Smith and Wesson 39 and 3913 dimensions and questions

[Cossack]

I've been hunting around online for the full specs on the S&W Model 39. I've found the length and weight, but not the height (from top to base of the grip).

I had a 915 years ago as my first "serious" semi-auto. I sold it because I couldn't shoot it well, but since then I think I've improved tremendously as a shooter (not that I'm anything special!), and it might be time to revisit the S&W autos.

I like thinner grip pistols, like the 1911 w/ round mainspring housing and Sig P225, so I think the M39 might be right up my alley with a single-stack mag and curved backstrap. I'm interested in how it will compare to the 1911 and P225 in terms of CCW, hence the interest in the length of the grip.

Since I'd like it to pass as a carry gun, I'm also interested in the more compact line, especially the 3913. Normally I see this gun with a flat backstrap grip. Did S&W ever make a curved backstrap grip for the 3913? They seem to be standard on the 6906, but not on the 3913. That would help convince me.

Any other interesting info on S&W autos would be helpful. If I get one, I'll probably be buying it unseen and unhandled; no one has any in stock here. Then again, I could always acquire the virtue of patience, and wait until I find one in person...

 

[vkeith]

Rough measurements on a 39-2: From the bottom of the grip to the top of the slide, the minimum measurement is ~5.125", and the maximum measurement from the bottom of the lanyard loop to the top of the rear sight is ~5.688".

 

[Ibmikey]

If my pea brain recalls correctly all of the one piece grips of that time period were flat or curved and interchangeable . As for the 3913 ( many of us carried them plain clothes or off duty) I can only picture them with the straight grip but that would not rule out both styles. Magazines were either flat or finger curved floorplates, seems to me one of each came with the pistol.

 

[carguychris]

Did S&W ever make a curved backstrap grip for the 3913?

AFAIK, no.

The Hogue Monogrips offered for the 391x/395x/908 have a slight curve to them, but it's not as pronounced as the curved backstrap of the earlier 39/x39 pistols.

The full-size M3904 and M3906 have curved backstraps, but these pistols are a good deal larger overall for a gain of only 1rd of capacity (or ZERO rounds with the early 8rd mags), and their rarity seems to have pushed values upwards recently. Additionally, many of these pistols were built with less CCW-friendly blade-style or fully-adjustable rear sights; all of the single-stack compacts used the IMHO much nicer slanted Novak type.

Also, the 3rd-gen 39xx/90x pistols have a noticeably thinner grip than the more hand-filling design of the earlier guns with the seperate grip panels. This is good for concealment but not necessarily for shooting comfort – YMMV. Lastly, grip options for the 3rd-gen pistols are limited because of the peculiar wraparound design with the integral mainspring retainer; AFAIK the Hogues are the only widely available option.

Magazines were either flat or finger curved floorplates, seems to me one of each came with the pistol.

Generally yes.

Three basic magazine styles were offered on the 391x/395x/908 series:

• 8rd, slightly projecting flat plastic floorplate
• 8rd, pinky-rest plastic floorplate
• 7rd, flush-fit metal floorplate

The plastic 8rd styles are far more common than the 7rd metal flush-fit style, which IIRC was discontinued early in the pistols' production run. The plastic floorplates are interchangeable (and quite inexpensive), so you can easily convert from one style to the other. FWIW which types shipped with a particular pistol changed several times depending on the production date, and I don't remember all of the specifics.

Lastly, the matte-blue finish M3914 and M3954 came with blued magazines from the factory, but they were discontinued long ago, and IMHO are less desirable from a functional standpoint than the far more rust-resistant stainless 3913/3953/908S mags.

 

[carguychris]

A few other things...

• The M39-2 has a couple of drawbacks as a carry pistol. First, the windage-adjustable rear sight is notorious for snagging on cover garments, and for breaking off if the pistol is dropped. Second, the 1st-gen pistols have no trigger-actuated firing-pin block, and rely solely on an inertial firing pin for drop safety in DA/off-safe mode; hence, S&W advises against carrying the pistols this way, YMMV. (The later firing-pin block does, however, result in more slack or "takeup" in the SA trigger of the later guns.)
• One of the major pluses of the 3rd-gen pistols is that the front sight is dovetailed rather than integral with the slide. The earlier pistols must be drilled by a gunsmith to install a front night sight.
• Be aware that the 3rd-gen 391x/395x single-stack compacts were offered in two frame styles; the 2nd-gen x39 full-size pistols and 3rd-gen 69xx double-stack compacts were offered with 2 types of rear sight and 2 basic styles of trigger guard; and the 3rd-gen 3904/3906 single-stack full-size pistols were offered with 3 types of rear sight! Consequently, you need to be careful when you're ordering holsters and night sights!

 

[RickB]

All of the printed info I've seen on the 39/439/539/639 says the barrel is 4" long.
I bought a 539 with the intention of using it in competition that is limited to guns with barrels no longer than 4.1" (allowing some tolerance for "four-inch" barrels that are a little longer than spec), but discovering that the 539's barrel is 4.12" long.
My gun is nickel-plated, and the combination of black rear sight and nickeled front creates a terrible sight picture. I'll probably try painting the front sight, as I'd rather not mess with the original finish. I suspect the stainless 639 has the same issue.

 

[carguychris]

All of the printed info I've seen on the 39/439/539/639 says the barrel is 4" long. I bought a 539 with the intention of using it in competition... [and] discover[ed] that the 539's barrel is 4.12" long.

FWIW 4.12" or 105mm is—perhaps not coincidentally—the minimum length for lawful commercial sale in Canada.

Many so-called 4" pistols made by Ruger and S&W from the 1980s onwards actually have barrels in the 4.12"–4.25" range for this reason, but I didn't know this applied to the M539. Interesting.

My gun is nickel-plated, and the combination of black rear sight and nickeled front creates a terrible sight picture... I suspect the stainless 639 has the same issue.

It does, along with the M669.

This is another reason why the dovetailed 3rd-gen front sight is a Very Good Thing.

 

[g.willikers]

Don't know how much help this is:
But a holster a friend gave me for one of the early single stack S&Ws also fit 1911s very well.
So much so, that's it's still in use for my airsoft 1911.

 

[carguychris]

...a holster a friend gave me for one of the early single stack S&Ws also fit 1911s very well.

...and perhaps not surprisingly, the reverse is also true to some degree – many Colt Commander holsters fit the round-trigger-guard full-size 39-series pistols very well. The Colt and S&W pistols are very close to the same shape and size.

However, as I allude in a previous post, some of the 39-series pistols have square trigger guards – specifically the late 2nd-gen models, M3904, and M3906. These guns generally require a holster specifically made for a square-trigger-guard Smith. Some 59-series holsters will work, but others are too loose.

 

[RickB]

The holster - Safariland 567/568 Custom Fit - that I bought for a Browning Hi-Power, which said it was also adjustable to fit a 1911 or Beretta 92, fits the 39, too.

 

[Cossack]

So does it (the 39) carry about like a 1911 Commander? Is it any fatter in the grip?

Do I understand correctly that the lack of firing pin block is less of an issue if carried with the safety engaged (rather than relying solely on the DA pull for safety)?

Pity that there doesn't seemed to be a curved backstrap grip for the 3913. That seems to be the thing for my hands.

Thanks for the replies so far.

 

[carguychris]

So does it (the 39) carry about like a 1911 Commander? Is it any fatter in the grip?

I've never carried a Commander, but I can vouch that the pistols are very close to the same size and weight.

FWIW they were both designed around a set of 1950s U.S. Army contract requirements for a proposal to replace the M1911 with a more NATO-friendly 9mm pistol, but IIRC Army leaders ultimately decided that it didn't make fiscal sense to replace the proverbial bazillion M1911's they had in inventory, and they called the whole thing off before the trials were held.

Do I understand correctly that the lack of firing pin block is less of an issue if carried with the safety engaged (rather than relying solely on the DA pull for safety)?

Yes. The firing pin of the 39-series (and derivatives) is positively locked when the pistol is on-safe.

 

[RickB]

They are very similar in size and shape.

 

[Big Shrek]

If you do get a 3913, and want a fatter curved grip,
find one for a CS9 (Hogue OEM) & mod for fit if needed.

Come to think of it, IIRC Hogue had a fat grip (like the above) for the 3913 series??

 

[BlueTrain]

I never had a plain Model 3913 but I did have the LS version. I also owned a Model 39 as well as a lightweight Commander as well as a regular heavyweight Government Model. I don't think any of them felt the same in the hand. In fact, the Model 39 felt like a very large pistol. I only had the original grips for it. I think the Commander had a slight longer grip (or height, as they say) but only about a half-inch or so. I like it better and shot it better, even in .45. They're all so different that it's hard to make a fair comparison.

 

[Cossack]

Are the third generation full-size single-stacks - 3904, 3906, etc. - the same thickness as the 3913? Are the delrin grips on the 3rd gens thinner than the grips on the 39 and 2nd gens, making them thinner overall?

 

[carguychris]

Are the third generation full-size single-stacks - 3904, 3906, etc. - the same thickness as the 3913?

Yes.

Are the delrin grips on the 3rd gens thinner than the grips on the 39 and 2nd gens, making them thinner overall?

Across the grips, yes, the 3rd-gens are thinner. The wide spot on the pistol as a whole is the slide stop and the decocker/safeties.

Glad I could help again.