539 questions

[jvmm]

I found a 539, it's in 95 percent condition. I thought it was a model 39 until I got it home. It appears to have a thicker extractor than my 39-2. It also has a steel frame and of course is a lot heavier
Can anyone tell me what I found?? Are there collectors looking for this?
Thanks

 

[shawn mccarver]

The steel frame version of the second generation of the 39 Series. The 439 featured an alloy frame, 539 had carbon steel frame, and the 639 had a stainless steel frame.

 

[Redcoat3340]

I like my 639 a bunch. One of my "never sell" guns. Bought used from a dealer who disposed of police surplus (see pic. County in Ohio).

Surprised you were surprised it wasn't a 39, as the model number is usually pretty clearly stamped on the left side.

Not sure about "collectors" but I had one and traded up to the stainless, although like most of my accumulation they were both "shooters;" I have no problem with honest wear or a little electro-pencil graffiti on the slide. (My 6906 has an evidence number on it and one of my 39-2s has a police marking.)

 

[jvmm]

We're the extractors prone to breakage as the early model 39s?

 

[jsbethel]

I believe S&W was going after a military contract with those short extractors.

 

[stansdds]

The stubby extractor was designed by S&W per U.S. Army trials specification for an easy to replace extractor. Given that when the U.S. Army selected the Beretta 92, S&W went back to the longer, thin, 39-2/59 style extractor, it must not have been enough of an improvement to warrant applying it to future production pistols.

 

[VASCAR2]

The S&W model 539 were produced in less numbers than the 439 or 639. I suspect there were fewer 539's produced compared to the double stack 559.

I have a model 439 manufactured around 1981-1982 and it has the wide extractor. I purchased my 439 used and externally it was pretty rough but hadn't been shot much.

Here is a right side photo of mine showing the wide extractor.

 

[jvmm]

Thanks for all the replies
I guess what threw me was it has wooden 39 stocks on it!! I don't think it came that way?

 

[stansdds]

Thanks for all the replies
I guess what threw me was it has wooden 39 stocks on it!! I don't think it came that way?

Wood stocks would be correct for the 39, 39-2, and x39 pistols. Plastic stocks on the 59, x59, x69, 645 pistols.
Wrap-around plastic stocks on third generation pistols.

 

[cougar015]

Model 539 extractor

The model number should be clearly stamped on the side directly under the serial number. The model 539 is a steel frame semi-auto and would of course be heavier than the alloy frame Model 39. Keep in mind there were 927 steel frame Model 39's produced. The model 539, as well as the model 439 & 639, were all manufactured using two different types of extractors. One is the longer thin type found on a Model 39-2. The other is a short stubby extractor. I an including a picture showing the short extractor on a model 639.

 

[67tempest]

I carried my 539 until I picked up my 915. I like the 915 better as a carry gun, lighter and higher capacity than the 539. The 539 is a great shooter, I have had mine for 35 or so years, one I would never sell.

 

[Rock185]

IIRC, I had a a 639 and two 539s with the short wide extractors. I think I still have the extra short wide extractor I bought back in the day, just in case. It was as jsbethel and Stansdds indicate. I spoke with S&W reps at an NRA convention, I think it was. They indicated the short wide extractor was part of an unsuccessful effort to secure a military contract. It was something about not requiring a tool to drive out the pivoting extractor pin as on the standard 39 and 59 series guns.

 

[Walter Rego]

I had a Model 539 that was new in the box. I ended up flipping it for a small profit. It was a nice gun but heavy for its capacity and caliber. It had the same wooden stocks as the Model 39.