Added a clean 4006, couple questions

[Sevens]

Here is a picture of the left side:

It seemed odd to me that the pistol has the mixed lettering between slide and frame. As you can see, laser etched goodness on slide (man that looks nice!) but familiar stamping on frame.

MIM hammer and trigger and it feels terrific. Definitely some scratches and handling on the grip as is typical but the inside of the pistol was ridiculously clean. I almost want to guess that someone sonic-cleaned it, just gleaming.

Was it common for the later production pre-TSW pistols to have laser-etched slides and not frames?

 

[Sevens]

And here is my other question.
Please see this picture:

Apologies that I couldn't catch a better picture...
What you can barely see in the photo is VERY easy to see with the naked eye. These are absolutely not deep scratches or scars, but they are all over the pistol and I am curious if there is an easy or "do-able" way of cleaning this up a bit without doing a full-bore bead blasting job that some of you guys know how to do?

It's not a dealbreaker, I am extremely happy with this buy, but if I could clean it up a bit... I sure would!

 

[dawggunner]

I picked up a 3906 earlier this year with the same type of rub marks, only worse.

 

[armorer951]

This thread has some valuable info and photos regarding finish restoration/ repair. Media blasting techniques, results, and testing on stainless steel frames........

http://smith-wessonforum.com/smith-...7421-glass-bead-media-testing-5906-frame.html

I'm sorry, but I can't give a definitive answer concerning your "etching/stamping" question. I would guess that the remaining stamped frames that were available at the time of the transition to laser marking may have been used despite the "mismatch" in the appearance. It seems as though S&W has always used resources and parts when they were available.

 

[Sevens]

That is kind of what I am assuming as well, but it sure makes for a handsome pistol. That laser etched S&W logo on the left side of the pistol just sets it apart from the many 3rd Gens I have always known, I really love the way it looks.

Appreciate the link on the finish restoration and it is just AMAZING what skjos has done and his ability to document it and show pictures is a wonderful resource for everyone who loves these pistols.

I am not looking to go that deep in to a restoration, I am more curious about some of the very light and careful rubbing with the 3M type pads. But appreciate that link just the same!

 

[GaryS]

My two guns with Laser etching on the slide have stamped information on the frame. I don't think that Laser etching is durable enough for a serial number, so I'd be surprised to see it used.

My pre rail 3913TSW has similar rub marks on the slide. I just consider them character lines.

 

[TTSH]

I picked up a 3906 earlier this year with the same type of rub marks, only worse.

Yep, very typical. Even an old, anal-retentive curmudgeon like me doesn't worry about those minor marks.

My pre rail 3913TSW has similar rub marks on the slide.

But in your case, I think it might be a good reason to sell!

 

[TTSH]

It seemed odd to me that the pistol has the mixed lettering between slide and frame. As you can see, laser etched goodness on slide (man that looks nice!) but familiar stamping on frame.

I think many aspects suggest this was simply a late production gun.

 

[GaryS]

I think many aspects suggest this was simply a late production gun.

Since the pre rail TSWs were made only in 1997-99, I have very rough idea when it was made. It has the laser etching on the slide and stamped numbers on the frame. My later 3913TSW was made in October of 2002, and it's marked the same way. I seem to remember that the 3913 LS also had laser etching on the slide. Production of those started in 1990, but I wonder if early ones were roll marked and not etched.

Overall, I wouldn't put too much significance on the difference between slide and frame markings.

 

[timn8er]

Very nice 4006!

You might be able to take the finest grade scotch bright pad(White or Light Gray?) & very lightly scuff the afflicted areas & see if that takes care of it. Again, emphasis on very lightly! I've had good luck with this method; just don't scuff it for a long time & try & stay away from the edges, as you might wear through the finish & make it shiny.

 

[armorer951]

This is not a "brushed" OEM finish, so I would think that rubbing with a 3M pad would not be a good idea as it would not match. Might actually make things worse.
Unless you plan to go over the entire slide and change the surface entirely, a very light bead or silica blasting will blend better and hide the artifacts you are trying to get rid of, without creating new ones. (opinion)

 

[Fastbolt]

Nice find.

If it were mine, I'd leave the factory finish alone and enjoy the gun. The passivation step used in the stainless steel leaves sort of a 'film' boundary layer on the outside of the stainless steel.

It's a shooter, not a piece of art.

 

[Sevens]

Haha, you guys are kind of funny, but I want to make a couple things clear.

I am not "lying awake at night" over the marks on the finish. This is also why I have no interest (whatsoever) in a bead blasting or full restoration.

You really are not getting the full idea of what it looks like-- I am far more skilled at shooting handguns than I am at shooting PICTURES of handguns!

And really...
Handguns are not art?!
Uhh, okay. Good for me I suppose, because art is LOST on me, completely. However! Since day ONE, handguns have always been a full, visceral experience. A gun doesn't have to be good looking for me to like it or keep it, and a pretty gun that won't run isn't something I have a lot of use for.

But suggesting to me that they are not art kind of attaches someone else's value system to the pistol that I bought and want to keep. So it's an interesting thought an expresses a view... but not a view that makes any sense for me and for this pistol in any way.

Kind of like those train-wreck ugly duck S&W adjustable sights. To me, they look like someone's inside joke, but my view certainly shouldn't be construed as "why would you ever buy a pistol with that rear sight?"

This 4006 is one fine looking pistol and I would love to take out those odd marks if I could, but not if it meant some full restoration job.

 

[cololab]

The only way I have found to remove those light scratches without making it obvious that the area had been tampered with is to lightly bead blast the scratched areas. I have a friend who has a blast cabinet and I can assure you it works very well for touching up these stainless guns. The proper blend of blast media (there is an excellent thread on that subject on this forum) will I think give you the result for which you are looking.

 

[TTSH]

This 4006 is one fine looking pistol and I would love to take out those odd marks if I could, but not if it meant some full restoration job.

It looks to be in excellent shape to me. Those slight marks mean nothing. I say forget about those marks and just enjoy it!

The only way I have found to remove those light scratches without making it obvious that the area had been tampered with is to lightly bead blast the scratched areas.

Here's a point to consider. To my old eyes, certain late production 3rd Gens, always ones with laser markings, seem to have a very slight golden/bronze tint to them. This fine Model 4006 seems to have that characteristic. So question: would a spot bead blasting (or any similar attempt at a small area restoration) end up removing the slight "tint" in that area? If so, I'd be even less inclined to want to do anything about those very minor handling marks.

 

[Fastbolt]

Haha, you guys are kind of funny, but I want to make a couple things clear.

I am not "lying awake at night" over the marks on the finish. This is also why I have no interest (whatsoever) in a bead blasting or full restoration.

You really are not getting the full idea of what it looks like-- I am far more skilled at shooting handguns than I am at shooting PICTURES of handguns!

And really...
Handguns are not art?!
Uhh, okay. ...

Point taken. Beauty in the eye of the beholder, and all that.

I can remember back when I actually put some emphasis on whether I "liked" a gun's appearance. I was a young man, and it was before I'd had much experience with what duty & off-duty guns started to quickly look like after being subjected to the rigors of normal, everyday carry and use.

Every see one of those commercials where new parents are super careful with their first newborn, making sure everything is pristine and super clean, but then get over their inexperience and become more practical? I especially liked the one where the mom handed her baby to the car mechanic to hold for a moment (the greasy/oil hands were a bit over the top, though, but funny and illustrative of the point being made in a joking manner ).

Once I saw blued, stainless and nickel handguns acquire the inevitable signs of normal wear & tear (and abuse, granted) in LE use, I got over my treating them like the "first newborn".

You're not wrong about those adjustable sights, though, but if you think they're "unsightly" (pun intended), you ought to try and get parts for them. Why the hell anyone thought it was a good idea to machine the slides to only use a weirdly shaped proprietary sight base design is one of those inner mysteries known only to S&W.

I've had some revolvers bead-blasted, and the resulting appearance can be nice, aesthetically speaking, but it can still experience the scars, marks & tattoo's as the original passivated surface if subjected to the same rigors.

I have a 70's vintage Colt Commander (Steel, Combat model) which started life blued. Thinking it would be better to have a less "delicate" finish, I had it done in electroless nickel. Pretty, although in later years, afte a LOT of shooting and carry usage, the finish wore thin in many spots and some chipping appeared. Anyway, one day I discovered that a loose recoil, spring had rested against the side of the slide, and I had a series of noticeable marks left in the finish. They were eventually polished "subdued" by heavy holster wear.

You ought to see what my various duty & off-duty guns have ended up looking like over the years.

I don't say any of the this to imply that everyone ought to feel this way, or shouldn't maintain their prized firearms in as pristine a manner as possible, or not consider them synonymous with "modern art" (guns have appeared in some museums as such), but just to illustrate how some of us have had the "shine" taken off our firearms due to them having been relegated to more or less just normal "working equipment" over time.

Kind of like having safe full of bulldozers and other construction equipment.

 

[Sevens]

I hear ya and that is what I will most likely end up doing. But seriously...
I was only able to barely capture just one example of the mark in my camera -- it is hard to photograph, but those marks cover the entire slide.

In my other thread with the picture of the 2206 I bought (when I couldn't come to a deal on a Mod 52) that picture looks fairly decent as well but the pistol's finish has had a HARD life and I just can't seem to capture it well in a snapshot. In the picture, it looks awfully good! In your hands... it kind of looks like it's asking for help.