S&W Model 39-2 frame rail question...normal wear?

Status
Not open for further replies.

CA2005

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Messages
130
Location
TX
I have a LNIB S&W Model 39-2...gun is 100% finish, only 2 mags fired over it's lifetime. I finally got it back out of the safe today to do a field strip & wipe down, and noticed the right side frame rail has a tiny little spot where the aluminum flaked off.

I'ts probably been there since I fired it years ago but I just never noticed. Is this wear to the frame rail normal on these older alloy framed guns?

For what it's worth my friend has a Sig P228 that exhibits the same wear, only slightly worse.

Thanks for the help.
 
Greeting's CA2005 My Friend-

Having owned several Smith 39-2's over the years, and currently owning
a SIG P228 I would say this wear on the rails is quite normal. Nickel guns
would show up details much more so than the blued versions. Nothing to
worry about, like on all semi-auto handguns keep the rails lubricated and
it shouldn't be a problem. :)

BTW, those two firearms along with Smith's 6906 are among some of my
favorite firearms. Enjoy~ :D
 
My 439 has the same kind of wear on the rails. They are practically silver and the rest of the gun is blued. Looks like it's a common thing once the gun gets a few rounds through it.
 
This may be a first - - -

I seldom differ with Friend Ala Dan on matters of fact. ( Matters of OPINION are another thing, I fear. ;))

Dan, it appears to me that your reply above indicates that ALL the no-dash Model 39s were steel frame. If so, I must observe two items:
First, personal knowledge - - I purchased an alloy frame Model 39 (no dash) in early 1966. I had it for something over a year before I swapped it for a LNIB .45 Commander.
Second, documentation - - Standard Catalog of Smith & Wesson, second edition, by Supica and Nahas, p. 223, second column:
Model 39 / 39-2: ALLOY FRAME AND STEEL SLIDE . . . after the production of 927 steel frame units, this model was manufactured with an alloy frame and a carbon steel slide . . . .
On p. 224:
39-2 1971 Change extractor system due to reports of breakage
The no-dash has a wide extractor which ran all the way back to where the axle of the safety/decocker ran through the slide. With the dash 2, the extractor changed to a narrower, shorter, pinned version. The latter version is the type shown on the illustration of the Model 439 Cutaway, lower left, on p. 226.
Also, the no-dash models I've seen had a small hole through the hammer spur, similar to the older Colt's Commander and Browning Hi Power pistols. I've never seen a dash-2 with a hole in the spur.

Best,
Johnny
 
I have to disagree with the steel frame v alluminum frames.
The 32-2 models had differences in the feed ramp ( without the hump) so that it would feed better and the extractor. Had nothing to do with steel frames. I have owned numerous 39's and 32-2's and only one steel frame 32-2. The steels were a rare find very few were made, as compaired to alluminum. I prefered the lighter weight of alluminum frames.
I still own one S&W 32-2.
 
The 39-2 is the second generation of 39's. The 2 designation were improvements or upgrades to inhance reliability. Two area's were the feed ramp and extractor. The original 39's had a hump on the feed ramp and were only reliable with ball ammo, unless modified. S&W knew this and made their improvments hence 39-2 models. The 32-2 was a typo, sorry about that. I am sure you were aware of that error.
 
Hummmm. Interesting.

cocojo, you sound pretty positive about having owned an all steel M39-2. This may well be correct, but it runs contrary to all I've ever read about the steel frame model 39 pistols. I've mentioned the SCS&W book. Jim Supica is acknowledged as perhaps the foremost independent authority (not connected with the corporation) on Smith & Wessons. He is very positive when he states that only some 927 of the early M39s had the steel frame, and the subsequent pistols were alloy framed. Both authors are very good about mentioning even very small numbers of special type handguns, and occasionally, they discuss even RUMORED variations. They say nothing of any 39-2 pistols with steel frames.

Some other references I checked:

Sixguns, Elmer Keith's classic book, the 1961 edition, mentions only the alloy version.

Book of Pistols & Revolvers, seventh edition, 1968, W. H. B.Smith and Joseph E. Smith - - Also describes the pistol as having an alloy frame.

Gun Trader's Guide, 25th edition, by Stoeger, acknowledges the steel frame variant, using the same numbers as Jim Supica- - -
Note: Between 1954 and 1966, 927 pistols were produced with steel instead of alloy.
They assign the steel version a value of more than twice that of the alloy framed pieces. Also note, the latter date was some five years before the advent of the Model 39-2.

I've also discussed the steel frame variants with several S&W autopistol enthusiasts in the D-FW area, and none of them admit to having seen an all steel 39-2.

cocojo, might you have a record of the serial number of the pistol you recall as a steel 39-2? If you'd share that number with me, I'd like to do some additional research, at my own expense. I'd be glad to let you know the results.

Oh, and, thanks for the additional information concerning the humped feed ramp on the early M39s. I understand the same humped vs. unhumped feed ramp evolution took place in the Browning Hi Power. I owned my no-dash M39 before domestically produced 9mm JHP ammo became readily available. It did NOT feed the old Norma JHP reliably, which was not surprising, given the amount of exposed solf lead. It liked the early Super Vel 90 gr JHP pretty well, though, but I probably shot less than 100 rounds through it. I never tested any of the SV 112 gr. JSP ammo. I handloaded mostly FMJs and bullets home-cast in a Lyman-Ideal 356402 mould. Strangely, I also had pretty good luck with the old design Speer .357 half-jacket HP with milder charges of Unique. Yep, slightly oversize, but I was young and foolish. :uhoh:

Both of the 39-2s I've had reliably handled all the JHP ammo I tried in them.

Best,
Johnny
 
Ala, First off it seems that you want to pick a verbal fight here that was not my intention what so ever. Ok here it is again, it was a 539 not a 39-2, which happened to be the third generation of the model 39, by the way the 5 was S&W's designation for steel, 4 was allumium and 6 was stainless. Lets get back to the issue at hand. Your statement of steel v allumium as you stated that was the difference between the 39 and the 39-2. Call you friend and ask him. If he is an authority on the subject, talk with him. Call S&W and ask them. I am sure they will tell you what you need to know. The issue at hand here is your statement claiming that the difference between the 39 & the 39-2 was Steel v Allumium and it's not, it was performance enhancers.
 
cocojo my friend-

No sir, raging a verbal war wasn't my intention either! I was just trying
to figure out what type of S&W firearm you were referring too; as in
a previous post you mentioned the typo model 32-2 several times. In
a quest for more knowledge, I thought that maybe you had seen a
S&W self-loader with those marking's; you know factory mistakes
do happen, but they are rare. Thank you very much for enlightening
me on the numeral system used by Smith & Wesson, as I did not
know that. Stay safe, and Have A Good Day! :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top