Variances I've noticed so far on the 5906's I have...

[bill-]

I am just curious as I thought the variances in the frames of the 3 5906's I have.

In the picture, the oldest is the frame in the center dated Oct of '88, (TCB****). On this one, you will see that I have circled the areas of interest. The squared corners of the trigger guard and the beveled edge of the frame around the upper trigger guard.

The frame on the right is Mar of '90, (TES****). You will see the smooth round transition from the trigger guard to the frame and then the frame portion of the trigger guard where the frame isn't beveled as much as the other two frames.

The frame on the left is from November of 96, (VZC****). It's trigger guard is obvious, but what is of curiosity is bevel of the frame around the trigger guard and I must also mention that it has a slight radius to it also, unlike the '88 frame.

I am just curious as this is something I noticed.

 

[5906fan]

well a good observation, some or maybe most of this is due to factory finishing - these were a hi-demand pistol you know.
S&W sold K's of them world-wide.

 

[Dave Nash]

I am just curious as I thought the variances in the frames of the 3 5906's I have.

In the picture, the oldest is the frame in the center dated Oct of '88, (TCB****). On this one, you will see that I have circled the areas of interest. The squared corners of the trigger guard and the beveled edge of the frame around the upper trigger guard.

The frame on the right is Mar of '90, (TES****). You will see the smooth round transition from the trigger guard to the frame and then the frame portion of the trigger guard where the frame isn't beveled as much as the other two frames.

The frame on the left is from November of 96, (VZC****). It's trigger guard is obvious, but what is of curiosity is bevel of the frame around the trigger guard and I must also mention that it has a slight radius to it also, unlike the '88 frame.

I am just curious as this is something I noticed.

“bill”

There is at least one other standard production frame (from the days of the 5900 and 4000 Series pistols) out there that you don’t have that I think would lie in between what you say dates to ’90 and ’96. But so as to not steal or deviate from the theme of your thread, that will remain a story for another day.

In regard to what you do have and the changes you see, the oldest one (you say oct88) not only has a Long Square Guard but that triggerguard has points of intersection with the frame (two of the three locations you highlighted in your photo that I have reattached below) that resemble those seen as far back as the original Model 59. This was probably because while “new” machinery was being touted as having been installed at Smith & Wesson around the time the 3rd Gen guns were being introduced, there was still not the full-scale changeover that would be seen in later years and a lot of what was there by then was merely being used as replacements for the old stuff and was not being utilized to its full potential.

When your 1988 gun was manufactured, the company was building “new” 3rd Generation firearms, with marketedly better design features than the 2nd Generation versions that preceded them, on some of the “new” machines that the pistol department was bringing in to improve things in that direction (manufacturing) as well. But they were employing many of those devices in pretty much in the same (“old”) manner that they had been using for decades. This meant that during much of the early days of the 5900 series, unnecessary multiple fixturings were still taking place; causing the same amount of hand-fitting to be performed and use of things like different size extractors to make these guns “run”, as were required by their predecessors. The same was true of the perpendicular cuts made with conventionally shaped cutters (and conducted by conventionally shaped thinking) that resulted in the 90º junctions (intersections) of things like the trigger guard and frame that you are questioning here.

Over time, this was addressed (not as part of the AIP Program that has been “discussed” elsewhere – sometimes incorrectly – on this site but) as part of the overall upgrading of the company’s manufacturing capabilities that was being insisted upon by the British ownership. To be honest, for all the disparaging remarks one sees about those folks on this site and elsewhere, at least they understood that continuing to make things in dated ways and on old machines would lead to the same fate that had already befallen Colt (slow discontinuation of much of the product line with skyrocketing prices on what remained) and would ultimately claim Winchester (causing an end to the company as we knew it).

Anyway, making the kind of cuts made possible by following the toolpaths the new machinery could provide finally allowed them to create the kind of intersections seen on the gun that you say dates from March of 1990. To some, this “look” is more pleasing to the eye. For some, it can be more comfortable to the hand (more on that in a second). But to the factory, while it might have been a design change, it was more likely just something simpler and perhaps more economical to do (with new machines working like new machines, not newer machines working like older machines or, worse yet, with older machines working like machines that needed to be replaced).

I always felt that one of the real issues regarding “comfort” relates to the upper (outside) corner found at the junction of the trigger guard and the grip frame where the magazine catch is located. Take a close look at the right sides of both of the frames I have discussed so far and look at the “point” formed by the intersection of the two surfaces there. Having shot (shot, not just carried) two different 5906 AIP guns pretty much every day for the better part of two years, I had more than a callous where my finger wrapped around that surface. Did it hurt? Not really. Was it distracting? Maybe. But was it something that needed to be there? NO.

Originally, when the dimensions of those early guns were still floating around a bit for the reasons I have already given, I could understand how this resulting (not primary) surface could change dramatically from one example to the next. But later on when things (in theory anyway) became more stable, this should have stopped and this surface could have been gently radiused. It wasn’t; although I have an early test-bed gun where it was and one of these days, I will post photos of it. But you can see what I am talking about on the photo you have included here. Not only look at the unnecessarily sharp edge at this location but look at how the distance from the mag catch hole to the edge of the frame varies on the three receivers you have pictured. This was common for 5900 types and their spin-offs pretty much throughout their manufacturing history.

But back to your observations: I believe that the heavy flaring at the rear of the opening within the triggerguard that’s seen in the earliest gun (your “TCB” pistol) could be due to a number of things.

I think most of us would like to give the project engineers credit for it; as it could be a carryover, design-wise, from something similar-but-not-exactly-the-same that can be seen on many of the two digit 59’s and three digit 59’s that preceded the four digit (5900 series) versions.

Stepping back in time, when you look back at how some of the more historically significant pistols like the 1911 evolved, you will see that beveling this area (to allow the finger to more easily wrap around the frame and into the trigger guard) also happened on those guns. I can’t believe that this idea wasn’t lost on the designers at Smith when they made things thicker during the jump from the single column 39 frames to the double column 59 type in 1970 or '71.

Then, when the later jump was made to the 3rd gen guns in the late 1980’s, people like the knowledgeable Wayne Novak were asked to bring their insight and newer concepts to those (albeit later-day) designers’ attention and he got the factory to look at the use of hand-raising undercuts at the junction of the front strap and triggerguard. Therefore, it would seem likely that modifying that original bevel into the one that you call out (in both size and location in order to accommodate the closer-to-the-bore handhold and resulting trigger finger placement) could have figured into the process.

However, once again, I think the floating frame dimensions (due to the manufacturing techniques I’ve already mentioned that were in use at the time) could also have been the reason for the more pronounced (and flared) bevel on that (your one specific) earlier frame. Sometimes in this business, things are not always planned out but are often just a result of how they worked out.

Additionally, that same (thick/thin, multiple chucking, and how-the-machine-was-set-up-that-day) situation could also have been the cause for the gun-to-gun variability seen in regard to your two, earlier-to-mid-era 5900 frames; as this is something also seen in regard to the somewhat smaller and different positioned cuts on the earlier two-digit and three-digit series guns. If you don’t believe me, take a look online sometime at the huge number of pictures and variations in this area on different two and three digit 59’s that an internet search will yield. Then do the same by looking at a similarly large group of 3rd gen four digit guns. For even if you separate them by serial number (giving you frames that would have been machined in at least something resembling the same time frames), they will still show all kinds of variations that I believe can often be due as much to machine-induced dimensional shifts and, separately, tolerance runouts as they can to actual changes made to the dimensions and the processes themselves.

There is also a good chance that your later frame (VCZ) lacks a pronounced bevel or has a slight (or diminished) bevel that was integrated into an overall cut along that edge of the frame for several (if not more) reasons:
1) The people working in various places throughout the company by then could have forgotten why a larger, more ergonomic bevel might (emphasize: “might”) have been there on the earlier 5900-series guns and significantly reduced it (or removed it outright) to save money for they saw no value in it.
2) Its removal may have been merely floated as a way of saving money and when the end users didn’t notice or complain, it was not put back in place.
3) What was learned on the discount versions of this gun (the 915 and 910) in regard to what could be omitted or done differently to save money, might have simply been applied here as well.
And again, much of this is all dependent on whether or not a truly larger bevel was spec'd as part of the original design from the outset.

Hope this helps you and I think that it is a good thing that you brought these differences up. But without the engineering drawings from the period involved and knowing the sometimes huge amount of variability that existed in the pistols made in the 80’s and early 90’s due to the machinery upon which they were produced, I am afraid that looking at only three randomly-selected frames can be misleading and can also make it difficult to determine what was actually going on. But I am hoping that as these guns continue to grow in popularity, people will turn to your entry here as the beginning of a study as to what was done formally versus what just happened because it was how the numbers ran out. It is curiosity like yours that drives this kind of thing, and this kind of knowledge about it, forward.

 

[BruceB]

I always felt that one of the real issues regarding “comfort” relates to the upper (outside) corner found at the junction of the trigger guard and the grip frame where the magazine catch is located. Take a close look at the right sides of both of the frames I have discussed so far and look at the “point” formed by the intersection of the two surfaces there. Having shot (shot, not just carried) two different 5906 AIP guns pretty much every day for the better part of two years, I had more than a callous where my finger wrapped around that surface. Did it hurt? Not really. Was it distracting? Maybe. But was it something that needed to be there? NO.

This particular edge on the right side of the frame has been a source of pain to me both literally and figuratively. It's about the only thing about the 5906 that makes me want to take up the Dremel and attack it, and only the fact that it's a nice clean example has stopped me from so modifying it.

I have a TDM66xx example (1989?) that has turned the side of my second finger raw and bloody more than once from the hard grip that i use. I have learned that when this gun is selected for extended training sessions that might go 1500 rounds in 2 days, that I wrap that finger as prevention. I guess my thinking has been that the skin will heal, but I can't realistically put metal back on the gun. I expect that sooner or later, that area will get relieved as I probably won't ever sell it, and it's not particularly valuable as a collectible.

Nice insight into the processes at S&W. I also just read the Dwayne Charron book last night, also fascinating.

 

[Dave Nash]

This particular edge on the right side of the frame has been a source of pain to me both literally and figuratively. It's about the only thing about the 5906 that makes me want to take up the Dremel and attack it, and only the fact that it's a nice clean example has stopped me from so modifying it.

I have a TDM66xx example (1989?) that has turned the side of my second finger raw and bloody more than once from the hard grip that i use. I have learned that when this gun is selected for extended training sessions that might go 1500 rounds in 2 days, that I wrap that finger as prevention. I guess my thinking has been that the skin will heal, but I can't realistically put metal back on the gun. I expect that sooner or later, that area will get relieved as I probably won't ever sell it, and it's not particularly valuable as a collectible.

Nice insight into the processes at S&W. I also just read the Dwayne Charron book last night, also fascinating.

“BruceB”

Thank you for the compliment and I should tell you that I had the opportunity to work with Mr. Charron on a couple of things and pester him with questions about a number of others when he was back at the company in some sort of advisory or consulting (contract?) role in the early 1990’s.

He was always more than willing to put up with my general ignorance about current things and would also do his best to try and remember why they did the things they did in earlier years when the knowledge of what had been done in the past was helpful to me in my problem solving efforts.

Tommy Campbell had always told me about him and when he was brought back in this role, Tom made a point of introducing me to him. It is due to people like Tom and Mr. Charron that I didn’t make a bigger fool out of myself than I usually did.

Anyway, if you’ve seen my piece about the Factory Experimental 5906 Slide (Factory Experimental 5906 Slide) elsewhere on this board, you know I am not one to encourage or recommend the modification of such a pistol away from factory specs. […Work of any type on any firearm should not be attempted by anyone but a competent gunsmith familiar with the particular weapon involved and it is best that such a person be both certified and authorized by the manufacturer for such efforts. In fact, it is recommended that any work be done only by the factory itself or by someone (or some entity) that the factory itself directly authorizes and recommends. This would include both repairs and modifications.]

But recognizing that people are going to do whatever they feel they can do, I would also tell you that if you are planning to someday alter the frame on your gun to prevent, or at least minimize, the kind of problems you are having in regard to the “edge” formed on its right side at the point where the triggerguard intersects with the gripframe and the magazine catch is located that you consider the following.

DON’T use a Dremel.

Because (as I also stated in my earlier piece) as the size and even the shape of that resulting surface can float a great deal from gun to gun, there is no hard and fast amount of material to be removed or reprofiled to achieve this purpose. But in any case, there is not much to be redone here. And once it is gone, there is no getting it back.

I would suggest a sharp and relatively narrow (flat) Swiss File or maybe even a small diameter (round) Needle File that would afford far more control over what is done in regard to uniformly rounding (beveling or radiusing) that edge. Depending on one's experience and skill level, it will only take a few seconds more (maybe a couple of minutes more) but not only will the hand-filing possibly allow one to create a more detailed shape and contour but it can go a long way to prevent just lopping off more than one should or creating a shape that while reduced, will still cause discomfort.

The idea is to trim it a little and try it. Shape it a bit more and try it again. Then continue this procedure until the desired affect is acheived and then STOP, without going too far. Best you should find that what feels better in just handling the gun might prove to need a bit more work after the next time you shoot it, than to trim off or redo too much up front. In any case, do not allow whatever is done to creep up so far on to (or into) the flat itself that it engages the hole into which the mag catch fits.

Also, whatever is done, make sure it is done with a completely unloaded and preferably field-stripped firearm. It is for that reason that I cannot recommend that such work be done on or near a range. It is just looking for trouble to do so as it is way too easy to get one's “wires crossed” or to become forgetful in terms of unintentionally handling or working with a loaded firearm. Don’t do it or allow it to be done.

Sorry to sound so much like somebody’s mother but safety can never be stressed too much.

Hopefully, these comments have been of help and I can tell you that you are not alone in having this problem as I’ve heard complaints from others in the past and while the minor knot I had on the side of my finger from this unfortunate point of contact is not really there anymore, I still feel something under the skin from where it was.

One last thing. Whoever does the work needs to make sure that the file, cutter or wheel they use is either new or uncontaminated by conventional carbon steel for not only can what passes for “stainless” steel in firearms like these corrode from perspiration and/or environmental conditions, but it can really “rust” if its open surface is impregnated by carbon steel particles transferred from the file’s previous activities.

You take care.