Everyone talks about the 39"s are the 59"s not desirable or just real common?
Are Model 59"s worth getting?
- Thread starter Rule3
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
OP
Everyone talks about the 39"s are the 59"s not desirable or just real common?
akviper
Member
For many, the grip didn't feel good and some guns had reliability issues. The later evolutions improved reliability and the later grip was much more ergonomic.
I had two when they first came out but sold them as I could never get used to the almost square grip. People with large hands seemed to do better.
When the guns first came out there were long waiting lists as the law enforcement community snapped up all the guns. They were the first US made high capacity double action auto that most LE higher ups would consider allowing officers to carry. If six rounds of 38 or 357 was good, 14 rounds of 9mm had to be a lot better, right?
I carried mine as a second gun as my chief at the time would only allow revolvers for holster carry. It spent a couple of years in a ******* shoulder holster with two spare mags on the off side.
I had two when they first came out but sold them as I could never get used to the almost square grip. People with large hands seemed to do better.
When the guns first came out there were long waiting lists as the law enforcement community snapped up all the guns. They were the first US made high capacity double action auto that most LE higher ups would consider allowing officers to carry. If six rounds of 38 or 357 was good, 14 rounds of 9mm had to be a lot better, right?
I carried mine as a second gun as my chief at the time would only allow revolvers for holster carry. It spent a couple of years in a ******* shoulder holster with two spare mags on the off side.
larryf1952
Member
I bought a 59 new in 1979, and I've always liked it very much and shot well with it. As AK mentioned, I do have long and slender hands, so the larger grip frame works for me. This is why I also really like the Beretta 92 and 96.
In contrast, the 39's grip frame feels too sharp-edged and board-like for my hands. This is also a problem that I have with the 4506, and is the main reason why I never bought one of those. 59's don't seem to have the almost cult like status of the 39's, but they're good guns and I prefer them. I also just like the fact that they're S&W's first hi-cap nine.
In contrast, the 39's grip frame feels too sharp-edged and board-like for my hands. This is also a problem that I have with the 4506, and is the main reason why I never bought one of those. 59's don't seem to have the almost cult like status of the 39's, but they're good guns and I prefer them. I also just like the fact that they're S&W's first hi-cap nine.
The 59 was the FIRST hi cap DA/SA pistol in the world. Only SA High Power came before it and it held 13 rounds in mag.
The 39 & 59 are 2 of my favorite S&W autos and in spite of some bad press, I have never had a Smith centerfire auto malfunction, yet.
FYI, S&W no longer have any 39/50 frames in their inventory, so if a frame becomes cracked, they don't have any.
The 39 & 59 are 2 of my favorite S&W autos and in spite of some bad press, I have never had a Smith centerfire auto malfunction, yet.
FYI, S&W no longer have any 39/50 frames in their inventory, so if a frame becomes cracked, they don't have any.
john traveler
Member
I was in Southern California in the early 1970s when the M39/M59 became all the craze because a couple departments adopted them. The M59 was in particularly high demand for several years, but the first several thousand guns quickly showed reliability problems, in particular, magazine jams and stovepipe malfuctions. Cheshire and Perez, the Monrovia S&W warranty deal did a brisk business reforming magazine lips and replacing extractors, as that seemed to solve the malfunctions. The M59 lost some of it's appeal after the M92SF Beretta won the service pistol trials in 1985-86.
OP
Thanks. I just picked up a LN 3913 so I am happy for a while.
Similar threads
- Locked
