Never owned either of these pistols. Good and bad of them. What is the difference in a 59 and a 69? There seem to be variations such as 06, 04,26.

59 is blued, 69 is stainless steel.
I bought a 59 when they first came out. It was a decent pistol and wish I had held on to it.

The 59 went to 2nd gen & was a 459, compact versions of this one were 469 for blue slide & 669 for stainless, all alloy framed. 14+1 for the biggin, 12+1 for the compacts.

A 69 is a L frame 5 shot 44 mag.

I've had the 59 & 469, both dependable in my limited use of them. I fed them both reloads & really wasn't up to snuff on loading for auto's at the time, but the Smiths never seemed to mind.
Questionable parts availability now, but do they need parts that often? For the right price I'd own another.

They were state of the art hi-cap 9mms back in the day. They fell out of favor when the plastic/striker craze hit and were considered "old hat". In recent years they have garnered a cult following who appreciate vintage metal/hammer fired guns, as I do. My first handgun was a 659. One of the few guns I sold and wish I'd kept it.

There were many versions. Of course they all originated from the original single stacked 39 series.


1st Gen:

39 - 8 shot - blued or nickel alloy frame (there were a few steel frames, very scarce and valuable)

59 - 14 shot - blued or nickel alloy frame


2nd Gen:

439 - 8 shot - blued or nickel alloy frame
539 - 8 shot - blued or nickel steel frame
639- 8 shot - all stainless steel

459 - 14 shot - blued or nickel alloy frame
559 - 14 shot - blued or nickel steel frame
659 - 14 shot - all stainless steel

469 - compact - 12 shot - blued alloy frame
669 - compact - 12 shot stainless/alloy frame


3rd Gen:

3904 - 8 shot - blued alloy frame
3906 - 8 shot - all stainless steel

5004 - 14 shot - blued alloy frame
5903 - 14 shot stainless/alloy frame
5906 - 14 shot - all stainless steel

6904 - compact - 12 shot - blued alloy frame
6906 - compact - 12 shot stainless/alloy frame


They later added compact versions of the 39 series dubbed 3914 / 3913 and countless double action only models with various combinations and model numbers.

In this line of pistols, a 4 prefix indicates an alloy frame with blued steel slide; a 5 indicates a blued steel frame and slide; and a 6 indicates a stainless steel frame and slide. These came about during the second generation.

The third generation began using the above code numbers at the end of the model number rather than the beginning. A 3 was added to indicate a stainless steel slide with an alloy frame.

There were two tone options available but I don't recall when nor what numbering they had. I had a 659 and a 669 for a while before trading them for a motorcycle and a CZ 75 respectively.

Don't know of anything bad of them by my lights. I'm not sure about +P and +P+ in older pistols with limited parts availability. Not expressing an opinion either way, just saying it's a question.

As I recall, and it's been a long time, Jeff Cooper assigned a 1911 to a raw class and a S&W to a comparable raw class and found the S&W raw class had trouble with the double action single action transition compared to the straight single action 1911 class. I understand a little practice led to good results with the S&W. Rather than regard the double action/single action as a training and experience issue Colonel Cooper, with his bias confirmed, started saying crunchenticker and continued to tout the 1911 as superior to all others. Colonel Cooper did suggest the 9x19 had a place in handguns smaller than a 1911 -in those days especially some Stars - and so not big enough for a .45ACP cartridge. I carried a Model 39-2 for a while and liked it just fine. Later I carried a 1911 in 9x23 which doesn't quite fit a minimum 9x19 frame.

One odd ball thing about the Model 59 is that with very high round counts of Blazer aluminum cased in a very short period of time the aluminum case will dump heat in the frame that brass carried off. The hot frame would grow and squeeze the trigger draw bar so tightly that the pistol locked up - would not fire until it cooled a tad.

5903SSV and 5943SSV are two that come to mind. Blued (short) slides with alloy frames.

They’re among the first pistols that allowed the police to miss more quickly and efficiently.

One of the big items of contention about them was the magazine safety. I remember at least one story about how it saved a trooper’s life because during a struggle over his weapon with a perp, he managed to press the release, keeping the perp from killing him with his own gun.

IIRC, the Illinois Staties were among the early adopters, beginning I believe with the 39.

That’s my understanding, as well. Because of the ISP’s apparent satisfaction with 39s, the CHP was considering their adoption in the late 1960s, as I was going through the Academy. Didn’t happen, though. My Academy class was the first to be issued guns, the Colt Officers Model Match (lots of problems). The very next class, and many thereafter, were issued the S&W Model 14 (very good), followed by stainless steel Model 67s and 68s. The CHP’s first semi-auto pistol was the S&W 4006, first issued more than a decade after I’d left.

I believe it was ISP that had Winchester develop a round nosed soft point load for reliable feeding in their 39s. They apparently fed great but wouldn’t expand on anything softer than concrete.

Maybe the first chapter in the search for effective bullets for SD in the 9mm. Been a bunch of research done to get to where we are now.

Great guns, glock and the others just sort of took them out of style. Nice to see smith back at it with the m&p line that I love.

These variants would just sit and sit in our gun shop, no one wanted them other than leo that were forced to carry the 5906. They finally switched to glocks.

I wanna say the 459 was used in the miami fbi shootout.

I did manage upon a super clean 39-2 in the past year, glad to have it.

The S&W 5906 can certainly be made to shoot well:

Expanding handgun bullets (called Dum Dums by those opposed to them) were strictly taboo for law enforcement in those years. I melted gray crayons into the hollow points of my unauthorized 125gr. Remington JHP carry ammo so they’d be undetectable upon casual inspection by a sergeant. I later realized that I’d likely impaired their ability to consistently expand.

The 4500 should not be overlooked

4506 and 4563 are some of the best metal DA/SA .45s ever built. Each had their roles and excelled at them.

The Performance Center 4563 is one of the most accurate .45s I have ever seen or used.




 

Absolutely, though the all stainless steel 4506 is pretty hefty for carrying around much. One deputy I’ve known for more than three decades, who’s now the Sheriff, called the 4506 he carried his “boat anchor.” However, that weight becomes most welcome when it’s time to shoot:

But, this one is an externally modified 645 with 4506 innards and a Bar-Sto barrel.

When I got old enough to buy handguns the 3rd gen S&Ws were just being phased out for Glocks and the like and could be bought for very little money.

Sadly looking back they were kind of looked on with disdain as heavy and clunky low capacity dinosaurs. I never bought one for those reasons.

Looking at some of them now they were innovative in their day and well made, even if they were heavy and not always the best handling.

The only one I have is an adjustable sight 1006. I got it cheap and primarily bought it to scratch the 10mm itch. It is a tank, pretty heavy and not super accurate, but it will eat about anything that will fit in the magazine and go bang every time.

Someday I’ll pick up a 3913 if I run across a bargain.

The 70s, and maybe part of the 80s were “hard times” for both S&W and Colt with regard to quality. Lots of stories were floating around about guns that wouldn’t fire or had other funtional issues, right out if the box. I believe that was during the Bangor Punta ownership of Smith. Perhaps a bunch of old hands were retiring about then, or maybe it was just an early Attack of the Bean Counters.

As I recall, the S&W tales mostly concerned revolvers, the Colt 1911s.

I carried a 39, a .45 Browning BDA aka Sig P220, and a S&W 28 Highway Patrolman during the couple of years on the job but settled on a nickel finish Model 19 which is a fine handgun. Still have it but none of the others.

That’s the main reason Bar-Sto barrels were installed in my 2nd and 3rd Generation S&W pistols. While their factory accuracy was certainly within the Minute of Parolee standard, I demanded better and was willing to pay for it. It’s in reality, cheap life insurance.

Mackey, your handguns always look well used, but also well cared for (& loved) !!!!

I tote mine fishing on the river sometimes. Shoots well enough for pigs inside of 50 yards.

I need to get an arched back grip for it. I have the Hogue, which is way too big for my hands, and the flat back which points anywhere but where I’m looking.

Woody,

They tend to get some use for sure!

That gun used to belong to Ken Hackathorn, a good friend and mentor.

I was just out shooting yesterday and was shooting my 4506 along with some other .45s, testing some very heavy 250 +P loads. The 4506 is a tank and makes a great test platform for such things.

Then, there are these abbreviated versions:


3913 and 3953