u/AdWitty6655

SMITH & WESSON® 5906 9 TACTICAL TEE

Left to Right:

10-5, 4” barrel, target trigger and hammer, square butt. Pretty sure it just has Magna grips.

I bought this gun as a project. The cylinder release was almost impossible. There were deep scratches on the cylinder, and lighter ones on the frame and barrel, along with rust in the scratches. Interestingly, little blueing wear. One person I showed it to referred to it as a Truck Gun. Thrown in a toolbox or under the seat. I took it apart, and cleaned it up. Greased the internals lightly a bit. Now the cylinder release is as you would expect. Cleaned up the rust, at least mostly. While it will never win a beauty contest, it is a pretty reasonable shooter. Don’t like the grips, though. Just don’t fit my hand.

Need to deal with those scratches. Got some cold blueing chemicals, but it is low on the priority list.

10-5, 2” barrel, square butt, Pachmayr grips. Bought this to try carrying, but that massive grip prints like a newspaper. Reasonable to shoot, same placement as the others, but the grouping is not as tight as the 4”.

My most recent acquisition. 10-5, 2” barrel, round butt, minimalist wood grips. This gun has lived a lavish life. The hammer is bobbed, and smoothly finished. The blueing is completely worn off the cylinder except for the grooves. Noticeable holster wear on the frame and barrel. The finish on the grips has the look of wood that spent a lot of time in someone’s hand.

I told myself that I bought this to try carrying it, but if the truth is to be told, I just fell in love with it the first time I picked it up.

It does carry exceptionally well, and shoots better than the square butt 2”, but still trails the 4”. The grips don’t offer much recoil mitigation, but it disappears like a J Frame IWB. I’ll wait for Recoil Rider to bring out their K Frame grips to replace them.

And, finally, a 10-7, 2” barrel, round butt, nickel plated. I have carried this a few times, it came with the same minimalist wood grips that the Bobbed did, but I changed them to a set of S&W rubber combat grips after the first range trip. While they are much nicer from a shooting perspective, they tend to snag my t-shirt, which is not optimal.

Four Model 10’s. Four different experiences. All have their strengths and weaknesses.

Great day at the range

I genuinely have no idea

22XX: The forgotten Third Generation pistols.

Three of the last four guns I have bought were .22LR, one revolver and two pistols. I don’t ever remember actively looking for a .22 anything, but I have more than a few at this point.

Anyway, this one was bundled with a 4506, both arrived at the same time from one seller. I was initially not interested in adding the 2213 to the deal, but I think that the owner was concerned that he was going to end up with this in the case forever.

Oh, yeah, both guns came without magazines. I have 45XX magazines , so that was not an issue. He said he had a friend who would drop off one magazine, but it would extend beyond the grip.

So, because I am weak I ended up taking both home.

I learned that Model 41 magazines are compatible, although they stick out the bottom of these short barrel versions (but are fine in the more common longer barrel 22XX variants). So I bought two brand new ones in S&W packaging.

If you read about the SIG Mosquito ( the other .22LR I recently bought) over on r/sigsauer, you will likely guess what is coming.

While the slide action was reasonable, I ended up lightly greasing the barrel and rails that I could get to without removing the slide. The action was significantly easier.

I shot it today with CCI MiniMags. I put 100 cartridges through it with no issues.

Shot remarkably easy. The low bore axis makes .22LR effortless.

If you run across one, highly recommend.

Not the best image . . .

A few days ago I bought a Mosquito. It was an interesting experience. Both the owner and another customer tried to convince me not to. Said they were famously bad guns, prone to every ailment known to .22LR guns, every one and constantly.

I have a P226 in .22LR. It has been a learning experience. I would regularly get failures to feed or extract. Like every magazine. I ended up lubricating the sh!t out of it, and exclusively using CCI MiniMags. At this point it largely has no issues, on par with the other .22LR pistols I have.

I thought that the Mosquito was likely the same. After a time, we came to a deal where I bought a bunch of ammunition and got the gun for almost nothing.

While filling out the 4473, another customer asked if he could clean it up for me. It didn’t look particularly dirty, but I was interested in what he wanted to do. He went in the back room and came back with a tube of grease and a q-tip. He removed the slide, and coated the barrel with a thin layer, mentioning that too much will trap crap. He then did the same with the rails on both the frame and the slide. He told me that he had more than a few fixed barrel pistols, and reliability was directly related to lubrication. Said that oil was inadequate, you needed grease. He racked the slide a few times, and told me that it would be fine now. The slide was substantially easier to rack.

I took it to the range today. 100 MiniMags through it, with no issues. Tight groups, reasonable placement.

If you have a Mosquito, and have issues, give this a try.

In model number order: top left: 4006 (TSW), top right: 4506-1, bottom left: 5906, bottom right: 6906.

Not quite the whole set. Missing a 1006, although I doubt I will ever see one. I suppose there is also a 2206 and a 3906.

Just picked up the 4506 today. The owner smiled as I walked in.

And here we are. Tomorrow is 4506/4516/cs45 morning at the range.

All of the .45 caliber magazines that I have with a yellow follower have the message THIS MAGAZINE MUST HAVE A YELLOW FOLLOWER.

Two of them also have the warning about the 4516-1 only.

So, is there something about the yellow follower magazines that is different than the black follower ones that I also have, other that the potential difference with the followers themselves?

And why are two of them restricted? Is it poorly written, and they should not be used with any other 45XX series gun, or was there some change that effected the interaction with the magazine with the 4516-1?

I have used them with other 45XX’s, and even with a 457, without issue. Am I tempting fate?

I usually don’t upgrade my guns.

I have replaced the grips on various pistols over the years, but I usually decide that the factory knew best, and return to the originals.

I usually replace the wood grips on my revolvers with rubber combat style ones. I appreciate the classic look of wood, but I own them to shoot, and rubber enhances my experience, both with grip and recoil absorption.

But recent posts here have inspired me.

I bought this 36-10 a few months ago. I didn’t need another steel frame exposed hammer J, but it was insanely cheap, and had that beautiful dark, almost black, blued finish that I find irresistible. I have found that I regret the guns that spoke to me that I didn’t get.

After reading about someone replacing their exposed hammer with the one from a 442, I decided I wanted to give it a try. I ordered one from MidwestGunWorks.com (apparently I was not the only one, they are currently sold out). I looked around YouTube and found a reasonable video about dissembling a J, and found that it did just drop right in.

I had bought a S&W RUBBER ROUND BUTT COMBAT GRIPS FOR J-FRAME REVOLVERS to replace the wood grips it came with.

A trip to the range was excellent.

I loved the look, and decided to put it in the carry lineup, after the 940, but before the 442.

But now I wanted more.

I bought a
SMITH & WESSON J FRAME REVOLVER REDUCED SPRING KIT
from TK Custom.

And, of course, if I am going to carry it, the rubber grips I use for the range are inadequate. They irritate my stomach after a while, and grip my T-shirts enhancing printing. The 940 and the 442 wear Recoil Rider CCW internal hammer grips, so I ordered a set of external hammer grips.

And yesterday I took it out to the range to test, along with the 442. Surprisingly, recoil seems equal. I expected the 442 to feel worse, but I guess the few ounces of difference don’t translate into noticeable recoil reduction, at least with standard Remington UMC .38 Special cartridges. The trigger was lighter, but not as much as I expected.

The 36 did behave differently, though. Initially it had wider groupings and was consistently high on the target, but after about an hour, and a box and a half of ammunition, it settled down nicely, performing as well as the 442.

Is it better? No, but it isn’t worse, either. The weight difference is imperceptible IWB. I don’t notice any difference in gripping the gun, so the grips stopping slightly lower to clear the hammer is not an issue, at least for me.

As I noted, the 36 has that deep luster that the 442 doesn’t. It also has a slightly different shape above the grip, which I find aesthetically more pleasing. The new spurless hammer fills the slot in the frame as well as the original one did, so there shouldn’t be any infiltration issues.

I am happy with the outcome. While from a mechanical perspective it is not an improvement, from an esthetic standpoint it is a great improvement.

I have learned a lot here, and gained the motivation to dig in and try some new things.

I appreciate it.

Or, according to the included documents, a K38.

The LGS held this back until I came in.

The bastard.

He handed it to me, put a copy of the ATF form 4473 on the counter, and then went to help someone else.

Included was the original box, along with all the paper. Ads for S&W holsters. Ads for S&W knives. A list of service centers. The instruction sheet.

Did I mention that he is a bastard?

It looks new. There was the faintest line on the cylinder.

Of course, I played with it a bit. But we both knew.

I need to stop going back. Sure. Like I am going to stop going there.

Yesterday I picked up an old CZ75. I assume that it is from before 1993, since that is when Czechoslovakia split.

It is pretty rough, and I have a few questions.

I have been experiencing a lot (several per magazine) of failure to ejects. I have found on older guns that tends to be caused by one of two things: insufficient lubrication or weak recoil springs.

Which brings me to my first question. Is the spring from this gun the same as current production? Is the weight the same? The guide rod is also pretty short, while disassembly videos seem to show a substantially longer one. Is this a drop in replacement, and is it worthwhile?

The grips are pretty worn, and one is chipped. Are there any compatible ones available?

Thanx for the help.

I recently picked up a 1982 vintage 19-5. It has the Target Trigger and Hammer. It also appears to have a set of Pachymar Gripper grips.

Would this likely have left the factory with a pair of wood Target Grips? S&W still sells square butt Target Grips for 75$.

Are these reasonable, or should I really just buy a used pair off eBay or something? How much would a reasonable used pair cost?

Thanx.

L to R: Springfield Armory Ronin, SIG Ultra, Ruger SR1911.

All 9mm.

The SR1911 magazines work in the Ultra. The Ultra magazines seat correctly in the SR1911, but are too short, and won’t feed. This caused a moment of confusion after I reloaded the magazines and put an Ultra magazine in the SR1911. Neither fit in the Ronin at all, being both too thick and too deep.

While the experience was similar across the board, and the SR1911 and the Ultra grouped and placed both well and in similar positions, the Ronin groups were much looser, and consistently low on the target.

A long time ago, I tried carrying a Government 1911 (a Springfield Armory Mil-Spec .45). It was not comfortable, and printed like a newspaper. Since, I have always carried Officer 1911’s on the occasions I take 1911’s to the range. I carried the Ultra there, and wore the Ronin back. The grip of the Ronin is slightly longer, but is thinner and not as deep as the Ultra. Otherwise they are substantially the same. While I would have thought that the Ronin would carry better, it seemed less comfortable than the Ultra. It was digging into my stomach, both using the same leather holster. Both also have wooden grips with a similar texture.

I shot a mixture of 124 grain ammunition, with no issues. I remember the SR1911 being sensitive to 115 grain, not sure about the others. But since I have started only buying 124, I have had no issues.

I don’t know what the issue is with the Ronin. I found the Ultra to be the star of the group. It didn’t shoot any better than the SR1911, but it felt better in my hand, and was reasonable to conceal.

I have heard mention that 9mm is the most popular 1911 these days, as measured by new gun sales and follow on sales (magazines, replacement grips, etc).

L: SW99, R: M&P

Both .45 caliber polymer framed striker fired S&W duty sized pistols.

In the late 1990’s, S&W decided to enter the polymer framed striker fired market. It did not go well. Let us say that they got too much inspiration from Glock, and ended up on the wrong side of a patent infringement lawsuit. They stopped selling their infringing products and eventually settled with Glock.

At this time, they had a relationship with Walther, a German manufacturer, and were making guns for them in the US, among them a variation of the stalwart PPK.

While I don’t know any of the details, S&W ended up offering a version of the then new Walther P99, that they called the SW99, in both 9mm and .40 caliber. S&W imported Walther marked frames from Germany and made the slides in the US. Along with the standard duty sized version, they followed on with a smaller Compact version. Eventually S&W brought out a .45 caliber variant (which I believe was never offered by Walther).

I got a 9mm version soon after it came out, and followed up with the .40 caliber soon after. And bought both Compacts when they came out. When the .45 was introduced I got one of them also. Then, as now, I preferred metal framed hammer fired, but these SW99’s, with their swappable palm swells, were excellent shooters. They remain my favorite striker guns in their respective calibers.

Today I took them to the range. The two examples of S&W polymer framed striker fired .45 caliber duty sized pistols.

They are both excellent weapons, each with different strengths. The SW99 only loads nine cartridges, while the M&P loads ten in its magazine. Neither are optic ready, although the M&P has an upgraded trigger, which it came with when I bought it used. They both offer loaded round indicators, while the SW99 also has an indicator on the back of the slide telling you the striker is fully engaged. The SW99 also offers a decocker on the slide. At the time it received a lot of criticism, but I never understood why. It is not possible to activate accidentally, nor does it protrude from the slide.

While the M&P has a traditional magazine release, the SW99 has an ambidextrous paddle release integrated into the trigger guard that was so popular with some German manufacturers (like H&K).

The M&P has the current in vogue aggressive texture on the grip while the SW99 has a much less aggressive dimpled texture. Both offered excellent performance.

The M&P is currently supported, with regular used availability and various upgrades, like that trigger. The SW99 has not been available for 20 years, and is rare in used cases in any caliber. There is no aftermarket support, and additional magazines are both rare and expensive when they can be found.

From a shooting perspective, both would serve one well. They both suffer from recoil management issues, although the SW99 was noticeably better. It was faster to reacquire the target, and had tighter groups. A steel frame, like a 1911, is both more accurate and easier for me to shoot.

I like the SW99 more. Possibly because I have shot it significantly more than the M&P over the long haul, although the M&P has seen a lot more use in the last few years.

Both are highly recommended. If you come across a SW99, or a Walther P99, in any caliber in a used case, think twice before you pass over it. You are missing out.