# Smith Auto's- Am I alone?



## -gunut- (May 8, 2006)

Am I the only one who is completely lost by the numbering of S&W's auto's?

I have to google the model number almost every time somone talks about them.


----------



## -gunut- (May 8, 2006)

Nice 4013TSW huh?!


----------



## Baldy (Jun 21, 2006)

If go on their web site you'll see everything has a sku# and most of the time a name or iniatls like PD. A lot of people use one or the other to talk about a certain gun and everybody else is lost. You got to stay up with that bunch to understand whats going on. Good Luck..


----------



## -gunut- (May 8, 2006)

Baldy said:


> If go on their web site you'll see everything has a sku# and most of the time a name or iniatls like PD. A lot of people use one or the other to talk about a certain gun and everybody else is lost. You got to stay up with that bunch to understand whats going on. Good Luck..


Yeah I have not had very much experience with S&W auto's.


----------



## Revolver (Aug 26, 2006)

I wish there was some sort of Smith & Wesson resource online. I think I understand _some_ of the nomenclature.

For instance, 40 is the caliber, TSW refers to it being in the "tacticool" series with rail. The latter two numbers refer to size, methinks with the larger number being the larger pistol. Not sure what PD stands for except maybe "police duty"? They are the lightwieght Scandium alloy revolvers. At least that's my understanding of it.

If you want to check out something really bizarre, check out the 327 TRR8.


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

I like the 4013 w/ the rail, but wish it had a 4" barrel.


----------



## Revolver (Aug 26, 2006)

Shipwreck said:


> I like the 4013 w/ the rail, but wish it had a 4" barrel.


I'm just the opposite. I need the larger grip and have no use for the rails. That's the good thing about Smith & Wesson. All those configurations.


----------



## KingAirDriver (Aug 13, 2006)

Nah, you're not alone. I'm in the same boat with you, lol. Thanks though to the other guys for shedding a little bit of light on the subject!


----------



## -gunut- (May 8, 2006)

It appears to be a Tactical Revolver... Is that an oxymoron? 









Almost looks photoshopped don't it? :mrgreen:


----------



## Revolver (Aug 26, 2006)

-gunut- said:


> It appears to be a Tactical Revolver... Is that an oxymoron?
> Almost looks photoshopped don't it? :mrgreen:


Yeah, that's just what I thought. Everything is tactical now. I'm typing on my tactical keyboard while watching my tactical monitor while sitting on my tactical chair now.

There's not a damn thing they can stick on that thing to negate that design flaw they have just above the cylinder latch.:smt076


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

Hey, if U only like revolvers, and want a gun light like a semi-auto, what's wrong w/ it? Its no different than someone putting a tac light on a semi-auto... I think its the fact that it alters the classic lines of a revolver that turns some people off...


----------



## Revolver (Aug 26, 2006)

Shipwreck said:


> Hey, if U only like revolvers, and want a gun light like a semi-auto, what's wrong w/ it? Its no different than someone putting a tac light on a semi-auto... I think its the fact that it alters the classic lines of a revolver that turns some people off...


It's the "tacticool" title that turns me off along with the ILS. I also can't grasp why they would make some that is desgined to have stuff hang from it being Scandium alloy. You'd think it would throw off the balance more when you mount stuff.


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

I agree that it should be on a steel frame. But, who knows.

IOf I was a revolver guy, I might be into this - I'm not, though.

I doubt I'd care much about the scope rail. But, the ability to add a light is kinda kewl...

And, look at Springfield - Tactical is written across the TRP 1911s...


----------



## Revolver (Aug 26, 2006)

Shipwreck said:


> I agree that it should be on a steel frame. But, who knows.
> 
> IOf I was a revolver guy, I might be into this - I'm not, though.
> 
> ...


I think that Smith & Wesson could benefit by putting the rails on some of the duty-minded revolvers on request. I know for a fact that they'd benefit enormously by making the ILS optional. But like you said, the scope mount is a hunting/competition thing. I also think that the flat black doesn't look bad but I'd rather have mine blued and without the rail. I don't even care much for the full underlug a lot of them sport now.


----------



## jimg11 (May 17, 2006)

*S&W Auto numbers*



-gunut- said:


> Am I the only one who is completely lost by the numbering of S&W's auto's?
> 
> I have to google the model number almost every time somone talks about them.


When S&W first came out with the 4 digit Smiths they even had a round number guide with wheels and windows so you can figure it out. What gets me is when they drop a digit so it looks to me like a revolver. ie 457 instead of 4506 or 4516 or 4513.


----------



## SigZagger (Aug 16, 2006)

Their number system must be confusing to S&W craftsman as well. I called a custom shop who works primarily on S&W guns. Gave him the model in question, 952-2 and he was unaware of that model number. Weird system.


----------



## wayno (Nov 15, 2007)

Here is some info thaat helped me.

http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg01-e.htm


----------



## azranger (Apr 26, 2007)

Revolver, PD stands for personal defense as in my 4040PD, but your right, you need an index to determine what model gun your looking at.


----------



## Baldy (Jun 21, 2006)

If you want to find out about a S&W here's a must have book by Jim Supica and Richard Nahas at Amazon. Check it out.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b...tripbooks&field-keywords=Jim+Supica&x=17&y=21


----------



## Wyatt (Jan 29, 2008)

-gunut- said:


> It appears to be a Tactical Revolver... Is that an oxymoron?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nice looking gun but it needs a bayonet.


----------



## Jaketips42 (Nov 24, 2007)

-gunut- said:


> Nice 4013TSW huh?!


??? Haha! I was at my gun shop the other day. I was commenting on all the models there are for S&Ws. He told me about how it was a joke to see what S&W's new gun for the week was. The newer line seems to make sense. The sigmas and m&ps at least.

PS I love my 4513TSW


----------



## Tony S45 (Feb 5, 2008)

While I must admit that the S&W numbering system can become confusing, once bitten by the S&W bug, it's all down hill:


----------



## Mdnitedrftr (Aug 10, 2006)

Tony S45 said:


> While I must admit that the S&W numbering system can become confusing, once bitten by the S&W bug, it's all down hill:


Whats the gun on the top? Doesnt look half bad....


----------



## Wyatt (Jan 29, 2008)

Looks like a 908S to me.


----------



## borris (Oct 28, 2012)

The More Stuff That Hangs Off You Hand Cannon "DA Moe Kooler U Is" L O L :numbchuck:


----------



## berettatoter (Sep 1, 2011)

Wyatt said:


> Nice looking gun but it needs a bayonet.


...and a grenade launcher.


----------



## Spike12 (Dec 10, 2008)

-gunut- said:


> It appears to be a Tactical Revolver... Is that an oxymoron?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well actually they made that for the LEO's on the riot line using a shield. Where you have to hold the gun so close to the shield a pistol's slide is a problem. It's one of my last lust guns.

Some people on the Ruger forum have taken to use the SKU or model number to start a thread with too. PITA! I have NO idea what a 4538 is.


----------



## OldManMontgomery (Nov 2, 2013)

Yes, the numbering of S&W firearms confuses me. 

Up until 1955, Smith & Wesson handguns - mostly revolvers - were identified by model names. There was a pattern and system of adjectives, as in "Hand Ejector" or "Military & Police" and typically the caliber designation. For instance, one can probably figure a revolver called "The .44 Magnum". In the middle 1950s, this rather simple system seemed to be in trouble, as "Combat Masterpiece" and "Combat Magnum" seemed to confuse buyers and users. 

From 1955 to 1982 (or so) had two digit 'model' numbers. These numbers were selected (if what I read somewhere is correct) on the popularity (number of sales) of various handguns. I believe they started with the number 10 - as in the delightful and most useful six shot, .38 Special, double action revolver. The numbers of the models seemed a bit arbitrary, but it did provide a greater degree of certainty, and differentiated between the "Combat Masterpiece" in .38 Special (Model 15) and the "Combat Masterpiece" in .22 long rifle (Model 18) (I think). 

This worked fairly well until S&W started making a plethora of stainless steel guns. For a while, the two-digit numbers worked; for example, the Model 19 and the Model 66 were identical revolvers in dimension and chambering - but the 19 was in blue steel and the 66 was in stainless. 

Then, with more variations came a three digit system in about 1979 (yes, there is overlap; the two digit models were 'renamed' at certain points). The first digit indicated the nature of the frame metal. "4" meant alloy (lightweight), "5" was carbon steel, either blued or nickel plated, "6" was stainless steel. The second and third digit was the two-digit model number. 

Then in about 1988 came the four digit numbering system. This was based on caliber, material and action type (double action semi-automatic pistol, for instance). I have no idea about the plastic 'safe action' guns. 

So yes. I'm a bit confused and completely understand why others might be as well. 

I quit being interested in S&W handguns when they started installing the political correctness lock. Actually, I had lost a lot of interest when they decided to crush fit barrels in revolvers instead of pinning them. 

So, I collect 'old' Smith & Wesson revolvers (pinned barrel types and pre-model number types). I carry a Lightweight Commander for self-defense. I don't bother with current numbering systems - I see no point.


----------

