No recent experience, but I carried a M39-2 as an off duty gun back in the 70s. Never had a problem with it, but all I ever fired thru it was factory FMJ or RNL handloads. JHP loads were almost non-existant back then. Depending on the age of your M39, it may or may not feed JHP loads reliably.

The old 39 feels good in the hand, but has so-so sights and usually a grungy trigger. The safety/decocking dingus works backwards. The worst "feature," however, is the lack of reliability with good JHPs, which are pretty much a necessity with 9mm.

If you are dead-set on this design, look for a "Third Generation" variant of the old gun - try to find a 3904 or 3906. Better yet, if you want a single-stack 9mm crunchenticker, try something like a SIG P239.

Yesterday saw 2 used 3913's...Might buy them both!
Great size, and I prefer the DA over any SA pistol I have used for carry.

Thanks.

Mark

3913 all the way. You might also look at a CS 9mm. I've had a 3913 and a 3913 tactical. They were great guns, and I ran jacketed hollowpoints through them without problem. As Mike said, definitely go for the 3rd generations, though.

I'd agree they aren't the best triggers in the world, but the single-action pull isn't too horrible.

The 3913's make a great carry gun. I used to have a 3913 LS , but I let a lady friend trade me out of it. I'm now a member of the plastic fantastic carry club, but the 3913 is a very fine weapon for carry.

I was just thinking of posting a want add for a 39. I need one for a gift (theres a backstorry).

Originally Posted by Mike Barham

The old 39 feels good in the hand, but has so-so sights and usually a grungy trigger. The safety/decocking dingus works backwards. The worst "feature," however, is the lack of reliability with good JHPs, which are pretty much a necessity with 9mm.

Not true of the 39-2. The previous 39(no dash) did not do well with HPs and is rarer and more expensive(collectible) than the latter 39-2.

The 39-2 is a reliable and accurate pistol. I don't know what your standards are for a trigger but it beats a Beretta or Glock. The sights suck and aren't very rugged. That's about the only complain I had about the one I owned.

If it's a -2 which I think it is it will serve you very well as a carry gun. This is from someone with real experience with this pistol.

Fired and have both a 39 and a 639 for JHP 639 much more reliable feeding
the 39 is more of a collector than a carry. But if you would like a 639 let me know what you got to trade I've been looking for a 659 long story there also.

I have quite a bit of experience carrying a 39. My agency was the first to issue them and did for 32 yrs. I was issued a 39 and some of the later got 39-2. I kept my 39 and carried it for several years including a few while on SWAT.
The problem the 39 had with feeding some ammo had was a hump in the feed ramp. Our smiths removed the hump in all the 39s to give them the same ramp as the 39-2. Problem solved. Those guys really knew their guns back then. In fact, it was due to our smiths and their recommendations that many of the changes were made to the 39-2, 439 and subsequent models including modifying the ramp and change in extractor.
The 39 had the long extractor which was changed to short with the 39-2. Whether that's an improvement or not depends on who you talk to. Some of our smiths liked it, others never saw a need. Personally, I never had a problem with the long. I've run a lot of rds thru it of various makes including +P and +P+ and never had a problem with extraction.
My 39 has a trigger that rivaled an old 52 but then it wasn't stock, out of the box trigger either as our smiths had touched it up some. Accuracy is almost on par with the 52 too.

That's a great picture of a very nice piece.

Great looking old gun with character marks on it. Good shooting Mr.Wadcutter.

The condition of the grips kind of belies the finish of the gun. When I carried the 39 I had pachs on it. After I bought it from my dept I found a set of new woods for it. It's never been carried with those grips so the checkering is still sharp. The gun itself has a lot of holster wear as you can tell from the picture. The side of the slide isn't quite as worn as the picture would seem to show but the blueing is thin there. The flash kind of washed out along the side but there's still a lot of holster wear on the edges, along the dust cover, trigger guard, and rear of the frame. This is one I won't part with. Lots of sentimental value to me. I've since not run any more +P or +P+ ammo thru it and now just stick with pretty tame loads. I'd be just sick if it ever broke or cracked.

If you are going with the 39 Get atleast the 39-2. This gun has the many improvements recommended by the IL State Police. I carried the 39-2 as a police duty weapon in the late 1970s. It was 100% reliable with the remington HPs that I carried in it. I still think that the gun feels better in my hand than any other gun I have ever carried. You also should consider the next generation the 439. It is a little better on the safety stand point. It can be carried with the safety off which I do not recommend with the 39-2. A 39 or 39-2 will fire with the safety off if the gun is dropped on it's muzzle. I also am a big fan of my 3913 and you may want to look at that one also. Jim