I’m trying to obtain or confirm some detailed understanding of differences (and the differences they make) between the earlier 3953 and later 3953TSW. I’ve googled a ton and searched a ton of threads on smith-wessonforums and elsewhere, but since there are a lot of people here who’ve put a lot of rounds through third-gen S&W’s, I thought it would be worth asking this crowd. I want to make sure I’ve got it right before my accounts start shrinking. Obviously, these questions would apply to 3913s, and answers based on 3913 experience would be meaningful.
I know about the TSW slide being shared between DA/SA and DAO, and being (approximately – haven’t measured and not into assuming) the length of earlier DA/SA slides, having a shorter beavertail, and that the shorter slide is the reason for the difference in pre-cocking, to prevent the hammer from being exposed and susceptible to snagging. I know about the slides generally being machined for decock-only DA/SA parts, if you can find those little unicorn teeth. I know about the riveted-on rail and options to remove it if desired.
My questions have to do with trigger pull and service life.
My understanding is that the reduced amount of pre-cocking on the later TSWs leads to a longer trigger pull, but I'm thinking, based on everything I can find, that the increase is only the travel, with the trigger simply staging a few mm farther forward at rest/reset. Basically, it’s relying on the movement of the slide for less of the hammer movement and relying on the trigger for more, but the weight (force to press the trigger and move the hammer) should be the same. It may be lighter/smoother if the MIM parts end up having better surface finishes, and MIM should be more consistent from sample to sample than the highly variable machined finishes on the earlier pistols. Is that an accurate understanding?
(In a sample of two earlier DAOs I've inspected with flash-chromed parts, there is a visually obvious difference in the quality of the surface on the rear-facing portion of the hammer, which corresponds to the smoothness of the pull.)
I'm also interested in the increased size of the rails and improved precision of the fit on TSWs. Since all 3953s are getting older and they aren't making any more of them, the wear state and remaining round count in the frame is really important. Most of the examples I’ve seen of non-TSW aluminum third-gens have worn through the anodizing, which at least on a Sig is the beginning of the end. The little rails at the front of the dust cover seem to get eaten away faster than the bigger ones farther back. Do the bigger rails on the TSWs wear more slowly, given equal cleaning and lubrication?
Some seem to think the TSWs are or should be more accurate than earlier units due to improved precision of the slide fit, but others discount that. Any experience, A-to-B type stuff on that?
Thanks for your help!
PS - I’m hoping this thread doesn’t devolve into a 12-page debate about derp, LARP, philosophy of training and carry, why the heck anyone would ever want to carry an “obsolete” single stack, etc., although that other one has been entertaining. I think we can all agree that the service life of the frame will eventually matter if you train enough.
PSS - Just to put it out there, the world would be a better place if instead of looking for old 3953s, I could go buy as many as I wanted brand new H&K USSPs - Universal Single Stack Pistol - with external dimensions almost exactly like the 3953, a polymer frame and LEM trigger. But that's not the way the world is going. I've compared a 6946 and USP Compact LEM side by side, and IMO, the H&K crushes the double-stack Smith in every characteristic that matters to me. So this whole post is driven by the reduced printiness of a single stack.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by JPedersen
