 may be a bit stiffer, but its not enough to be objectionable to me. But overall I like my 3904/3906 and other 3rd gens better and the late 3rd gens best.
(It should also be noted since you mention a 5946, that the DAO trigger pull is also "different".)

As a cop I had all three generations. The third was the best and my favorite was the 5906 and the 4506 gets an Honorable Mention.

All of the generations of S&W TDA (DA/SA) semi-autos shared the same basic fire control geometry and parts. (i.e. trigger; drawbar; hammer; sear.)

There were 3 changes most responsible for having an effect on the trigger pull:

1) The firing pin safety.

Not being drop-safe, S&W added the firing pin safety to the 2nd gen pistols and it continued with the 3rd gen.

Now the trigger finger was tasked with compressing the firing pin safety plunger spring in addition to manipulating the fire control parts.

2) The half-cock notch.

This safety notch on the hammer was there to arrest the hammers fall in the event of an unintentional hammer drop.

Unfortunately, during the double action pull, the sear drags across the periphery of the hammer (and consequently, the half-cock notch) and produces a tactile "catch" that many found/find objectionable.

The half-cock notch hammers were used on the 1st and 2nd gen pistols, but were eliminated on the 3rd gens as a result of complaints and the firing pin safety rendering them redundant.

3) Smoothness of parts.

The stamped, forged, and machined parts of the 1st, 2nd, and early 3rd gen pistols were inconsistent as regards the surface finish.
These typically "rough" finished parts often imparted a "gritty" feeling to the trigger pull as the parts interacted.

MIM and plastic parts used on the later 3rd gens were considerably smoother and also added a measure of lubricity that the earlier parts could not.

John

You know I love to give my opinion!

The pressed in/ball muzzle, bushing/barrel combination provided a higher level of accuracy compared to the removable bushing/straight barrel combination because it holds the barrel more tightly during lock-up.

That's why the 469/669 were immediately lauded for better accuracy over the 2nd gen full size pistols at the time of the compact's debut.

But don't take my word for it.

I'll let Dwayne Charron (one of the most under-appreciated gun designers in the history of the industry and designer of the Model 52) tell you in his own words, from his autobiography, "My Life Journey at Smith & Wesson" and the chapter "My Favorite Number is..."):

"One of the greatest problems when customizing a pistol is the barrel to bushing fit. A straight barrel in a slip fit bushing is not able to move up or down, or allow side-to-side motion that may be necessary for a correct fit. The bushing had to be given clearance, usually by hand, and that still may not guarantee a proper final fit.

I had to do better, because hand fitting of the barrel to the bushing was a time-consuming process and was not an option. I finally came up with an idea that looked like it might do the job. I visualized a ball bearing in a tube, no matter where the ball bearing rolled, it had the same fit.

I then made the ball part of the barrel. The barrel can now move up and down, side-to-side or in fact any position within the bushing and still retain its fit. This turned out to be a relatively simple solution to a potentially difficult problem. In 1964, I was issued a patent for the spherical ball barrel design."

This is from the chapter where Dwayne described his process for designing the Model 52.

Dwayne solved the decades old problem of bushing a tilting barrel.

In case you still haven't figured it out, Dwayne's "Favorite Number is...", 52.

John

JohnHL (and everyone else): Many thanks for all the reponses. And especially thanks to John for the explanation of the why the half-cock notch makes the trigger pull "unique." I thought it was my recently acquired 59 that had a ****** trigger, but now know it's a designed-in feature. (I lightened up the hammer spring a bit and that helped a lot, but it still "catches." I suspect it ain't a great idea to carry at the half-cock notch as it disables the safety for them that carry on safe. Any other drawbacks to carrying at the half-cock notch? Doesn't affect how heavy or light the pull is it just seems to eliminate the "catch.")

I think that most of the differences are Cosmetic