Model 639 information please

[buzzdum]

Can someone please give advice/recommendations/review on model 639 please? Have an opportunity to get one and considering...
Also would love to know today's value or market for them just to make sure I don't get hosed. I believe the one I am looking at to be in very good condition but no box etc...
Thanks in advance

 

[Sevens]

Forum search will reveal more discussions already gathered than you'll have the time or inclination to read. No waiting for replies... full length and detailed discussions already complied, results returned in about one second.

 

[stansdds]

First, welcome to the S&W Forums!


The model 639 is an all-stainless version of the model 439 (aluminum receiver) and 539 (carbon steel receiver). These are second generation pistols which built upon the experience and success of the models 39 and 39-2, the first generation pistols. The second generation introduced a firing pin safety system and some second gen pistols have ambidextrous safeties and some had optional fully adjustable rear sights. They share a lot of parts with the first generation pistols. The late production 2nd gen pistols do have a hooked trigger guard, which can make holster selection more difficult. As for value, depends upon condition and where you live. You said it comes without box, papers and tools, so not a collector piece. There was a recall for the safety on certain production runs of these pistols, so that may be a factor. Not sure if S&W still has parts for this recall service.
I'd say in good condition, with one factory magazine (marked S&W on the magazine floor plate) $500 would be reasonable these days, maybe closer to $600 if in excellent condition.

 

[Green Frog]

OK, I’m going to resurrect this thread with a call for information which I encourage to be colored by opinions, anecdotes and experiences or even pure bias. I mentioned elsewhere my preference for the 2nd Gen receivers over the 3rds, with the reason being I preferred a separate, metal mainspring housing rather than the one included in the (plastic) grip of the later models. Likewise, I prefer the 3rd Gen slides that have dovetailed front sights, making them much more versatile. My answer of course, was to build my own “Generation 2.5” but upon reflection, and upon seeing all of my friends here, both new and old, seeming to show a decided preference for the 3rd Gen models (top and bottom) makes me wonder whether I’ve missed something.

I’d like to hear this discussed by users of either or both. Opinionated opinions are hereby encouraged!

Froggie

 

[Sevens]

Not sure exactly what you seek but I’ll add my opinions.

I own many 1-2-3rd Gens. Generally speaking and specifically very easy to show on each pistol that I own... the 1st Gens seem to have gotten the most attention to detail during assembly and the improvement in parts production made the 3rd Gens the smoothest with the least amount of fitting help.

That leaves the 2nd Gen pistols as the ones with the least enjoyable fit and feel. The double action trigger pull on 2nd Gens are long, scratchy, heavy, crunchy and rough. The single action pull is better than the DA but the least impressive of the three different generation pistols, in my experience. You can also feel the lack of fitment and craftsmanship in the 2nd Gen safety lever and how it feels when you move it. And the slide to frame fit isn’t inspiring. Not that it should feel like art, but it feels less fit and less close than a 1st Gen or a 3rd Gen.

The 3rd Gen pistols (speaking specifically to the frame, as you asked) have ergonomic improvements that I really notice and really enjoy over the 1/2nd Gens.

The fact that you lose the option for traditional screw-on grips is a detriment to the 3rd Gen pistols, I would think that most folks would agree. The best facet of the one-piece grip on the 3rd Gen is that it is very thin, which was exactly what S&W was trying to gain with that grip.

The MIM parts are even better than the forged parts, they are made to very close tolerances and that’s why the net result is a smoother trigger pull in both modes.

These opinions of mine are formed from... 39’s, 39-2’s, 59, 639’s, 559, 659, 469, 745’s, 3906’s, 3953, 5906’s, 915’s, 4006’s, 4506, 4566... maybe some I forgot...? Only listing to say that these characteristics were not specific to single examples, they very much stuck to generations.

Theory as to why this is this way? In my opinion, guns were made differently back in the days of the 1st Gens. The guys working at S&W weren’t simply laborers, they were craftsmen, because they needed to be.

I believe that the 2nd Gens and 3rd Gens came from an era were many of the folks were assemblers and the guns didn’t need a lot of human intervention. The difference in the 3rd Gens is that the parts are better and the tolerances are closer and the end result seems to be a better fitting, feeling pistol.

Just how I see it. None of these slows me from having a lot of fun with my 2nd Gens, especially my 659 and my 745’s.

 

[sheepdawg]

I used to own one, wish I still did. Fine shooter since it weighs just a few ounces less than a fire hydrant.

 

[stansdds]

I give the nod to the 3rd gen pistols because of improvements in the overall design. MIM brought smoother and more consistent trigger pulls, there is more variety when it comes to magazine capacity and barrel lengths, the grip on the double stack receivers was greatly improved, and parts are still widely available.

Can a second or first gen pistol be given a trigger pull to match a MIM 3rd gen? Yes, but it takes quite a bit of work. Parts are getting harder to find for the 1st and 2nd gen pistols. I like the looks of the 1st and 2nd gen pistols, especially the 39 and x39 models.

 

[Jeppo]

Hope I’m in time to save you!

I’d never owned or shot a metal Smith & Wesson bottom-feeder.

Three years ago, a 639 popped up for sale locally. I made an offer and was cleaning it on the kitchen table 45 minutes after he listed it. The gun was a shooter, sold by the owner’s son when dad began having trouble hefting it.

I strongly urge you to pass on the 639 you’ve uncovered. In my case, that first gun began a race down the rabbit hole that’s nearly bankrupted me.

 

[stansdds]

Yeah, I don't know why, but there seems to be an addictive potential with these pistols.

 

[VictorLouis]

I would not shy away from a nice 639. You just have to know that the DA pull on those is damn near a throwaway shot, LOL. Seriously though, the 3rd gen DA pull is light years ahead of the 2nd gen guns.

 

[stansdds]

I would not shy away from a nice 639. You just have to know that the DA pull on those is damn near a throwaway shot, LOL. Seriously though, the 3rd gen DA pull is light years ahead of the 2nd gen guns.

1st and 2nd gen and early 3rd gen DA trigger quality depends upon how smoothly the forged steel fire control parts were machined. Fresh cutters equaled a good pull, dull and nicked cutters resulted in rough, gritty pulls. This is where MIM really improved the DA on S&W pistols.

 

[Sevens]

^My angle is kind of this.

My argument is that the 1st Gen parts weren’t close enough to be dropped in and sent down the line, so real people cared and made them work and work well. And that the 3rd Gen parts were closer in tolerance and didn’t need that care.

And that leaves the 2nd Gens.

 

[Green Frog]

So if I’m understanding you guys correctly, the forged internal parts (Gen 2) do not operate as smoothly as the MIM parts of the Gen 3 guns unless they have been fitted or just happen to match up well.

Anybody besides me dislike having the non-metal mainspring housing? That, and the accompanying one piece grips are my big dislike of Gen 3. Any real problem with the separate metal MSH on the Gen 2s?

Froggie

 

[stansdds]

So if I’m understanding you guys correctly, the forged internal parts (Gen 2) do not operate as smoothly as the MIM parts of the Gen 3 guns unless they have been fitted or just happen to match up well.

Anybody besides me dislike having the non-metal mainspring housing? That, and the accompanying one piece grips are my big dislike of Gen 3. Any real problem with the separate metal MSH on the Gen 2s?

Froggie

Just compare the surfaces of some MIM parts to some forged and machined parts, you will quickly see the difference.

The plastic one-piece grip of the 3rd gen pistols provided improved ergonomics of the double stack pistols, but certainly not improved aesthetics. Early production 3rd gen stocks could break if the pistol was dropped butt down onto a hard surface, potentially releasing the mainspring. I don't think any of the aluminum 1st or 2nd gen mainspring housings suffered such problems. I know the aluminum mainspring housing on my police trade in 645 shows evidence of abuse, it even looks like it might have been dragged down a street, but i still functions like new.

 

[VictorLouis]

.. I know the aluminum mainspring housing on my police trade in 645 shows evidence of abuse...

It's plastic, Bro.

 

[cpeblue]

I have 2 of the little tanks, I found I could not stand the half cock hammer . So I converted them to 3rd gens. I didn't care for the sights so I placed a 5904 slide on one and a 5903 slide on the other both have the adjustable (bumper) sights that I prefer. As said before there a lb lighter than a fire hydrant but 9mm +P+ is like shooting .22 . They are fast shooting and back on target quickly . As much as I like them I wish I had pick up a couple of 439's. They are just 2 range guns that I keep around just because I like the way they look.