Controlling the Model 52 better

[BE Mike]

Jerry Keefer (RIP) apparently wasn't a fan of the 1:18 3/4" twist rate of the S&W model 52 stock barrel. He said that PPC revolvers generally used a twist rate of 1:10- 1:14 and those faster twist rates showed sub 1" groups at 50 yards with no bullet tipping. Looks like Clark might have decided that the faster twist rate might be better for the 52.

 

[Rowlf]

... I've never heard anyone complain the trigger is too light.

S&W M52s will lose trigger weight over time. I have had to bend my sear spring to get trigger weight up to competition limits for NRA Center Fire rules. (ISSF CF rules are more lenient due to 22/32 conversions)

 

[mikemyers]

It's a year later, and the first question I asked here is answered I think. Everything that was "wrong", or at least not as good as I wanted, was do to me, not in any way the gun. Mostly by following the advice from Brian Zins, I've changed just about everything I do to match what he does, within my ability (or lack of). As to this thread, LOTS of excellent information up above. Reading it one year later was like reading a good book!

I have been trying to shoot the Model 52 one handed, along with my Model 41, and am dry-firing five or six days a week, typically three or four times a day. The 41 is coming along nicely. The 52 - not so much, as I'm not using it much. I figure I should get closer to mastering the 22 before moving on to either the M-52 or my Salyer built 1911.

I bought a second M-52 which needs work, and am slowly getting it back into shape thanks to people in this forum. Of all the guns I have ever fired, I don't know of any of them that I preferred to the 52.

Weak points, for me, are my eyes (they work better with optics), and I still need to improve my trigger release.

Now I find myself wanting a Model 39 (which may be possible) or a Model 952, which collectors have priced out of any reasonable price range. (If I knew back then, what I know now, I'd have bought a lot more of those beautiful old guns!!!)

 

[Sevens]

mikemyers, I have enjoyed your Model 52 discussions. As I have a handful of 39's, 52's and 952's... I have a knee-jerk reaction to this last post of yours above.

My experiences are my own, so yours might be different, however...

39's are fantastic, lovable, affordable and totally enjoyable pistols, but you won't find one that will impress you as a target shooter if you have put in this much quality time with a 52. The fitment won't meet the ability of a 52, the trigger is nowhere near what you have enjoyed with a 52 and the sights aren't in the same class.

If you had put in 5 years of dry fire and weekly sessions of hundreds of rounds with a 39 or 39-2 and then you bought a 52 for the first time, THAT would be an awakening for sure! Don't let my opinion keep you from buying a great 39, but it is no target pistol. With 52 experience and a mind and drive for Bullseye style shooting, a 39 is going to disappoint you.

As for a 952, I would make two key points-- first is that it isn't fair to blame collectors entirely for pricing these (long discontinued) guns out of an affordable price range, the fact is that the original price was over $2,000. So much like the 52-2 that now sells for $1200-$1400, those were $900 guns in 1993, the last year they were offered.

My second point... 952's are amazing pistols, but shooting them isn't much like shooting a 52 in my opinion. The 9mm runs basically twice the pressure of the .38 Wadcutter and the loads you run in 9mm are, by and large, not as inherently capable as a hollow base soft swaged .38 Wadcutter.

Can you match or exceed a 52 target with a 952? Maybe, but if you have years of 52 experience, you won't do it quickly. And yep, you'll spend thousands.

Now I love my Performance Center guns and especially my 952's, but if you are a long time Model 52 guy, I'm not sure a 952 would please you at two to three times the money.

 

[mikemyers]

Thanks, Sevens.... I've never seen a 39, let alone used one. For that matter, I've never seen a 952 either. What you wrote is a nice "reality check" for the part of me that might want to buy either of those; yeah, no point in it. I'm not a collector, and what I love about the 52 doesn't extend to the others I guess.

The main reason for buying the as-is gun I just bought, was to learn how to work on the gun. It wasn't all that expensive, as-is, and I'm already into doing things I'd never have considered on my own gun (which was barely used, when I bought it, and which cost more than I really wanted to spend).

I didn't know what you explained about the costs, either. A Model 52, at $900 in 1993, would probably be maybe three times that much in today's dollars. Ouch, and/or wow!

Thanks for all the additional information. I think I'll give up on considering one of the others for purchase.

 

[Sevens]

Thanks for the kind words! I hate to dash hopes, but I don't think the 952 will sweep a 52 shooter off his feet.

With all that said, a beautiful and historically significant Model 39 or 39-2 is absolutely worth the few hundred they cost, these guns are a joy to own and shoot. It's just that no 39 can perform at the elite level of a 52 when it comes to punching the X-ring of a paper target.