Ammo questions with continuing model 39-2 problems

[Oldgoalie]

Hi folks, my model 39-2 extraction problems have now turned into a project. Thanks for all the suggestions. I've played with a new extractor, bought but not bothered to change the ejector. New springs all around. The gun won't work with 115 gr 9mm Luger. Seems to function ok with 124 gr diet. Now I'm on the quest to find the ammo available when the gun was designed, and later when it was built. It was built in 1972.

I carried a model 39 off duty back in 1973 to 79. I never had a problem, but I remember not having a lot of choices in ammo at the local stores. I do remember that there were reports of problems feeding hollow points, and that the Secret Service had a hollow point that fed well. I never thought much about it.

Now I have the used 39-2, and read about many others that have the same type of problem. Today there is such a large selection of 9mm ammo.

My question is does anyone know the specs of the ammo that this weapon was designed to handle? My thought is if I can find that information, then I can find whatever matches up with what it was designed to operate. It may be simplistic, but I don't remember this being so hard. Does anyone have thoughts on the this?

Thanks

 

[sodacan]

The model 39 is at best a mediocre gun, IMO. Having owned one and a model 59, I found better choices in 9mm. That being said, one ammo choice that has worked for me flawlessly in every 9mm I have ever owned is the older 115 grain JHP from Federal. The product code is 9BP. It is certainly not state of the art when compared some of the new stuff, but it is utterly reliable.

 

[Sevens]

Just your opinion but facts fly 180 degrees in to the face of a Model 39-2 being "mediocre." 347,000 built and sold over 27 or 28 years, and this without a military contract. It certainly sounds as if the subject pistol is some manner of a lemon, which is absolutely possible with ANY mechanical device, but I have six 1st Gen S&W pistols and 5 of them are flawless. (the other is a 1964 pistol that I have merely admired and not yet shot)

As to the subject pistol and the chase for information regarding "original" or perhaps period-correct ammunition... I think this is a neat and interesting idea, but I can't say I agree with it, simply based on the fact that man run phenomenally well on very simple "normal spec" handloads, the same exact recipe of which I have run through probably 40 different modern 9mm handguns include a few PC pistols that run a couple thousand dollars and are anything but average production handguns.

However, that is merely my opinion. And after sharing that I actually do have some substance to offer in your chase:

Smith & Wesson got in to the branded ammo business for a stretch in the 1970's and 80's. If memory serves me well... they didn't actually have any hands in making the ammo, they merely had their name emblazoned all over it. I believe that Fiocchi made the ammo itself.

S&W used to stick (yet another) pamphlet in boxes with new guns extolling the virtues of the Smith & Wesson branded ammo, and this pamphlet had specs of the entire product line.

I'll be back ASAP with those specs.

 

[smith10]

Was the 115Gr ammo Winchester white box?

If so,it can be underpowered at times.

IMO 39s are great guns. Great trigger, especially single action.

 

[Sevens]

Okay, the spec sheet I am reading from was shipped with a new pistol in the mid-to-late 1970's when S&W was a Bangor-Punta owned company. The S&W ammo in 9mm was:

115gr JHP, 1128 fps and 325 fpe
115gr FMC, 1183 fps and 358 fpe
115gr MCSWC, 1183 fps and 358 fpe
100gr FMC, 1251 fps and 348 fpe

If you are wondering what on earth a MCSWC, it looks like maybe it is a "full metal case semi-wadcutter" and -NO- I have never personally seen this offered in factory 9mm ammo, ever!

All of these show a 4" barreled S&W Model 59.

To be clear, I am not saying that anything shown here was suggested original spec... but I am saying that in the late 70's, this is what S&W was telling you to buy.

 

[Oldgoalie]

Thanks folks. Thanks for the suggestions. Sevens, I want to see your collection. The ammo that gives it the most trouble is in fact Winchester white box 115gr. It's what I had in the range bag when I picked the gun up at the gunsmith.

As far as the likeability of the 39, depends on your point of view. I love the gun. The feel, the ability to stay on target, and remembering younger, heavier time. The fact that this one was a Christmas present from my wife adds to wanting it to work. So this one is a project, I know there has to be a pony in the pile somewhere. I'm stubborn enough to make it work.

I'm going to look for some of the Federal. Sevens, what do you feed your collection? Are any of them your daily carrry?

Thanks again guys.

 

[scooter123]

Actually S&W did produce their own ammunition in Rock Creek, Ohio.

Oldgoalie, since you are having extraction/ejection issues and have a new ejector the logical approach to me would be to install that new ejector and see if it solves your problem. The location of the tip of that ejector can have a distinct effect on how the casing is "thrown" through the ejection port. If you have a tip that has been ground back or just worn a bit just 0.03 inch could have an effect on reliability.

As a reloader I will also tell you that there is a lot more to duplicating a specific cartridge than just bullet weight and velocity. Take the 9mm for example, overall lengths can range from as short as 1.06 inch to as long as 1.69 inch. Then you can have the classic 9mm Round Nose with it's distinct profile or Truncated Cone Flat Points, or Hollow Points in either a rounded or tuncated cone profile. In addition if you throw in bullets intended for the 380 ACP you have a rather distinct difference in the profil of a "Round Nose" bullet. BTW, the 380 ACP bullets typically look like a mini 45 ACP bullet, considering that both calibers were John Browning designs this really isn't a surprise. Sum it all up and your only chance of copying a late 60's commercial load is to find some at a gun show and copy every feature.

Finally when you consider that the model 39 was the First semi ever used by a wide variety of Police departments I think it is very likely a design with a tolerance for a wide variety of ammunitions. My hunch is that you have a pistol specific issue and Once you find the cause you'll probably be thinking "why didn't I try that first".

 

[Sevens]

Fantastic post. I'd love to hear more about S&W ammo from Rock Creek, Ohio..?

 

[racemi]

I hate to be the one who is different, but just about all I shoot in my 1976 39-2 is 115 Gr. Winchester White box. I have never had any issues with this ammo. I shoot it because it's all I can afford and I guess I'm lucky it works so well in my 39-2.

I don't know where people read so many 39's have ejection problems. I read only one or two like this thread a year.

There is a problem with that particular gun you have. You will find out what it is, but I doubt the ammo is your problem.

You stated that 124 gr. rounds work, so I take it that the problem is the slide is not cycling correctly. You said all springs were replaced. Did you replace them yourself? Did you replace them with "standard" springs or did you put higher pound rate springs in the gun? Could someone before you have replaced the hammer spring with something heaver? Did you replace the hammer spring?

Are you running the gun with enough oil on the rails? The aluminum frame likes plenty of lube.

I hope you figure this out, good luck.