leroy

As i remember, the Smith model 39 and 59 were an american copy of a pistol called the Walther P38 of ww2 fame. The p38 was the standard issue handgun of the german army in ww2. There are lots of russians layin dead on the steppes from rounds from the p38. The p38 is a weapons engineering milestone; the first double action semiauto pistol. The father of the sig and the glock; and bunches of other weapons we use today. The Smiths were the "second generation" of the german p38 double action semiauto pistol.

I have a 39 and a 59 (...both nickel plated with walnut grips...). The last thing they are is cheap. They are well made and were the "top of the line" of the tomorrow pistols of the early 70's. I never shot the 59 much (....dont like the grip frame size....); but the 39 shot quite well. Wuz never a fan of the 9mm; so we didnt fool with them too much. We were too busy shootin Ruger 41 mags and 45 colts. If we wanted to shoot a semi-auto pistol; we dragged out the 1911's.

By the way, a model 39 variant is the model that the military shootin team used to use in bullseye competion. I think (....i cant remember exactly....) that they were modified to shoot 38 special wadcutters. Check this link out: Smith & Wesson's Model 52 .38 Master ..... So much for the "budget" and "wont shoot" idea.

RE: Safeties and neglegent discharges. The most important safety on any firearm is the person handling that firearm. There is simply no excuse for folks who handle guns to shoot themselves or others. I can understand an accidental shot during a scuffle and struggle. I simply cant fathom shooting ones self while handling a firearm. Firearms are inherently dangerous and mishandling them can lead to injury or death. Not so long ago (....before the dammed tort lawyers...) this was well known. Now we have conditioned several generations of otherwise intelligent and well-meaning people that somehow they, themselves, are simply not responsible for their actions. If they get maimed, hurt, or killed; or maim, hurt, or kill someone else accidentially; some how, it is the manufacturer's fault that the device somehow is not well designed or safe enough to handle. More than that, some believe that the manufacturer somehow deliberately designed the firearm to do all this. I think this is a heinous and childish idea. It simply denies the reality that individuals are responsible for their own actions; both good and bad.

Remember, the most important safety on any firearm is you.

leroy

DPris

The drop safety/firing pin issue was not strictly due to mishandling.
One case I mentioned was where a holstered 39 discharged as the officer jumped over a fence and the un-blocked firing pin traveled forward far enough and hard enough to ignite a primer.

Another case I've heard about (not at that department) was a holstered 39 discharging when an officer jumped off a stool and landed on the floor hard enough to get the same firing pin travel.

My old chief's incident happened when he tripped during a foot pursuit with 39 in hand, and the pistol discharged when it hit the ground.

The incident where an officer was paralyzed happened during a stakeout when the pistol was being handed by one to the other through a car window while both cars were parallel and the officers were talking through their windows.
I knew the "shooter", my wife knew both he and the "shootee". I never asked specifically how the pistol was being handled, not something either man involved particularly wanted to talk about.

The "What's your opinion of the Model 39" question always draws several posts from people who say "Love mine!" and "Great gun!", which is fine. Remember how many satisfied Pinto owners there were who never blew their cars up. (I mention the Pinto again as a very apt analogy. The design flaw was there & did rear its ugly head in certain situations that were not planned by the owners.)
Just because your 39 has not committed an AD does not mean the design is not lacking.

I have not said the 39 was a cheapie, it wasn't. I wouldn't call it a Second Gen P38, though.
It just had its problems that surfaced occasionally.
Anybody considering buying one should make an educated decision with an understanding of some of the gun's history.

Guns do get dropped, despite anybody's best efforts to prevent it. Many other designs are less likely to fire when it does happen.

If you like the pistol, great.
Just know it for what it is.

Opinions were asked for, you've got mine.
Denis

leroy

We see lots of opinions everywhere, and im ok with that. RE: The P38 copy thing.

Take a look at this: Smith & Wesson Model 39 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...

Check this out too: Ordnance Notes -- by Bob Stoner GMCM(SW) Ret ..

The fact of the matter is that some others think the model 39 is a copy of the P38 too.

leroy

Marine Division Two

Just added a S&W 34 snub in blue box to my collection.

Iowegan

leroy, I see comments like your often and quite honestly, it bothers me. Having spent a good share of my life in law enforcement and carrying a pistol on my hip during most waking hours, I can tell you .... the most dangerous situations come from law enforcement personnel. Why? Because they are exposed to firearms each and every day. They frequently get into situations that most civilians would not and they handle not only their own firearms but also loaded firearms from crime scenes and bad guys. When law enforcement officers have this "frequent exposure" you can bet ... Murphy's Law applies ... meaning if something can go wrong, it will. It certainly doesn't mean people are stupid, like you implied.

Since the Government started requiring all handguns to pass a "drop test", many guns had to be redesigned ... many were recalled to include several Ruger pistols. Some people call it an overkill ... that is until they are the one that drops a gun.

Totally unrelated to Mod 39s, I had a customer that blew most of his foot off with a Ruger 357 mag OM Blackhawk. He was a very careful person when it came to guns ... carried his BH in a good holster and had a empty chamber under the hammer. Seems as he was crossing a barbwire fence to tend to his horses, like he had done hundreds of times before. Somehow the hammer snagged, which pulled it almost to the cocking sear, then it sprung forward. This made the cylinder rotate and placed a live round under the firing pin. When the hammer sprung forward, it broke the safety notch and the gun went off. What's the odds?? Maybe one in a million but it happened none the less. Had the safety notch been designed stronger, this would have just been a scary experience instead of being crippled the rest of your life. There were many accidents with OMs, which is why Ruger changed the design and started making New Models plus they will modify any Old Model free with a transfer bar.

I guess I just don't understand why so many gun owners hate the safety features on guns. Keep in mind, not everyone knows how to handle guns safely so there has to be a backup plan .... like a firing pin interrupt, transfer bar, LCI, or mag disconnect. If it weren't for these added safety features, gun manufacturers would get sued so often that they would go out of business and none of us would be able to buy a new gun.

DPris

Well said.
Poor handling CAN be a factor, but it's not the only factor, and design plays a very important part.

During my career in various uniforms I had a department-issued revolver make a break for freedom one day from a poorly designed issued holster as I was running across an asphalt parking lot to get to a sergeant who needed help in a hands-on tussle.
I did not plan it, I did not handle it poorly or carelessly, and I can't see how I contributed in any way aside from running that day.

I also saw an incident where a fellow officer leaned into the back seat of a company car through an open door to seatbelt a prisoner and his gun dropped out of its issued holster neatly onto the seat next to the (fortunately) handcuffed arrestee.

And so on.
Drops happen, and more often to cops that have to deal with conditions on the job that most regular people never encounter.
It ain't always people error.
Denis

leroy

Iowegan:___________________

Since ive evidently offended your sensibilities (...and i would presume the sensibilities of others....); i'll take the time to clear some things up.

First: The question that the original poster asked is "...whatddya think of the model 39....". That got answered pro and con, some posts from the point of view of the "glass half full" and others from the "glass half empty"; right on down to the "glass fully empty". I'm ok with that, as different folks have differing and conflicting opinions.

In one of the "glass half empty" posts; the discussion included a discussion of "....it aint safe enough....." thru some truly fantastic (...in my view....) accidental discharges purported to have been the fault of a "lacking" or "defective" firearm design.

I made the "mistake" (....evidently....) of opining that the "most important safety on the firearm is the firearm handler"; a basic and prime principle I was taught from day one in handling firearms (...and other dangerous things, like cars, for example....); and i still believe its true.

Havin said all that; im having a bit of a problem figuring out where i (...or anyone else...) said that we "hated safety features". Nowhere in my post did i condemn safety features or complain about increased safey engineering in handgun development. The operative word here is "development". I'm old enough to remember when there were three major handgun designs; the single action (....ala colt and ruger 3 screw...), the 1911 and its brother the browning semiautos, and the double action smith and colt. All three of these designs have of late been deemed "defective" and have been "improved" as the result of engineering effort. We can quibble about the impetus for the design improvements. Some would have us believe that design improvements are not made unless mandated by legal action or government. Others simply believe that improvements are, in fact, part of the manufacturing process. I simply do not believe that it is the policy of any corporation (...including the gun industry....) to sell "defective products" in an effort to kill off their customers. Further, i also think that to believe that somehow there is an evil kabal of mean capitalists out there doing that is "tinfoil hattery" of the highest level; and requires a fantastic belief in the absurd. I also do not believe that the ultimate source of wisdom in this country (...or any other....) is "government mandated wisdom".

I worked for almost 40 years in the construction industry, which is the third most dangerous job category for which statistics are kept (....mining and logging are the two more dangerous ones; one and two respectively....), as a craftsman, engineer, and a manager. I've had the sad occasion to help investigate several serious accidents. In every case, the root cause of the is the the violation or disregard of some well understood safety rule (....ALA --"The most important safety on your firearm is you"...). I never saw in fourty years of service the "failure of equipment" unless it was preceeded by disregard of some safety feature or rule. The bottom line of all this is that "you are responsible for your own safety". You evidently find that statement to be translated to "hating safety features". It's simply not the case.


I am, in fact, guilty of saying that i firmly believe the combination of the tort lawyers and those looking to blame others (...both people and/or things --- like guns, for example....) have caused the gun industry (...as well as many other industries as well....) to be deathly afraid on any hint of a possibility that any firearm might accidently go off or malfunction thru some truly fantastic set of circumstances and or actions. I stand by that observation and i firmly believe it to be true. We are, on the whole, an ethically bankrupt and litigation happy society; and it crosses the whole spectrum of society. No person or entity seems to be immune to this truth. Further, it is also my firm belief that we have, in fact, conditioned several generations of otherwise well meaning and intelligent people to believe in their heart of hearts that they are not, in fact, responsible for their own actions. Said another way, outside forces always render you blameless in every accident situation. This is simply not the case.

RE: "The implication of stupidity".... There was no "implication of stupidity" intended. As a personal observation; it appears to be a case of hypersensitivity on your part; but that's just me. Inserted here is what i lifted from the original post that started this dust up:

While im on the subject, i also do not think that being a gunsmith or a member of law enforcement gives anyone the license to "lecture" or attempt to call down others RE: their opinions as long as those opinions are reasonably founded and politely articulated.

I'll end this little epistle with a quote from a fella by the name of Voltaire. He said: "....To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize...." . It appears to me that we may have found out who a couple of our potential rulers are.

leroy

Iowegan

leroy, When I read your post, I must admit ... I read between the lines based on this quote "There is simply no excuse for folks who handle guns to shoot themselves or others. I can understand an accidental shot during a scuffle and struggle. I simply cant fathom shooting ones self while handling a firearm." Even though you didn't specifically say it .... I came away with a meaning you may not have intended. To paraphrase "It's always the person't fault ... never the gun".

In a perfect world, I would probably agree with most of what you said. Fact is, humans aren't perfect nor are guns. Those that handle firearms on a frequent basis tend to get complacent or distracted .... just like a person operating a table saw. Sooner or later, something bad is going to happen so laws and liability issues drive manufacturers of all dangerous equipment to do everything they can to prevent accidents. I do agree ... safety starts between the ears but again, there are many gun owners that really don't have a clue how to safely handle a gun. People in law enforcement see gun accidents way too often. Visit any public range and you'll see exactly what I mean. In my years of running a gunsmith shop, I had many many instances where customers brought loaded guns into my shop and you could tell by the surprised expression on their face ... they didn't even know it. At one time or another, I've seen about every safety device known to man bypassed or removed.

There's no way short of welding the chamber shut to make a firearm safe. Even then, someone would figure out a way to get hurt. So what gun manufacturers have to do is ... protect gun owners from themselves by designing safety features that address the most common dangers. Many people feel this violates their integrity because they think they know how to handle firearms. I thoroughly understand that, even though I don't agree. Statistically, more accidental/negligent discharges occur with semi-autos where the person removes the magazine and thinks the gun is empty, when indeed a round remains in the chamber. Magazine disconnects have been used for almost 100 years to combat this threat yet people screamed when Ruger included a magazine disconnect in the newly released MK III pistols.

There is quite a list of firearms that have either been recalled or redesigned because of safety issues. Some examples ... a Remington 700 rifle with a defective safety. If you pulled the trigger with the safety in the SAFE position then switched to the FIRE position, the gun would go bang. Remington 100 shotguns had a similar problem. All Ruger Old Model SA revolvers were voluntarily recalled for 3 safety issues ... loading at half cock then bringing the hammer to full cock before lowering it (goes bang if your thumb slips off the hammer), fragile safety notch that can break and cause the gun to fire (see my last post), and finally ... carrying the gun with the hammer fully down and a live round under the firing pin. Two of these issues were eliminated by the transfer bar and the other was eliminated by redesigning the action in NMs where the gun was loaded with the hammer fully forward. Ruger's LCP failed the drop test as did the LCR. Early production MK III pistols could fire if the gun was dropped on the loaded chamber indicator so a new style LCI was designed. There are many more .... Point is, even if you do your best to handle the gun properly, a defect in the design may cause it to fire ... just like DPris' example with the S&W 39, which I never heard of and I'm sure S&W never recalled or redesigned it.

In conclusion, I'm sorry you were offended by my post ... but in all honesty, as a moderator on this forum, it still bothers me.

leroy

Iowegan: Dont worry about offending me. It was temporary. I've had my say and my "offended spell" is like a little thunderstorm. It has blown over.

Dont be bothered about the foolish choices of others; you cant be everybodies mom. Foolish people will do foolish things. Sadly, some of them (...and other innocents....) reap the consequences of their actions. Let us let this little spittin contest be over and get back to enjoying our love of firearms.

No longer offended leroy

ExArmy11b

FYI, the Beretta 92 series was based on the P38 design.......If the S&W 39 is, it's not as close a "copy" as the Beretta design. Maybe about the same as the CZ75 is "based" on the Hi-Power.

If you want to know the flaws or the strengths of a particular firearm, ask military and/or police personnel who have spent years carrying and shooting them.

Drops do happen, I've seen plenty of loaded M4's, SAWs and other weapons bounced off the ground, dropped out of vehicles............saw a 240b machine gun fall about 20 feet off the top of a vehicle with a loaded belt and the bolt open. In the "field" loaded weapons get dropped, it happens. When I worked armed security I've also seen my share of Glock 22's and AR15's tumble down metal stairs and bounce off concrete.

I believe the information from members like DPris are excellent "real world" experiences, and mean a lot more than those coming from someone who owns a Model 39 and it sits in a box 99.9% of the time. Like was said, LEO's carry firearms all day every day, in addition to having to perform the other duties of their jobs.

For example, I myself know for a fact that an M16 or M4 can fire if dropped on the muzzle or buttstock........not every time, but I have seen it happen once..........luckily no one was hit...... if "Murphy's Law" allows it and just enough energy travels to the free floating firing pin and touches off the primer it can happen. On other forums, the "range commandos" with their AR15's with 20 pounds of gear hung off them don't believe that their rifles can discharge a chambered round if dropped just the right way, because we all know THEY have extensive experience carrying and shooting these weapons in the "real world" conditions of the range on Sunday afternoon

DPris

There's also mention in the AFTE Journal, July 1980, Volume 12, Number 3:48-50, on Firearmsid.com under Firearms Recalls And Warnings, of an issue with the Model 39 regarding the possibility of an AD on unloading the pistol if the ejection port is obstructed.

There is apparently enough of a possibility (as in- it obviously HAS happened & more than once) of the design causing a primer to contact "internal parts" if a live round is manually removed from the chamber & something blocking the port causing that round to "bounce" back into the breech area of the slide behind the chamber.

This is on the same page as the Smith L-Frame recall notice on the hammer/firing pin issue.

I've not heard of any incidents where it's happened, but these people apparently did & sufficiently so to include it among their warnings.
Most of us don't obstruct the ejection port on unloading a chambered round, but I've seen some who cup a hand over the port to catch the round on ejection. That might not be a good idea as a regular practice with the 39, to routinely reduce the possibility of an AD.

Just another FYI.

And as I mentioned previously, Ayoob thought the lack of a drop safety important enough to mention it in print, along with other mention of the ISP's lack of confidence in the pistol as a duty weapon. They were the first to field it.
The 39-2 addressed a couple issues found in field use of the Model 39, but still not that drop safety.

An informed buy is the best buy, and if you want a 39 that's fine. I almost bought one myself back when they were still in production, and actually walked into a Rapid City gunshop in 1973 to buy a 59, but the only one they'd had was sold about a half hour before I got there.
Moved on to other things & never looked back at either model.
Denis

TNWNGR

I owned two differend M-39's in the 1970's as well as a S&W M-59. All had really gritty triggers but would run ball and hollowpoint ammo without any problems. The 3rd generation 3913 is head and shoulders above the M-39 and I would highly recommend it instead of the the M-39. Yep. I owned a 3913 to and let it get away from me in a gun trade.