U.S.Army tested the Model 39. How did it perform back then.
- Thread starter 8mmman
- Start date
- Status
zb338
Member
I belonged to a club, and was shooting one day when a detective from the local police
force came in with a bag full of Model 39s. He told me he wanted to find out which ones
worked and which ones didn't. A whole lot of them didn't work. It was in the early days
of the model 39. The police force quickly switched to another gun. I don't remember which.
Zeke
force came in with a bag full of Model 39s. He told me he wanted to find out which ones
worked and which ones didn't. A whole lot of them didn't work. It was in the early days
of the model 39. The police force quickly switched to another gun. I don't remember which.
Zeke
Acera
Member
Here is some info........
http://ww2.rediscov.com/spring/VFPC...g/DETAILS.IDC,SPECIFIC=10112,DATABASE=objects,
.
http://ww2.rediscov.com/spring/VFPC...g/DETAILS.IDC,SPECIFIC=10112,DATABASE=objects,
.
Thank you. for sending that.
The idea that the Colt Commander and M39 weren't developed for the 1954 tests seems to fly in the face of the fact they were specifically designed and submitted for consideration. Colt knew the Commander didn't fit the spec for 9mm but in most other regards it was appropriate. They had worked with Alcoa on forging aluminum frames for manufacture and as a result could get the weight down. S&W got in the game somewhat later but again, submitted guns with X serial numbers to the government for the express purpose of testing them for the Trials.
As for their performance the final reports documenting the testing at ranges and labs have remained out of sight. We don't know how they did. But we can look to the historical trend and say that the double stack Model 459 was introduced in the 1984 trials and held up well to the Beretta. When SIG was allowed to submit the P226 then repeated trials were conducted and it was the Army's decision without substantiation or any documentation that the Beretta was the final choice.
Two things came out of that decision, first, that the Air Force proposed the test all along with a desire to buy Berettas, and second, word came out that Italy made the suggestion that if we liked having a refueling station in the Med for the fleet, and an Airborne Brigade there, then Beretta was the obvious choice.
Regardless, the M459 performed well and had reliability that nearly matched the Beretta. It was, however, part of the newer emphasis on auto pistols for mil/LEO and after the tests S&W swung into much higher production as many departments purchased them in the changeover from revolver to auto pistol. Of all the contestants it could be argued S&W was the best design - because it continued to be tested and specified by hundreds of committees and jurisdictions across the country and became the finalist. It took the less expensive Glock and some disreputable negotiating tactics to intrude in that market. Some departments to this day still use the S&W 3Gen and won't consider any other.
Is it good? I don't read of any other auto loading pistol that will cycle empty cases and chamber them, given that may just be fan boy talk. But I've done it with mine. I need to expand that test but it requires owning all the others. Testing guns is expensive, and the test standards and protocols are critical in some areas. During the '84 tests it was noted 1911's were drawn, used, from armories and shot with used magazines, compared to the submittal guns tuned at the factory new, with new unissued mags. That happened with the M16 in another test and even Congress threw a red flag on that play. The details of how to test a gun can be influential to promoting one over the other - it is in fact exactly what is being done. What we don't know to the best of our abilities is what tests are actually realistic. For the most part nobody tests carrying the gun for 9 months with the same bullets in the magazine, the first constantly being rechambered, and being largely left to collect lint in the holster as it's just another part of the bearer's wardrobe. Nope, the normal tests are burying it in the mud - nobody deliberately does that in combat, it's incidental and we accept it will cause malfunction. They test it in freezing conditions, but it I was standing in freezing rain, sleet, and snow with the gun exposed, I would expect it to jam. They even test it underwater, I just wish they would have those testers be the rank of O-4 and above diving into the pool. That is who will use it.
Which is the real point of Army testing and the link does explain it right out in print - handguns are a secondary weapon, nobody goes into combat with them as their MOS primary working tool, and they aren't considered a major need. Everybody already gets a rifle if they need it. The pistol is just a peacetime accessory or used by those who can't be burdened with the bother (although some General Officers did carry rifles near battle zones.) For the most part, a token of rank or authority so that others will know they are empowered to do the job they do.
For the most part - if it's a handgun submitted for Trials and also has a large LEO population using it, it's good to go. Since everybody has to use it, it fits the majority of users. It operates in a manner consistent with firearms in general - note in the link the HK P7 was submitted but no dice here. If anything in the last 45 years the main items of change have been caliber - type of trigger control - and costs. The guns themselves still use barrels, have triggers, magazines, and sights on top. Pretty conventional and the pattern used since before the turn of the 20th century. Like binoculars and revolvers, we got the state of the configuration pretty early, and since then it's been more to finesse the details than any overwhelming game changing new innovation. It's still a handgun.
As for their performance the final reports documenting the testing at ranges and labs have remained out of sight. We don't know how they did. But we can look to the historical trend and say that the double stack Model 459 was introduced in the 1984 trials and held up well to the Beretta. When SIG was allowed to submit the P226 then repeated trials were conducted and it was the Army's decision without substantiation or any documentation that the Beretta was the final choice.
Two things came out of that decision, first, that the Air Force proposed the test all along with a desire to buy Berettas, and second, word came out that Italy made the suggestion that if we liked having a refueling station in the Med for the fleet, and an Airborne Brigade there, then Beretta was the obvious choice.
Regardless, the M459 performed well and had reliability that nearly matched the Beretta. It was, however, part of the newer emphasis on auto pistols for mil/LEO and after the tests S&W swung into much higher production as many departments purchased them in the changeover from revolver to auto pistol. Of all the contestants it could be argued S&W was the best design - because it continued to be tested and specified by hundreds of committees and jurisdictions across the country and became the finalist. It took the less expensive Glock and some disreputable negotiating tactics to intrude in that market. Some departments to this day still use the S&W 3Gen and won't consider any other.
Is it good? I don't read of any other auto loading pistol that will cycle empty cases and chamber them, given that may just be fan boy talk. But I've done it with mine. I need to expand that test but it requires owning all the others. Testing guns is expensive, and the test standards and protocols are critical in some areas. During the '84 tests it was noted 1911's were drawn, used, from armories and shot with used magazines, compared to the submittal guns tuned at the factory new, with new unissued mags. That happened with the M16 in another test and even Congress threw a red flag on that play. The details of how to test a gun can be influential to promoting one over the other - it is in fact exactly what is being done. What we don't know to the best of our abilities is what tests are actually realistic. For the most part nobody tests carrying the gun for 9 months with the same bullets in the magazine, the first constantly being rechambered, and being largely left to collect lint in the holster as it's just another part of the bearer's wardrobe. Nope, the normal tests are burying it in the mud - nobody deliberately does that in combat, it's incidental and we accept it will cause malfunction. They test it in freezing conditions, but it I was standing in freezing rain, sleet, and snow with the gun exposed, I would expect it to jam. They even test it underwater, I just wish they would have those testers be the rank of O-4 and above diving into the pool. That is who will use it.
Which is the real point of Army testing and the link does explain it right out in print - handguns are a secondary weapon, nobody goes into combat with them as their MOS primary working tool, and they aren't considered a major need. Everybody already gets a rifle if they need it. The pistol is just a peacetime accessory or used by those who can't be burdened with the bother (although some General Officers did carry rifles near battle zones.) For the most part, a token of rank or authority so that others will know they are empowered to do the job they do.
For the most part - if it's a handgun submitted for Trials and also has a large LEO population using it, it's good to go. Since everybody has to use it, it fits the majority of users. It operates in a manner consistent with firearms in general - note in the link the HK P7 was submitted but no dice here. If anything in the last 45 years the main items of change have been caliber - type of trigger control - and costs. The guns themselves still use barrels, have triggers, magazines, and sights on top. Pretty conventional and the pattern used since before the turn of the 20th century. Like binoculars and revolvers, we got the state of the configuration pretty early, and since then it's been more to finesse the details than any overwhelming game changing new innovation. It's still a handgun.
Nanook
Member
I had issues with the other 'wonder nine' of the time, the model 59. It was a piece of junk, well at least the one I had was.
Dog Soldier
member
As I recall S&W used the Walther P 38 as a model to work from. At the time the 9MM was considered an under powered Euro cartridge. The .357 was the American law enforcement and civilian handgun.
The only 9MM ammo was mostly WWII surplus and not always reliable. The Mdl. 39 was adopted by the Illinois High Way Patrol. Most gun guys were shaking their heads. Why would you give up a Mdl 19 S&W for a 9MM semi-auto?
By 1980 thinking had changed. I bought a Mdl. 39. My Mdl. 39 is still with me. They are really nice handguns and the prices are not bad.
The only 9MM ammo was mostly WWII surplus and not always reliable. The Mdl. 39 was adopted by the Illinois High Way Patrol. Most gun guys were shaking their heads. Why would you give up a Mdl 19 S&W for a 9MM semi-auto?
By 1980 thinking had changed. I bought a Mdl. 39. My Mdl. 39 is still with me. They are really nice handguns and the prices are not bad.
muzzleblast...
Member
I have no insight about the results of the 1954 tests. But, the 39 series guns are favorites of mine.
While its imaginatively thought the LEO's choice for revolvers was the .357 Magnum, most carried .38. And when you look at the ballistics, 9mm is eye to eye with it. For that matter every .357 in the field was likely matched with a .45. The cop on the beat didn't get those expensive guns, they got the low contract bid .38's.
The Illinois Highway Patrol had two issues they were dealing with, as explained in their published letter. One was off duty carry - they asked for officers to shoot their off duty and backup guns one year as they were seeing a rise in use. The legal obligation of an officer using his off duty gun had become an issue. Since the test was without any consequence, ie it didn't factor into their official qualification, most participated. The results weren't good. About 40% compared to the duty gun's 60%. And the spread of models was all over, with no consistency of caliber or type of gun.
Secondly, the auto pistol was getting more scrutiny, military use was significant and a large number of 9mm duty guns were being selected in Europe. They offered features that were considered a plus for a public employee whose handling of firearms would be questioned in courts. Along with that was the IHP's assessment the auto pistol took up less bulk, and therefore was more efficient in size and shape. Picking a smaller gun which could more easily conceal off duty was also considered - and it was done after selection, where officers could decide to do that where the large service revolver couldn't be. More officers carrying the duty weapon resulted in less court challenges.
As far as the IHP was concerned it was win win all around. As for the rest of the nation, it's a known fact American shooters are usually 20-25 years behind in adopting new technology. The auto pistol was already the #1 choice in first tier countries elsewhere, we were dragging our feet, as usual.
Same with the internet - Europe gets better service for less even tho Congress mandated it years ago.
Same with headlights - Europe allowed halogens but the Headlight Advisory Board here squelched it until their tooling was paid off.
Same with cell phones - we get the standard already implemented elsewhere in the world, last.
Same with fuel injection - many other makers already had it, Detroit sat on their hands until the carburetor simply couldn't meet the standards even with all the bandaids forced on the motor. And most got more hp and mileage the first year of going EFI.
We did lead, however, in adopting the M16 when the rest of the world was still stuck with fleets of heavy obsolete .308's that they couldn't afford to change so early in their life cycle.
Auto pistols were going to happen - too many advantages. It was simply a matter of who was going to be first.
The Illinois Highway Patrol had two issues they were dealing with, as explained in their published letter. One was off duty carry - they asked for officers to shoot their off duty and backup guns one year as they were seeing a rise in use. The legal obligation of an officer using his off duty gun had become an issue. Since the test was without any consequence, ie it didn't factor into their official qualification, most participated. The results weren't good. About 40% compared to the duty gun's 60%. And the spread of models was all over, with no consistency of caliber or type of gun.
Secondly, the auto pistol was getting more scrutiny, military use was significant and a large number of 9mm duty guns were being selected in Europe. They offered features that were considered a plus for a public employee whose handling of firearms would be questioned in courts. Along with that was the IHP's assessment the auto pistol took up less bulk, and therefore was more efficient in size and shape. Picking a smaller gun which could more easily conceal off duty was also considered - and it was done after selection, where officers could decide to do that where the large service revolver couldn't be. More officers carrying the duty weapon resulted in less court challenges.
As far as the IHP was concerned it was win win all around. As for the rest of the nation, it's a known fact American shooters are usually 20-25 years behind in adopting new technology. The auto pistol was already the #1 choice in first tier countries elsewhere, we were dragging our feet, as usual.
Same with the internet - Europe gets better service for less even tho Congress mandated it years ago.
Same with headlights - Europe allowed halogens but the Headlight Advisory Board here squelched it until their tooling was paid off.
Same with cell phones - we get the standard already implemented elsewhere in the world, last.
Same with fuel injection - many other makers already had it, Detroit sat on their hands until the carburetor simply couldn't meet the standards even with all the bandaids forced on the motor. And most got more hp and mileage the first year of going EFI.
We did lead, however, in adopting the M16 when the rest of the world was still stuck with fleets of heavy obsolete .308's that they couldn't afford to change so early in their life cycle.
Auto pistols were going to happen - too many advantages. It was simply a matter of who was going to be first.
Dog Soldier
member
It would be interesting to see how many police departments were using the .38 Special only revolvers by 1970? Regardless of the history. The Mdl. 39 S&W was the harbinger of the future. The semi auto is today's handgun choice for defense.
bannockburn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 26,314
muzzleblast...
Two great semi-auto S&Ws you've got there along with some very nice looking holsters!
Two great semi-auto S&Ws you've got there along with some very nice looking holsters!
ThomasT
Member
I have a model 39-2 that was given to me. I also got the remains of the first box of ammo shot in it. It had 32 rounds left. The gun had only been fired 18 times. It has only jammed one time since I owned it. I let a guy who was not a shooter pop a few rounds. He limp wristed it on the first shot. After I explained "ya gotta hold on to it" he was fine.
It is as accurate as a target pistol. And I am not kidding. It shoots like a model 52 target gun. When I took my CC class I fired 50 rounds. All shots were in a ragged hole about the size of a half dollar except for two that were just outside of the hole.
I had the chance to buy two guns. A colt dick special and a model 915 which is a budget 15 shot version of the model 39. I sold the colt for what I almost paid for both guns and that made the 915 set me back $37. Best 37 bucks I ever spent. I will not consider selling the model 39-2. Its just too good of a gun.
It is as accurate as a target pistol. And I am not kidding. It shoots like a model 52 target gun. When I took my CC class I fired 50 rounds. All shots were in a ragged hole about the size of a half dollar except for two that were just outside of the hole.
I had the chance to buy two guns. A colt dick special and a model 915 which is a budget 15 shot version of the model 39. I sold the colt for what I almost paid for both guns and that made the 915 set me back $37. Best 37 bucks I ever spent. I will not consider selling the model 39-2. Its just too good of a gun.
redbullitt
Member
First pistol I ever shot. My dad still has it. No complaints here. Only issue we ever had was light strikes... Went away after a good cleaning. There was years of gunk built up in the firing pin area.
Overall I think its a nice feeling pistol. Points well for me.
Overall I think its a nice feeling pistol. Points well for me.
- Status
