S&W Model 39 vs. 39-2

Status
Not open for further replies.

msmp5

Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
316
For you experts: What were the differences between these two versions of these 9mm pistols?
 
Another difference I noticed is the barrel bushing, and how the recoil spring was contained on the -2. My 39 had the recoil spring retained by the barrel bushing like with a 1911. Unfortunately, the bushing flexed, causing grab marks on the aluminum recoil spring guide. The grab marks wore through the anodizing to the bare aluminum underneath in short order,The -2s had the recoil spring captured by the slide itself, and the bushing became open on the bottom as it no longer contained the recoil spring. And no more grab marks on the recoil spring guide. Having the slide itself retain the recoil spring allowed the fixed barrel bushing seen on S&W auto pistols that followed. A definite product improvement IMHO.
 
I bought the 39 shortly after S&W introduced it and HATED the sloppy trigger. This gun is where my dislike for DA triggers in autos started. It also tipped the 1st bullet in the mag so it jammed frequently.
I gladly sold it to my BIL for quite a bit less than I paid for it. I've never missed it since.

Seller's remorse never occurred with this pistol.
 
Another difference I noticed is the barrel bushing, and how the recoil spring was contained on the -2. My 39 had the recoil spring retained by the barrel bushing like with a 1911. Unfortunately, the bushing flexed, causing grab marks on the aluminum recoil spring guide. The grab marks wore through the anodizing to the bare aluminum underneath in short order,The -2s had the recoil spring captured by the slide itself, and the bushing became open on the bottom as it no longer contained the recoil spring. And no more grab marks on the recoil spring guide. Having the slide itself retain the recoil spring allowed the fixed barrel bushing seen on S&W auto pistols that followed. A definite product improvement IMHO.
The open bottom barrel bushing was later. The spring being captured by the slide is sufficient to keep the bushing from bowing out.

jPyQ8yq.jpg
The 39-2 is at the bottom

LYzcn50.jpg
The 39 showing the spring pushing the bushing out.

5jwBIbL.jpg
CC6veFe.jpg
The 39-2 sits flush, note the full round barrel bushing.
 
Any idea the year range each of these was made? The M39 has a five digit Ser # 8xxxx, wondering if it is old enough for any collector interest. They both shoot flawlessly (I also only shoot FMJ in them) and are in EXC cosmetic cond, but the DA trigger pull is significantly better on the 39-2. An original Model 39-something was the first off duty 9mm I started to carry, early 1980’s, it was the only 9mm authorized by my Dept for off duty carry back then (we were still carrying .38 revolvers for on duty). I shot that one so much - literally several thousands of rounds - that it fell apart, so I sold it to a gunsmith buddy. I picked these two up in subsequent years because they looked so clean and like they’d hardly been fired/carried at all. They’re just fun occasional range guns now, so it’s time, probably going to sell one, just trying to decide which.
 
Another difference is that the serrations for the slide moved from under the safety to in front of it on the -2. That's how you can tell one from the left side from a distance.
 
If you plan on shooting it at all, keep the -2. The extractor for the Model 39 is nearly unobtainium, and priced accordingly.

If it's purely for collector's value, the Model 39 will bring a tiny bit more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top