Smith & Wesson Semi-autos Survey

Status
Not open for further replies.
Q

Quantum Singularity

New member
Please share your experiences with S&W centerfire semi-autos (not counting Sigmas).
Include reliability, durability, SA and DA trigger pulls, accuracy, ergonomics and your overall opinion of them. Please share if you had a good pistol, bad one, or have mixed reactions. I hope this can be a long going thread so we can get enough responses to see a pattern (either good or bad).

I'll start: I have had two lemons (very unreliable with irritating premature minor parts breakages). Both pistols had good DA trigger pulls but poor SA trigger pulls with stacking at the end. I would have rather had a poor DA trigger, and great SA trigger since I use SA 90 percent of the time.

I have shot many other S&W centerfire semi-autos besides mine (some owned by friends and others rented guns) as well, and I see a pattern: even reliable individials almost all had poor SA triggers that weighed between 7 and 9 lbs. I admit, ergonomics were very good. But, in almost all cases: the DA pull was nice (smooth and controllable), BUT the very heavy/poor SA pull felt different each shot and stacked toward the end.

I know many people like them, but I would like to see if anyone else has gotten lemons from S&W as I have--I will concede that it is possible I just ran into a string of bad luck and got two junky S&W's.

Please...lets keep this to 1990 or newer models

[This message has been edited by Quantum Singularity (edited September 13, 2000).]
 
Quantum, I have two S&W auto pistols. One is a MD#39 which in my opinion is a great handgun. Both DA/SA triggers are smooth and I haven't had a problem of any sort with this gun.
My second one is a CS.45 Have not had a chance to get that one to the range yet, But that one seems to be OK also. I understand that the previous owner said that this was a good shooter, So until I get it to the range I will have to take his word on it. Both these pistols I purchased used,Have not purchased anything new from S&W for obvious reasons.
It's sad because I've always liked their guns and own several of their revolvers which I believe are outstanding.

------------------
We preserve our freedoms by using four boxes: soap,ballot,jury, and cartridge.
Anonymous
 
I've only owned one S&W autopistol, but it's been a total sweetheart. Not really a mainstream model, but it is accurate, smooth single-action trigger, and comfortable. I waited many, many years to find one, and ended up buying an early version, dated 1961. Here she is, my Model 52.
m52rightsmall.JPG
 
The models that gave me trouble were made between 1995-1997. Lets keep this survey 1990's or newer Smith semi-autos (yes, I know the older ones had better triggers--but they made everything better back then, even American cars). The 1961 model pictured is beautiful, and I agree it looks like a winner. However, it doesn't really compare to a modern S&W...IMO it has been of late that Smith's quality has fallen.
 
I own few S&W semiautos:
5903 (pre-ban)
4516
645 (2nd gen full size .45)
945 (performance center)

I have to say that those guns sre gust as reliable as Sigs and Berretas of mine.
The triger puls are somewhat to be desired, but these gunn were not designed as competition pistols (exept for 945, which has "the glass rod" trigger).
Pistols re very ruged built, especialy the all steel 4516 and 645.
I have never had any of them jam or malfunction.
 
My 3913 has been absolutely reliable.
It's from the first or second year of
production and probably has close to
fifteen hundred rounds through it. I like
the flat backstrap, but immediately swapped
the factory Xenaloy grips for Hogues.
D.A. trigger pull is heavy but controllable.
Long, gritty takeup to a single action pull
of at least seven pounds.A friend owns the
same model. His has been worked on by a
competetant gunsmith and the improvement is
exceptional; so they can be "fixed".

For me, the 3913 is an easy to carry gun that
I can rely upon. That's why I selected it and
I feel it was/is a good choice for my needs.
 
I have been carrying Smith autos since I started as an LEO. In the county I live in, 99% of LE uses Smith .45s, be it the 4566,-06,-86, and 457. Personally, I have carried the 4566, 4506 (currently), and the 457. The only hang ups I have had were either bad ammo, or self induced. Plenty accurate qualification wise, and mine will feed anything, including match ammo. I was issued the 4506 used, a tad on the heavy side, but I like it. The 4566 was NIB, and it was returned after 10,000 rounds or so, one hang up and that was my fault, not the gun's.
The 457 is okay, I feel that they really are not worth it past 15 yards. The problems occuring in mine were releasing the slide into battery with a full magazine, the slide would not go in fully. These were teething problems that were gone after lots of rounds.
Both the 4506 and 457 had the triggers stoned and the actions gone over in department PMAs. I am used to that style trigger now, while a Glock or 1911 feels better, these are not bad. A good action job does wonders on these guns.
As for co workers, I have seen their weapons jam on about anything, decockers break or come apart, magazines not work. I also keep in mind that these guns are several years old, and have been recycled through the department. I also keep in mind that these problems have occured with my coworkers who shoot alot, so their guns will take more abuse.
The performance center autos are pieces of work: a coworker of mine shoots the 945 in the Distinguished match of PPC. Mind you he has done this for twenty years, but he drops maybe five or six points on a bad day. The guns with the bushing have an edge, the 5906PC, CQB, et al.
Ergonomics is not bad, but keeping in mind everyone rides the gun differently. I cannot stand the standard grips, Hogues currently ride on my duty gun. A little more to grasp. Getting a high grip is not too bad, as the nice little scar on the web of my shooting hand shows. The hammer could use a tad of smoothing. Sights are quick to pick up, most current Smiths use Novaks.
Right now I am wringing out a 1076 I just got, for anyone with one, as you might know, EASY on the decocker. An armorer collegue advised me if you jam it down, the chance for it to fall out of whack is there, and 1076 decockers are a royal pain in the rear to fix (provided you find an armorer to).
My biggest complaint on the Smiths I carry and have carried: the weight. Real heavy at the end of 12 hours. But comforting, I know it is there.
Out of breath, writer's cramp, and I tend to be long winded at times.
 
I have three S&W handguns. Model 39-2, It's a single stack 9mm. Has smooth 10 - 11 pound double action and 4 - 5 pound single action. Feels better in my hand than any current 3rd generation gun. The 39-2 is very, very relilable. My 4013TSW is accurate easy to pack and 100% relilable. I installed a Wolff spring kit and now both single and double action are about as light as you can get and still have 100% ignition. My hands down favorite pistol is my S&W Performance Center 945. 3.25 pound trigger, blackened stainless, and a match grade barrel, it's just the best. I guess you could say I have been lucky with Smith autos. However the very first one I had was junk from the word go. I purchased a brand new 3rd generation 3904 when they first came out. Felt like I was holding a angle iron. It had many failures to feed and it did not like shooting in the 10 ring, no matter what I did, including using a sand bag. It went by by! I guess this all leads up to the fact; 3 good, 1 very bad. Shoot Safe....CO

------------------
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I require the same from them." From the movie, " The Shootist"
 
Only one, a S&W745, 2nd gen .45acp single action. I shot it for 2 years in competitive forums, but retired the weapon when I got my first gen G21 Glock.
 
IMHO, smith and wesson once made the best revolvers. I wouldn't trust my life to one of their autos though.
 
G98, as someone who has spent most of their professional life as a photographer in one capacity or another, I'd just like to say that the photo of your 52 is beautifully lit, and very pleasing to the eye. Nice. You have any experience professionally?
 
Hey P97, I figured that I would chime in. Keeping things to 1990 or later, this is what I have to report:<OL TYPE=1><LI> 3913 - fit, finish and reliability excellent
<LI> First Tactical series (1998) 3913TSW - decocker level is a bit loose but everything else is perfect.
<LI> Second Tactical series (2000 -- had it on lay-away at the time of the agreement) 3913TSW - excellent gun except the magazine needs a good wack in order to be inserted.
<LI> 4006 - fit, finish & reliability excellent
<LI> 4006TSW - decocker level is a bit loose but everything else is perfect
<LI> 4013 - fit, finish & reliability excellent
<LI> 4013TSW - fit, finish & reliability excellent
<LI> 4506 - fit, finish & reliability excellent
<LI> First Tactical series (1998) 4513TSW - decocker level is a bit loose but everything else is perfect.
<LI> Second Tactical series (2000 -- had it on lay-away at the time of the agreement) 4513TSW - excellent gun except the magazine needs a good wack in order to be inserted.
<LI> 5906TSW - decocker level is a bit loose but everything else is perfect</OL>Again, I did not include any guns made prior to 1990 as you requested. I would also like to make to points: [1] Their all-steel guns are on the heavy side but that only adds to their strength and since I no longer wear a uniform for a living the added weight doesn't really bother me. Additionally, for each of their all-steel guns, an alloy version is available which is might lighter. [2] I put a brand new, never been fired stainless steel S&W pistol and a brand new, never been fired stainless steel Para-Ordnance pistol in a safe right next to each other. About a month and a half later, the Para-Ordnance was beginning to show early signs of rust while the S&W was perfectly fine.

Regards,
FUD
fudflag.gif
Share what you know & learn what you don't
 
I the mid 70's I got a model 59 and it was a piece of junk. It was unrelaible even with FMJ ammo and accuracy was poor (4"-5" at 25 yards on a good day). Trigger felt like sandpaper.

In the early 90's I had 2 S&W pistols and they were both excellent. They were model 3906 and 3913. Both were very accurate (2" at 25 yards with Federal BP) and totally reliable. I don't remember any mis-feed with 3906 and 3913 only had 2 or 3 mis-feeds during first 100-150 rounds. Both single and double action trigger on 3906 was good but it was excellent on 3913. Too bad I traded them for something else.
 
I owned a S&W 909, 9 shot , 4" barrel. I never had any problems with it. I used it in a qualification and did pretty well. I don't have it anymore, I now own a Ruger P94 in 9mm. I shoot this gun a lot better.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by parabellum:
G98, as someone who has spent most of their professional life as a photographer in one capacity or another, I'd just like to say that the photo of your 52 is beautifully lit, and very pleasing to the eye. Nice. You have any experience professionally?[/quote]

Heehee, you're gonna die laughing when you find out how I get these images of my revolvers and pistols. It's called the "plonk" technique. You "plonk" the pistol down (carefully!) on the bed of your scanner, then put white construction paper or even an 8.5x11 sheet on top, and scan away! Adobe Photoshop then comes in handy to resize down to something more manageable, and convert the bitmap to a jpg for transfer to my FTP site. Here's one for the "Parabellum" in all of us:
lugerleftsmallplonk.jpg


[This message has been edited by Gewehr98 (edited September 14, 2000).]
 
Quantum Singularity was right, by the way, a 1961-vintage Model 52 really shouldn't be a data point in the S&W autopistol quality debate, since they are chambered in .38 Special wadcutter, with 5-round magazines, and were designed for bullseye competition, vs. hard use as a defensive pistol. The recent Model 952 is basically the same gun, but in 9mm, with a larger mag capacity. I would have no reservations using the 952 as a defensive gun, knowing it's heritage. Same for the 945, and perhaps the older 745.
 
My S&W autos include a 439, 639, 645, and 3913. Except for one stoppage in the 439, which I believe was a mag problem, they've all proven to be well made, reliable guns so far.

I'd have to say that I like the second generation 39-series best, maybe because of its curved backstrap, checkered walnut stocks, and relatively fine finish. I even trusted my 639 enough to use it during the practical exam for my concealed carry license, where a jam counts as a miss. It didn't let me down.

I used to have a 469, 1076, 4516, and 4516-2. I traded them all away, not because of a quality problem with any of them, but because I wanted something else more at the time.

BTW, an S&W auto I always kinda wanted but never got was a 4006. The only prices I saw on this model seemed way too high.
 
A friend of mine has put over 8,000 rounds (Cor-Bon, reloads, and factory) through a 5906 he bought used. The trigger bar spring (?) went out and had to be replaced but that was the sole problem with the weapon in all that time.

We recently took Stressfire (the shooting portion of LFI-1) and his 5906 went through over 800 rounds without a problem, unlike some Glocks and custom 1911s on the line.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top