Early Model 39/59 series reliability

[314159]

I'm a big fan of 3rd Gen Smiths, got a few. Their reputation for reliability is solid and real.

However... In my youth the 39s had a reputation of being less than first class and when HP bullets became the in thing it only got worse. Here's the thing though, I was reading gun magazines (forgive me, I didn't know any better then).

Question: Is my memory wrong/gun mags wrote ****/these things kinda sucked?
In essence, did the second and third generation changes really fix real reliability issues?

I'd like to hear from someone older than I who lived through the era and current early 39 users as well.

 

[chief38]

The only experience I've had with a M39 is back in the early 80's when one of my friends had an early one. He used to shoot it often and started shooting +P's through it. In short order the gun had loosened up to the point where he got rid of it and bought an all steel Browning Hi Power. His M39 was made out of an alloy and from what I understand the later ones were improved as to their strength. That is my very limited experience with the M39.

 

[flagman1776]

I still have my M39-2. It was my first centerfire handgun & it was shot a lot... and with plenty of +Ps, both duty issue & handloads. I kept the rails tubed with quality lube & it's not loose & it never jammed, not even with lead bullets. The 39-2 is an alloy frame model.

The pre 39s & the 39 (no dash) had different extractors which were prone to breakage & would be hard to find today. Always load from a magazine & not by dropping the slide on a chambered round (abuse).

If I was going to buy a shooter "39 series", I'd buy a 39-2 or later. Some 39 series are alloy & some later generations steel or stainless frames to choose from.
There are members with more experience than I, & they'll be along to reply with real world results.

 

[THE PILGRIM]

39 no dash has the long extractor.
As I have reported, I did break one while shooting lead bullet reloads.
When I ordered a new extractor, I ordered two.
So I still have my 39 and an extra extractor in the box, just in case.

 

[Bozz10mm]

I bought a used, in very good condition, 39-2 in 1980. I only put maybe 400 rounds through it with a few FTE's. A couple of years ago, I pulled it out of the drawer, cleaned it up, and replaced the recoil spring and magazine springs. Put another 100 rounds through it without any malfunctions.

It is still a safe queen, but I have full confidence in it's reliability now. I wouldn't shoot +P in it. I don't think it was built for it. (circa 1974) But then, I don't shoot +P in anything.

 

[ispcapt]

My dept started issuing 39 and later 39-2 in 1967. They weren't quite as prone to feed problems as the internet experts and gun rag writers would lead a person to believe. The former don't have a clue and the latter get paid by the word, not necessary the truth. Same results with both.
The 1st gen guns had a hump in the feed ramp. You have to remember that when the 39 and even the 39-2 were made there weren't a lot of ammo choices. Nearly all ammo was FMJ profile and were generally the same OAL. In the 60s and early 70s if you wanted a defensive rd that was not a FMJ then you could go with a SP rd with an exposed lead tip. Even those were FMJ shape of the bullet. When lighter bullets and bullet designs with a flatter point like alot of HP ammo came about the hump in the feed ramp would cause problems in some guns because the OAL was sometimes shorter or with some HPs were a blunter tip. Usually if the gun had been shot enough to break it in and run smoothly and was kept well lubed there wouldn't be a problem with the shorter and blunter ammo. Occasionally a gun would be picky about ammo but that was not limited to just the 39 series. It was very common for guns from other makers and designs to be really picky about certain bullet designs and lengths. Someone mentioned the BHP. The early ones were really picky feeders with FMJ being all many would handle reliably. It was a common complaint with early 70 Series Colts to only reliably feed FMJ and balk on some of the more radical shaped rds. None of that was a problem when the only ammo for autos were FMJ and very little else varying from the FMJ shape.
A lot of 39s had the hump in the feed ramp removed. Very simple procedure. Removing the hump improved the reliability of feeding shorter and longer than standard OAL rds.

 

[Aircrewman]

Masaad Iyoob wrote a very, very good article years ago for "American Handgunner" magazine. I think it was in the mid seventies, on the Model 39 and its history to the date of the article. He talks at length about the pioneering efforts of ISP and how that agency built the model 39 to a very respectable accuracy and reliability standard. It is a wonderful and interesting article. He also talks about the first models and the long and then short (and much improved) extractor as well as the barrel bushings and that parts improvement over the testing and use by ISP from 1967 onward.

He did a very good job and it was a great article. I believe that his understanding was that the gun, as initially designed for military use, was spotty on reliability with the up-and-coming hollow point/soft point bullets. It was reliable with FMJ but, as ispcapt notes, the hump and design was for FMJ ammo. ISP's work made the gun reliable with newer ammo but testing was necessary until one found reliable ammo. I remember buying Winchester 100 gr. "Powerpoints" for my 39 which were extremely reliable with my gun, but I had a 39-2 which had the improvements from ISP's research and input to Smith and Wesson. I also remember reading that the 100 gr "Powerpoint" was developed by Winchester for ISP. I think that is correct. It was because of that article (or whatever source it was that I saw that info) that I bought and used the 100 gr. powerpoint for my 39.

So, I think that the gun has always been reliable (and accurate) depending upon which iteration model one has. I think that by the time Smith and Wesson went to the 3 digit model numbers, i.e. 439, 539, 639 etc. up to and including the 3rd gen guns, that improvements had been made continuously which made it a very accurate and reliable gun. Of course, one has to remember that until ISP got it, it was made for military trials and ultimate useage. I also remember reading (perhaps from Ayoob's article) that the factory's accuracy standard was something like 4" at 25 yards...with FMJ ammo, the most prevalent ammo available then. ISP's adoption of the Model 39 made it a great combat/police gun.

 

[WizardWine]

S&W 39-2

I have had a great appreciation of the 39-2 since the first one I bought. The first one was an early model with the hump in the feed ramp. It was an easy project and I have it removed and have had no trouble with any malfunctions either with FMJ's or HP's. I have since moved into the latter versions with no hump, as well no malfunctions with either type of ammo.
I like to carry it in a cross draw holster which is easier for driving or while setting. My carry method is a round in the chamber with the safety/de-cocker engaged. I have a question for discussion which is; would one be wise to carry with a round in the chamber and the safety off and use the same cautions one would use for a revolver or a Glock, taking into consideration the Glock trigger?
I use the safety and alway practice my dry fire draws with flipping the safety off during the draw. This works just fine but rubs the thumb a little but is not an issue. I know there are a lot of you guys that have used this weapon in LEO or military and would like your take on this issue. What would be considered the norm?
Regards, Wiz

 

[ispcapt]

When we issued S&W autos we trained to use the safety as a decocker. After loading the chamber then use the safety to decock the firearm and then put the safety in the fire position for carrying.
Carrying with the safety engaged and moving the safety off on draw requires a lot of training where you don't even think about doing it. When doing it on the range it's easy and always possible. When you're in a true life threatening situation where you may be physically hands-on with an attacker you may not be able to get that range perfect grip and draw and able to move the safety to fire.
I always carried with the safety disengaged unless I was working foot patrol in a large crowd situation or going into something like bar fights. Then I would flip the safety on in case I was involved in an attempted gun grab. If things got really bad and someone was able to grab my 39 then hopefully with the safety engaged it would be enough of a delay I could get my 2nd gun into action.

 

[BUFF]

"Decocking/safety lever up or down?" Many opinions both ways. With the lever mounted up on the slide, it's easy to miss when in a hurry, but lever down does offer some protection if someone else gets the gun.

Police departments have taught both practices. When LAPD and LASO both adopted the Beretta 92, LAPD mandated lever up when holstered, and LASO mandated lever down! Two big agencies, in the same county, with the same gun, different practices!

Salt Lake City PD carried the Model 39 in the late sixties/early seventies. One of their officers, the late Brett Elcock, was jumped by a couple of men during a traffic stop on a winter morning. They knocked him down, got his pistol and tried to shoot him. Lever down, trigger no workie. They began pushing on the controls and ejected the magazine. Mag disconnect, still no workie. They threw the gun into a nearby creek, put the boots to Elcock and left him for dead. So, in THAT case, those two oft-debated safety devices probably saved him.

Interesting enough, SLCPD switched back to revolvers later, to the S&W Model 64. This was after another incident in which an officer was accidentally shot and paralyzed by his partner's gun during a surveillance detail.

Jeff Cooper was an advocate of lever up. His school used the mantra of "Don't get caught with your dingus down." My department adopted the similar-to-a-39 Model 4006 in 1991 or 92, and the range staff taught lever up, saying to use the two thumb motions as you said or thought, "Dee.. lever down... Cock... lever back up."

I pondered this myself, and after much careful contemplation and introspection, decided on a 1911, where the thumb safety is right under your thumb, where it belongs!

 

[WizardWine]

Safety lever up or Down

I have read a lot about this subject and on one post there was some talk about an AD when the 39-2 was dropped and hit the floor and the hammer disengaged and a round went flying. One guy even posted that an officer had his in the holster with round loaded and safety off and had an AD when he jumped down off of his perch.
I think this one falls into the urban legend category. I decided to do a test of my own and put a loaded mag in the weapon with NO round in the chamber, how would the weapon know the difference, and did several drop tests with the hammer back and safety off.
After several drops on to carpet from 12" up to hip high and one drop around breast level, landing muzzle first. Not once did the hammer fall, after several tests I do believe it is safe to carry with the round in the chamber hammer back and consider it a hot weapon just like a revolver and just stay alert from gun grabs or putting your finger in the trigger housing before your ready to fire.
This way when the weapon has to go to work either real life problem or range use it will be ready willing and able to do it's job. Due diligence is the key and don't play with your shooter unless it's time to shoot. As well a drop test once a year or so wouldn't be a bad idea. For every day carry, weapon hot, safety off and stay alert and safe as one should always be when carrying.

 

[Sevens]

Wiz, your testing is genuinely flawed. Drops on to carpet are simply not going to replicate the real world unless you only ever carry the 39-2 while on carpet.

Worse yet is that one of the actual threats for an unintended discharge on a dropped 39-2 doesn't necessarily involve the hammer -- but rather the firing pin which has no lock.

The best way to test THAT would be to find a beater or parts-only 39-2 (with fully functional slide) and chamber a piece of brass with a live primer but no bullet or powder -- add weight in the form of ammo in the magazine and then drop it (many many many times) from a great height on to cement.

 

[ispcapt]

I have read a lot about this subject and on one post there was some talk about an AD when the 39-2 was dropped and hit the floor and the hammer disengaged and a round went flying.

You either misunderstood or who ever wrote the post didn't understand the problem involved. It has nothing to do with the hammer falling when dropped.
The 39/39-2 firing pin has nothing holding it in place but the spring. Where the ADs when dropped came from is the gun dropped on the muzzle from sufficient height to permit the firing pin to move forward from the force of the impact which strikes the cartridge. It doesn't matter whether the hammer is cocked or not. The hammer didn't come into play.
These were not common ADs. All conditions had to be just right, or wrong, for it to happen.
Also, such was not just limited to the 39/39-2 guns. Colt 70 Series were the same way as were several other makes.

 

[cbpotel]

I am an unabashed fan of the Model 39 series pistols and have never had any reliability issues. Years ago I used the Sierra JHC bullets with no feeding issues or any other problems.

 

[paulj84003]

Back in 1973 when evaluating the mod 39 & 59 for use by our department one of the test used was dropping the 39 off safe with the hammer down, muzzle down onto a hard surface ,lino over concrete, with a primed case chambered., The pistols would fire most of the time. This was from a mesured height of 3 1/2 feet.
In June 81 a 59 off safe fell from the officers holster while chasing a suspect and discharged upon hitting the pavement. Oct 82 a similar situation pistol fell onto pavement during a foot persuit and discharged. again in Feb 86 during a foot persuit another pistol discharged when striking the pavement. These were 59's also. The first two 59's were being carried off safe. The third was supposedly carried on safe it was off safe when recovered. The safety lever was damaged quite badly as was the slide and frame, from road rash. It is possible that striking the rough pavement the safety was bumped to the off position and during the remainder of its trip down hill discharged. Benifit of the doubt was given to the officer. These are just a few from my notes as an armorer. Paulj

 

[Ed Fowler]

I was at the factory when they were working on the problem of the 39's not feeding ammo other than the hard ball. They were able to solve it by reshaping the magazines. That simple!

For one to discharge on a drop test, the inertia of the firing pin must overcome the return spring and still have enough force to ignite the primer.

Tried it on several pistols with and without the firing pin lock. Loaded a cartridge with only a primer and chambered it. Could not drop them far enough for the firing pin to even mark the primer.

Build a swing to hold the pistol and hit the muzzle with a hammer hard, naturally ruined the barrel but the firing pin did not mark the primer.

I believe that the firing pin lock is a theoretical solution to a problem that does not in fact exist, designed to sell some pistols and denigrate others.