Yh but in the last ten years the machining were you need to build steam train parts has gone people are more ballistics focused these days and the guns are just drill and mill creations to fire all the cool new rounds
weird science Absolutely, considering most of these new firearms are half injection molded polymer, it’s a lot easier to design one to do the exact thing you need without modifications. Still ꒒ ০ ⌵ ୧ ♡ these old school all steel or aluminum framed pistols.
I mean, when you look at the OG models, the difference is absolutely staggering- near enough a totally different gun so I wouldn't complain about copyright considering how a lot of guns are more identical unintentionally.
i have my father's model 39-2, Smith and Wesson no longer will perform work on it. is there a company or companies you wouldrecommend to repair and customise it as a tribute to him and to hand down for generations?
Ian I stumbled onto your channel and have to say I'am impressed! Your firearms knowledge is impressive and the added historical content is very fascinating! I just liked and subscribed!
Why is there anything wrong with replacing parts on your own firearm? 🤣 the whole purpose of buying a firearm is because that is your preference on what too carry soooo? 😂🤷🏻♂️
@@charlesoconnor6247 Exactly. If I lived in the US, and had the cash to drop, then I would love two guns: first, a Luger Carbine, from the highly esteemed Lugerman, in 10mm, abet with the better -- imho -- Artillery Luger sights. The other would be a Glock20, or 40, also in 10mm, but with LoneWolf slide, their threaded barrel for a compensator, and, of course, a combination comp/suppressor (having already bilateral tinnitus, even with 'ears', don't want to exasperate that ...); and attach the latest Trijicon RMR sight, co-wittnessed with their Bright & Tough sights, for the suppressor. Yeah, I know ... that adds up to a hella lot of money ... but tiz, but a dream ... Especially as if there is one rife I could only have, it would be a AI .338 AWSM, with the suppressor -- of course -- and the very best 3-12x50 Illuminated Recticule scope for it. As for the rounds themselves ... not sure, but if the barrel could handle triple-based loading, propelling a FMJ, boat tailed, hollow point bullet ...
If 9mm ammo really was so inconsistent to the point you needed a case gauge to make sure it would actually work, suddenly people's distrust of 9mm makes a little more sense.
Well, I just like how a .45 fits in my hand. Then again I'm a 6'6" 290lb gargantuan, I do like an occasional full size 9mm now and again for cheaper fun.
Yes it makes sense to a point, if you do some research you will find alot of the same sort of distrust because of very old and moslty if not totally solved issues. People tend to focus in on the bad or problematic and negative . virtualy nobody i have met can grasp the concept of design maturity and/or product improvement. From what i have experienced personally, a great many people "know what they know" . they" know" 9mm is anemic, they know its poor quality and inconsistant and unreliable and cannot be counted on for defense. They also" know" the ar-15/m16 family of firearms are junk because they jammed in "nam" when the first of the m16s were issued ...with no cleaning kits, and the "brains" in the pentagon who already decided to not make or procure and issue cleaning kits for their new rifles, decided to save a few bucks and swap propellants from the one designed specifically for the then new m193 cartridge designed and developed WITH and FOR the ar15/m16 . Those idiots decided to use propellant for the 7.62x51 m80 cartridge, for the m14 rifle...this left calcium carbonate deposits in the gas block, gas tube and gas key on the ar15/m16 creating alot of malfunctions and cost alot of lives before they changed the powder back to what it shpuld have been and made cleaning kits and how too instructional videos of the weapons care and a manual for cleaning and also care. Still to this day there is a LARGE number of people who think the ar15/m16 platform is junk and unreliable and is no differant now than 50 years ago, when in fact it is when propperly built and maintaned , is one of the most reliable and accurate firearms in the world. 9mm is now one of the most reliable and effective and versitile cartridges in the world .
I remember the days when CCW carry was either a Walther PPK (in both .32 and .380) or a .38 Snubby. A lot of cops also used either the .25 Auto or a double-barrelled Derringer (in a large number of calibers). Of course, CCW wasn't nearly as prevalent then as it is today. The one good thing that came out of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was all the "kickback" over the bill's enactment and a great many states ended up either getting CCW laws or changing "restricted" or "As Needed" CCWs to "shall issue." I still carried a .38 S&W Centennial Airweight until I got a Kahr K9 in 1998. Just look at how far we've come in 20 years! :)
I keep a .38/.357 wheelgun in the car, but I typically carry a .410/.45Long derringer on body if I dont want to weigh myself down or dont want anyone knowing I've got a gun.
I'm really glad to see this neat little S&W conversion. The older full-metal S&W autos aren't necessarily forgotten, but are frequently overlooked especially as they were quite popular for a long time.
Puts me in mind of the S&W 669 that I owned. That was a great little gun to carry and equally NASTY little gun to shoot. I carefully took a small precision file and filed off all of the sharp tips from each one of the plastic checkering on the lower insert on the backtrap in an attempt to "de-bite" that little monster. 😵
This reminds me-over 20 year ago as a kid I read an article in Soldier of Fortune or some gun magazine,forget which. The article detailed the work of a gunsmith who did the same thing to Browning Hi Powers,which were supplied by the customer. The slide and grip were shortened,finger grooves added to the front strap,magazines shortened to fit flush,and the pistol refinished. That was a beautiful gun.
@@j.paul.joseph That's the cost of the conversion. You had to provide the original gun to the gunsmith, which means that on top of the 495$ you had to spend the money to buy the S&W. Not sure how shipping costs were handled, but I'm betting the consigner would also run with them.
My father has a Devel converted 59 "full house"... He bought it somewhere around 84... He paid a good chunk for it back then, and really never warmed up to it. It's been in his safe every since. He tried to trade it to me for a wore out Remington 1100 probably 20 years ago. I never cared for it either... It's still in his safe. 🤣
I had to go back and check my notes on the various service/off duty pistols I have owned since the 1970s and the two that stood out, front and center as total fails, were both Model 59s. One was a full size, service/duty, model that refused to eject on a regular basis thanks to a really, really poor choice of ejectors on the part of S&W and a "compact" DAO that had a trigger pull that required two strong men and a healthy boy to cycle. Neither pistol was ever made dependable or usable by S&W OR either of the two, then famous, pistol smiths that I sent them to. Needless to say I sold both S&Ws and purchased a 1911A1 clone in .38 Super to replace the full size M59 and a Browning HP clone in 9mm to replace the compact M59. Both clone pistols fired and ejected perfectly every time I pulled their triggers and concealed better than either S&W under a sport coat or untucked golf or t-shirt. Ironically, the pistol I carry the most nowadays is a twenty plus year old S&W compact, single stack, DAO in stainless steel and chambered in .40S&W that has NEVER failed to cycle perfectly and came out of the box with a very nice trigger pull for a semiautomatic. And all you have to do to follow the "DNA Trail" of my pistol is look at the model number to see that it has the Model 39/59 as a grandfather.
7:45 It's funny you mention that. There is a m1911 in my family that my father got from his uncle. His uncle had Bomar style revolver sights added to it. Guy was a bike cop in San Francisco during the 50s-70s. So it could have been his duty gun. Only problem with that is he did it to a ww2 US gun made by Ithica. I understand why. Probably got it for real cheap, and wanted better sights on it, but It still irks me. Though I'm still thankful to have it in the family.
About the "no 9mm service pistol" and "no compact 9mm" thing. Colt was making the lightweight commander before the model 39. It was the first 9mm pistol made in America.
Yes. But, the 39 was the poster child for the 59/coined "wonder nine" and all other high cap pistol manufacturing their after. Glock, Beretta, and Sig can thank S&W for being the American Pioneers for everything DA/SA, high cap and quality today, not to mention PT using Smiths design to further enhance conceal capabilities Hands down to Colt also for being the poster child for JB legendary and most copied platform. He would roll over im sure if he saw the plastic fantastic of today...
I still use the finger hook shooting grip . It never went out of style for me . That's the way I learned back in the 1980's and there's only a few pistols that I don't use that style of grip on because the frame doesn't have the necessary real estate . The Walther and Bersa Thunder come to mind .
Hello, we spoke once briefly, to which e-mail address can i write to Ian. I send an email on the 24. February, it might was an old adress. Interesting video.
And then S&W came out with the 459 and 469 compacts that were nearly identical, yet had 12 rounds. The 469/459 have been the handguns that I have owned the longest.
S&W eventually did their own "versions", the Model 469 and its stainless stable-mate, the 669. Back in the "good old days, I had a Model 39-2. Not exactly a "race-gun", it worked, and worked, and worked. The designers were obviously VERY familiar with the P-38, especially regarding de-cockers and magazines. The mags of the two guns are dimensionally almost identical, to the point you can run Mod 39 mags in a P-38 but, because of the absence of a Browning-style mag catch notch in the P-38 mag, not vice versa. As I recall, with the Mod 39, S&W were fishing, rather prematurely, for a US military contract for a 9mm replacement for the 1911. The fun part is that the Beretta design that "won", a couple of decades later, is ALSO heavily lifted from the P-38.
One thing you missed was the trigger guard was thinned on one side. This was done to make it easier/faster for the user to get on the trigger in a hurry.
I learned with my weak hand index finger on the trigger guard and bought a 80% frame for my carry gun because it has the same type of hook on the trigger guard. I see nothing wrong with this technique and have asked many experts who can't tell me why it is incorrect....but they still tell me that it is...
Nothing wrong with it if it works for you, only legitimate reason I could see to be against it is that that type of grip requires that trigger guard spur, which isn't very common nowadays.
They say it's incorrect because it can pull you off target ever so slightly if you are a target shooter. If you are shooting at things within 25 yards and just want to hit in a 5" circle you are good. All any one wants to teach anymore is the stupid combat triangle that the military teaches people because it's the easiest to learn.
Before i even learnt this was apparently "outdated" technique to some people i picked it up on my own shooting my p229 which has little slits cut on the front of the trigger guard for what i assumed was grip, so i put my index finger on it from my offhand and i really liked it.
Old thread, I know - but for new readers, here's the answer: The "trigger guard hook" technique isn't a *bad* technique, but it is demonstrably *weaker* and more prone to you pushing the gun side to side than the later technique of wrapping all four off hand fingers around the front of the strong hand fingers, and thumbs forward. But I wouldn't say it is so inferior as to be absolutely avoided, unlike the TV trope "teacup" (which, for some unaccountable reason, the US military was teaching as an "acceptable" technique until only a few years ago), "grab the wrist", or "lay the gun across your forearm" techniques (all of which were previously taught, before people.figured out better ways). I suspect in 20 years or so, there will be some new technique being widely taught that is a slight improvement on the current "thumbs forward" technique, and people will laugh at "the old guys still shooting like it's 2024 or something!" 😂
Just by watching the video it seems to me that the reason for the serrations on the hammer is to pull the hammer back after the half cock position for single action.
I have a magazine for my 1911, standard 7 round, it has the same Devel logo on the base plate. Do you know if they did any work on 1911's? or if this magazine is in any way collectable? Its probably my favorite mag for my 1911, very well built.
"The feeding ramp is polished to a mirror sheen. The slide’s been reinforced. And the interlock with the frame is tightened for added precision. The sight system is original, too. The thumb safety is extended to make it easier on the finger. A long-type trigger with non-slip grooves. A ring hammer… The base of the trigger guard’s been filed down for a higher grip. And not only that, nearly every part of this gun has been expertly crafted and customized."
FYI: That was the factory standard rear sight used on the first generation of S&W's Model 39 and 59 pistols. Here's an article on the Devel Mini-59 by Rick Miller from the Sept/Oct 1980 issue of American Handgunner. americanhandgunner.com/1980issues/HSO80.pdf#page=42 For comparison purposes, here is the article J.D. Jones wrote on the Devel Mini-39 for the May/June 1979 issue of American Handgunner. americanhandgunner.com/1979issues/HMJ79.pdf#page=24
Devel also experimented with 1911 magazines to improve their capacity. They applied for a patent for an improved follower that allowed to one extra round to be loaded in the mag, but I don't think they ever got it.
No, Charlie Kelsey got the patent, but he ultimately sold it to Chip McCormick in 1985. Chip still makes magazines with the Devel follower under his own brand. www.google.com/patents/US4446645 www.cmcmags.com/ClassicSeries.html
I shot S&W 59 for 5 years practical pistol, 1st shot double action wasn't a problem had a flared mag well and extended mag release, and pacmire grips it was competitive enough to win a few matches.
My Kel Tec P-11 is not a Devel by any stretch of the imagination, but it shows how materials have advanced since 1980. The P-11 weighs 17.1 ounces and has a 12 + 1 capacity. I've shot about 500 rounds through it and it has been totally reliable. It cost a heck of lot less than Devel as well.
8:57 you mean the 469, not the 459. The 459 was just the next gen of the 59, while the 469 (and 669) where the first compact versions of the 459 and 659.
Bought the 669 back in the day as my off duty and bug. Amazing how similar they look. I think I paid about $670 back then. Really was state of the art back then.
I've got a small collection of 3rd gen smiths and ive got one with y these grips now I've got to know more i inherited some of the collection does anyone know if this company perhaps just sold the low pro grips?
Not a huge fan of smith autos...but the late 90s 4516 is one of my fav pistols. In a leather shoulder it was pure class, had my dad not got rid of it when i was 17 I would a bought it. Still see them for 350-$450 used. Mags are expensive tho
While you are covering S&W exotica,, spend some time with a Model 52; the 5-shot .38Spl wadcuttrer-only match pistol. I had one for several years. Accurate but very "hold" and load sensitive, until you get the hang of the loading and shooting "secrets". Colt did something similar on a 1911 frame, apparently based on some "tinkering" done by a bunch of military target shooters. See also; the .38 / 45 Clark cartridge and guns. My trusty old S&W 39 would digest a surprising range of ammo, even when a mixed lot was loaded into the mag. Being initially designed as a potential US service pistol to replace the 1911 in the 1950's, it obviously had to be robust enough to handle "NATO" 9mm loadings, like Brit 2Z. Still, basically a re-hashed P-38 trigger mech, complete with "de-cocker", stuffed into a "Browning-shaped" package. The Model 39 mag is an almost straight lift from the P-38, dimensionally, at least. So much so that a ’39 mag will fit into a P-38 and vice-versa, except the P-38 magazine lacks the notch for the US-type mag catch. Probably made a LOT of sense to S&W; mag design is a bit of a black art, so why not slightly adapt one with a proven track record.
No way!!! As a kid I had a plastic bb gun that was exactly the same... never thougth that it was modeled after a real gun.. quite sicked to see this popping up in my subscribtion box
Hey there Ian, don't suppose you'd ever do a video on the Slovenian MGV-176. Saw that you did one for the American-180 and was really fascinated by how similar they are. Keep up the interesting videos! Love your content!
Beautiful gun, if S&W made an all-metal compact in this style today, I'd buy it. Love the 59 but it's not exactly a carry piece because it's bug and I'm.....not.
I agree with your hand positions looking goofy by today's standard. I learned to shoot from my dad, a policeman and his friend, a competitive shooter, both with over 20 years of shooting experience. It really looked funny, I was like "they told me not to do that". lol
lol $480 isn't much nowadays but inflation put the cost at $1,419.05. you could buy two sub compact 9mm pistols, holster and 4 mag pouches , 4 mags and 250 rounds for that much now days lol.....
gunfuego I don't know if I would want to fire a full house 10mm in such a small pistol. It seems today the only options one has for a compact 10mm is the Glock 29.
The only flaw I see in the (re)design is the hammer; lowering that thing without it slamming down (like we see happen to Ian) must've been a real hassle. Kelsey should've put some kind of spur on it. Other than that, it's really a strong design for its day.
Yeah, I know about the decocker, but I can imagine there were a lot of people back then (and probably quite a few still today) whose first impulse would be to manually decock the hammer.
From what I've heard, the serrations on the top of the hammer were not so much for manual decocking but were there so you could fire the first shot single action if you wanted to. Since the hammer was bobbed (spurless) you would squeeze the trigger just enough to get the top of the hammer exposed, then you could grab it with your thumb and pull it all the way back for a single action shot.
Kind of interesting to look at how these "specialty" concealable pistols are kind of the precursors of most modern factory production pistols designed specifically for CCW. Weird to think how just 30-40 years ago we used to have to spend thousands of dollars on guns specially customized to be concealable while today we can just walk into a sporting goods store and plop maybe 3-4 $100 bills on the counter to buy an M&P Shield. How the times have changed, probably for the better since concealed carry for personal protection is now in the financial reach of more people than ever before and now we have plenty of options thanks to the pioneering done back in the day.
The Devel 59 was basically the basis for the S&W model 69. It took them a few years to get interested in the modified 59, but when they introduced it, it was one of the first compact production higher capacity 9mm. (12 rounds vs the 15 of the 59.)
Two. The mod 39 had two grip screws. Not that it REALLY matters but since we are dealing with heavy fact´s here... Interesting also to note all these "this is the correct way to hold a gun" theories over the years Who is/was right? The latest is the best? Awesome gun and video, as always!
Not a lot of choice in 1970s/80s for small, concealable weapons. Cops usually carried snub-nosed revolvers - maybe a Walther PPK. Military UC/UW carried snubbies, Walther PPKs (.32 & .380) or even Walther TPHs (.22LR). Things changed with the arrival of Kelsey, Theodore and Woodcock - as long as you had money and a pistol for them to modify. Theodore took it a step further and modified Colt Commanders and Browning HPs. When Theodore offered ASP pistols commercially @1975, you had to provide the S&W 39 pistol (for conversion) along with $225 (@$1250 in 2022) and wait... Consider that you could buy a Rolex Stainless Steel Submariner watch in the PX for @$225 then for comparison. All beautiful and functional weapons well out of this GI's price range.
I carried a Smith 59 for a couple of years, never really liked it much, the DA trigger was very gritty, and I could never shoot it as well as my favorite M1911A1 even though the reduced recoil and larger mag capacity made certification easier. I was happy to see it go down the road, I think my nephew still has it. Later I got the Astra A-100 a .45ACP copy of the Sig, I found the DA first round pull was sweet compared to the grit of the M59 Smith. Funny how a Spanish gun copier like Astra could get it right and Smith couldn't. I still have the Astra, and take her out to play once in awhile, she is still as sweet as the day I ordered her through my old FFL, now long expired. When I retired from the PD, she went back in the plastic box she came in, and other firearms a bit smaller and lighter took her place as conceal carry.
M - "Moneypenny, has 007 arrived yet?" Moneypenny - "Yes sir - I have him here." M - "Very good - do send him in!" OO7 - "You called for me, sir?" M - "I did, OO7. Do sit down - your new pistol has arrived...!"
Charles Kelsey was murdered under mysterious circumstances back in 2003 in Georgetown, TX. Still unsolved I think. His last days were marked by poverty and paranoia unfortunately. Once Devel folded in the 80's he just never got back on top.
YOSHIZERO Boy, do I. Back when people weren't terrified of safeties and hammers on pistols, back when people focussed on getting good at shooting anything, rather than just shopping for "the best" and calling it quits, back when a gun being lightweight and reliable were more important than the amount of rails you can hang crap you don't need from....ect. I do miss old-school tactical...
My daughter and I drove across the country about five years ago. I didn’t want to carry my 1911. I owned a model 39 years ago and really liked it. So, I found a nickel model 459 on GunBroker for a good price and bought it for the trip. I’d never seen one in nickel. S&W produced a lot of 10,000 for Orange Street Shooting Supplies in Ashland, Ohio.
(A little off topic) What do you think about the 10 round magazine laws making more people switch from a 9mm to a 40 S&W because they would have the same capacity?
The whole idea was to have really thin grip panels on the gun to make it more concealable and easier to handle. It was 1980 and they didn't have access to the as many different materials for grips. I remember when these guns came out and they were pretty amazing for the time.
So basically this was like the vintage 1970s-80s version of an Agency or Salient Arms glock? TBH with a proper holster with thin grips a Hi-power is surprisingly easy to care due to thinness but Im a big guy though
That's what I thought as well. Ian half cocked the hammer with the trigger exposing the hammer spur serrations then he could have brought the hammed to full cock with the serrations.
