wileybelch
New member
In 9mm, what practical difference is there between these two models?
Smith Model 39 vs 5906
- Thread starter wileybelch
- Start date
carguychris
New member
I'll start with the common points.
Both are metal-frame DA/SA automatics with a firing-pin-locking decocker/safety mechanism. Both are similar in general layout and have a fairly high bore axis compared to most newer automatic pistols.
Now the differences.
The Model 39-2 is an 8+1 single-stack pistol with an aluminum alloy frame, individual screw-on grip panels, and a separate mainspring retainer. (The similar Model 39 "no-dash" generally uses a steel frame, but is far less common and resultantly more expensive than the alloy-frame M39-2 due to collector interest.) The backstrap is prominently curved, the front sight is integral with the slide, and the rear sight has a thin metal blade that screw-adjusts for windage only. The M39-2 is a so-called "first-generation" S&W metal-frame centerfire automatic, so it lacks a trigger-actuated firing-pin safety and relies on an inertial firing pin when off-safe; this results in less single-action trigger takeup, but a loaded M39-2 can potentially discharge if dropped hard enough on the muzzle with the safety off, and DA off-safe carry is not recommended by S&W. Other 1st-generation design features are the use of a separate barrel bushing a la M1911, and the decocker/safety lever is found on the LH side only. Lastly, the pistol was offered in blued or nickel finish; blued pistols have an anodized frame finish that tends to be somewhat fragile and shows holster wear easily. The pistol will accept 9rd mags made for the 3rd-generation 909/3904/3906/952.
The Model 5906 is a 3rd-generation S&W with a number of design enhancements, notably a one-piece wraparound plastic grip that doubles as the mainspring retainer, a coned barrel and fixed barrel bushing, a beveled magazine well, ambidextrous decocker/safety levers, a trigger-actuated firing-pin safety, and a dovetailed and easily-replaceable front sight. The pistol was designed for a 14 or 15rd double-stack magazine and will accept several types of extended mags. Due to the double-stack mags, the grip is much wider than the 39-series—awkwardly so for some small-handed shooters—and the backstrap is less curved. Both the frame and slide are stainless steel, so it's substantially heavier than the M39-2; this is good from a recoil-management standpoint, but bad from a carry standpoint. 3 types of rear sight were offered: a drift-adjustable vertical blade, a drift-adjustable slanted Novak type, and a fully screw-adjustable unit with large (and arguably unsightly) protective metal wings. (Take note that the 3 types of rear sight are NOT interchangeable because the slide dovetails are different sizes!)
FWIW the closest 3rd-gen equivalent of the M39-2 is the M3904, but it was only offered in matte blue finish. Conversely, the closest 1st-gen equivalent of the M5906 is the M59, which was offered in blued and nickel finish like the M39, and has a more blocky grip shape than the 3rd-gen double-stacks. All-stainless S&W autos were introduced in the 1980s with the 2nd-generation M639 and M659; there were no stainless 1st-gen pistols.
That should tell you what you need to know and then some.
Both are metal-frame DA/SA automatics with a firing-pin-locking decocker/safety mechanism. Both are similar in general layout and have a fairly high bore axis compared to most newer automatic pistols.
Now the differences.
The Model 39-2 is an 8+1 single-stack pistol with an aluminum alloy frame, individual screw-on grip panels, and a separate mainspring retainer. (The similar Model 39 "no-dash" generally uses a steel frame, but is far less common and resultantly more expensive than the alloy-frame M39-2 due to collector interest.) The backstrap is prominently curved, the front sight is integral with the slide, and the rear sight has a thin metal blade that screw-adjusts for windage only. The M39-2 is a so-called "first-generation" S&W metal-frame centerfire automatic, so it lacks a trigger-actuated firing-pin safety and relies on an inertial firing pin when off-safe; this results in less single-action trigger takeup, but a loaded M39-2 can potentially discharge if dropped hard enough on the muzzle with the safety off, and DA off-safe carry is not recommended by S&W. Other 1st-generation design features are the use of a separate barrel bushing a la M1911, and the decocker/safety lever is found on the LH side only. Lastly, the pistol was offered in blued or nickel finish; blued pistols have an anodized frame finish that tends to be somewhat fragile and shows holster wear easily. The pistol will accept 9rd mags made for the 3rd-generation 909/3904/3906/952.
The Model 5906 is a 3rd-generation S&W with a number of design enhancements, notably a one-piece wraparound plastic grip that doubles as the mainspring retainer, a coned barrel and fixed barrel bushing, a beveled magazine well, ambidextrous decocker/safety levers, a trigger-actuated firing-pin safety, and a dovetailed and easily-replaceable front sight. The pistol was designed for a 14 or 15rd double-stack magazine and will accept several types of extended mags. Due to the double-stack mags, the grip is much wider than the 39-series—awkwardly so for some small-handed shooters—and the backstrap is less curved. Both the frame and slide are stainless steel, so it's substantially heavier than the M39-2; this is good from a recoil-management standpoint, but bad from a carry standpoint. 3 types of rear sight were offered: a drift-adjustable vertical blade, a drift-adjustable slanted Novak type, and a fully screw-adjustable unit with large (and arguably unsightly) protective metal wings. (Take note that the 3 types of rear sight are NOT interchangeable because the slide dovetails are different sizes!)
FWIW the closest 3rd-gen equivalent of the M39-2 is the M3904, but it was only offered in matte blue finish. Conversely, the closest 1st-gen equivalent of the M5906 is the M59, which was offered in blued and nickel finish like the M39, and has a more blocky grip shape than the 3rd-gen double-stacks. All-stainless S&W autos were introduced in the 1980s with the 2nd-generation M639 and M659; there were no stainless 1st-gen pistols.
That should tell you what you need to know and then some.
Last edited:
I don't think steel frame/alloy frame is what distinguishes the 39 from the 39-2.
There were steel and alloy 39s, and changes to the barrel feed ramp and extractor is what distinguished the -2.
I have a 539 - all-steel, 2nd gen successor to the 39 - and it's a very large and heavy gun for only 8+1 rounds of 9mm.
The trigger, both DA and SA are really terrible, and I'd probably go for a 3rd gen anything, if the trigger were better.
There were steel and alloy 39s, and changes to the barrel feed ramp and extractor is what distinguished the -2.
I have a 539 - all-steel, 2nd gen successor to the 39 - and it's a very large and heavy gun for only 8+1 rounds of 9mm.
The trigger, both DA and SA are really terrible, and I'd probably go for a 3rd gen anything, if the trigger were better.
carguychris
New member
Technically you're right, but most no-dash M39s in circulation have steel frames, and this is what one is most likely to encounter—although none of these no-dash variants are common by any stretch. I've edited my initial post to reflect this.RickB said:
Basically, if you're buying a no-dash M39, you're most likely in serious collector territory with a price tag to match. As with other rare guns, it's conceivable that one might stumble upon an example that's owned by someone who doesn't know what he/she has, but it's really unlikely.
Almost all Model 39s in circulation are M39-2s with the alloy frame, the later "short" extractor, the later "long" decocker/safety lever, and the improved feed ramp contour. That's the more comprehensive description.
In my experience, the 3rd-gen and 2nd-gen pistols are basically the same in SA mode. The aforementioned firing-pin safety is generally to blame for the "crunchy" SA takeup that's characteristic of these guns. The 3rd-gen pistols generally have a really awesome SA reset, however.RickB said:
The DA triggers are generally better on later guns, largely because (a) S&W reduced the mainspring weight from 22# to 20# and finally 18#, and (b) the late-production 3rd-gens use MIM hammers and triggers that generally feel smoother in DA than earlier guns (and provide perhaps the sole real-world example of S&W aficionados actually *liking* MIM).
The MIM parts can be identified by a much darker, almost black color, and by lightening cutouts on the sides of the hammer. Lastly, my personal (unverified) theory is that the heavier mainspring was never actually necessary for ignition reliability; I believe that S&W used the 22# and 20# springs because a really heavy DA trigger was perceived as a safety feature at the time. These pistols will function pretty much 100% with 18# springs, and some people have had good luck with 16# springs, although I've heard of some individual pistols having sporadic light strikes with them.
carguychris
New member
AFAIK the M5967 is a rare Lew Horton distributor exclusive with a M3914 single-stack matte-blue compact upper on a stainless M5906 frame. I've never seen one in person.
