Shear_stress
Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2005
- Messages
- 2,728
Just picked up a lightly used Smith & Wesson 3906. The 3906 is the final incarnation of the vaunted model 39, but rendered entirely in stainless steel. Styling lacks the grace of the M39, but the 3906 still retains the older model's balance and ergonomics. A nice, robust range gun for the single-stack fan.
On inspection, I was pleased to see that the gun was missing a couple of things. The first was any evidence it had been fired by the previous owner. The second was the ejector depressor plunger--in other words, the annoying magazine safety.
Removing the magazine safety requires hammering off the rear sight. I can't find any evidence that this was done. Even if it had been, it seems odd that someone would put in the effort and then barely fire the gun. Note that, unlike the High Power's, the S&W's mag safety doesn't affect trigger pull.
Until now I thought that all third-generation S&W semi-autos were equipped with mag safeties. Than again, it seems like the same rules that govern English grammar apply to S&W production: "this is always the case . . . except when it isn't."
Can anyone clarify?
On inspection, I was pleased to see that the gun was missing a couple of things. The first was any evidence it had been fired by the previous owner. The second was the ejector depressor plunger--in other words, the annoying magazine safety.
Removing the magazine safety requires hammering off the rear sight. I can't find any evidence that this was done. Even if it had been, it seems odd that someone would put in the effort and then barely fire the gun. Note that, unlike the High Power's, the S&W's mag safety doesn't affect trigger pull.
Until now I thought that all third-generation S&W semi-autos were equipped with mag safeties. Than again, it seems like the same rules that govern English grammar apply to S&W production: "this is always the case . . . except when it isn't."
Can anyone clarify?
