Talk:Smith & Wesson 6900 pistol series - Revision history

StanTheMan: /* Incorrect Names */

2021-09-19T17:37:20Z

Incorrect Names

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:37, 19 September 2021
Line 36:		Line 36:

	Which the 'fine print' at the bottom clearly states - just as Commando posited - in the case of the 6904/6906 there's no '1' since they are already compact-sized by default; that number code being reserved for indicating a 'compact' size for the other, by-default larger, guns (I don't believe the 3 and 5 codes are used on the 6900s either, which would follow). As for the last code, yes, strictly-speaking for the 69x6 it is a gaff as the '3' code indeed denotes stain alloy frame and stainless slide on all other models, but as pointed out every company has their bit of arbitrariness. Given that this 'misnumbering' applies to only a scant few guns (something like two or three) out of their entire lineup (with this one being the only 'common' one of those to ever be encountered), I don't see it as such a big deal myself. Besides, their point about consistency follows since they already used '69' for previous small double-stack 9mm autos (469/669), clearly they just carried on that logic and spread the '69' to its own 'series'. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan\|talk]]) 13:19, 19 September 2021 (EDT)		Which the 'fine print' at the bottom clearly states - just as Commando posited - in the case of the 6904/6906 there's no '1' since they are already compact-sized by default; that number code being reserved for indicating a 'compact' size for the other, by-default larger, guns (I don't believe the 3 and 5 codes are used on the 6900s either, which would follow). As for the last code, yes, strictly-speaking for the 69x6 it is a gaff as the '3' code indeed denotes stain alloy frame and stainless slide on all other models, but as pointed out every company has their bit of arbitrariness. Given that this 'misnumbering' applies to only a scant few guns (something like two or three) out of their entire lineup (with this one being the only 'common' one of those to ever be encountered), I don't see it as such a big deal myself. Besides, their point about consistency follows since they already used '69' for previous small double-stack 9mm autos (469/669), clearly they just carried on that logic and spread the '69' to its own 'series'. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan\|talk]]) 13:19, 19 September 2021 (EDT)
	: In closing, one could argue that the '69' could/should be omitted entirely and the 6904 and 6906 could/should ''actually'' be called 5914 and 5913, respectively. BUT, as the man say we didn't build the fucking things. ;P [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan\|talk]]) 13:35, 19 September 2021 (EDT)		: In closing, one could argue that the '69' could/should be omitted entirely and the 6904 and 6906 could/should ''actually'' be called 5914 and 5913, respectively. BUT, as the man say - we didn't build the fucking things. ;P [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan\|talk]]) 13:35, 19 September 2021 (EDT)

StanTheMan: /* Incorrect Names */

2021-09-19T17:35:55Z

Incorrect Names

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:35, 19 September 2021
Line 36:		Line 36:

	Which the 'fine print' at the bottom clearly states - just as Commando posited - in the case of the 6904/6906 there's no '1' since they are already compact-sized by default; that number code being reserved for indicating a 'compact' size for the other, by-default larger, guns (I don't believe the 3 and 5 codes are used on the 6900s either, which would follow). As for the last code, yes, strictly-speaking for the 69x6 it is a gaff as the '3' code indeed denotes stain alloy frame and stainless slide on all other models, but as pointed out every company has their bit of arbitrariness. Given that this 'misnumbering' applies to only a scant few guns (something like two or three) out of their entire lineup (with this one being the only 'common' one of those to ever be encountered), I don't see it as such a big deal myself. Besides, their point about consistency follows since they already used '69' for previous small double-stack 9mm autos (469/669), clearly they just carried on that logic and spread the '69' to its own 'series'. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan\|talk]]) 13:19, 19 September 2021 (EDT)		Which the 'fine print' at the bottom clearly states - just as Commando posited - in the case of the 6904/6906 there's no '1' since they are already compact-sized by default; that number code being reserved for indicating a 'compact' size for the other, by-default larger, guns (I don't believe the 3 and 5 codes are used on the 6900s either, which would follow). As for the last code, yes, strictly-speaking for the 69x6 it is a gaff as the '3' code indeed denotes stain alloy frame and stainless slide on all other models, but as pointed out every company has their bit of arbitrariness. Given that this 'misnumbering' applies to only a scant few guns (something like two or three) out of their entire lineup (with this one being the only 'common' one of those to ever be encountered), I don't see it as such a big deal myself. Besides, their point about consistency follows since they already used '69' for previous small double-stack 9mm autos (469/669), clearly they just carried on that logic and spread the '69' to its own 'series'. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan\|talk]]) 13:19, 19 September 2021 (EDT)
			: In closing, one could argue that the '69' could/should be omitted entirely and the 6904 and 6906 could/should ''actually'' be called 5914 and 5913, respectively. BUT, as the man say we didn't build the fucking things. ;P [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan\|talk]]) 13:35, 19 September 2021 (EDT)

StanTheMan: /* Incorrect Names */

2021-09-19T17:31:40Z

Incorrect Names

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:31, 19 September 2021
Line 35:		Line 35:
	[[File:Sw3rdgen-num.jpg\|thumb\|none\|600px\|S&W 3rd Gen Model Number Info]]		[[File:Sw3rdgen-num.jpg\|thumb\|none\|600px\|S&W 3rd Gen Model Number Info]]

	Which the 'fine print' at the bottom clearly states - just as Commando posited - in the case of the 6904/6906 there's no '1' since they are already compact-sized by default; that number code being reserved for indicating a 'compact' size for the other, by-default larger, guns (I don't believe the 3 and 5 codes are used on the 6900s either, which would follow). As for the last code, yes, strictly-speaking for the 69x6 is it a gaff as the '3' code indeed denotes stain alloy frame and stainless slide on all other models, but as pointed out every company has their bit of arbitrariness. Given that this 'misnumbering' applies to only a scant few guns (something like two or three) out of their entire lineup (with this one being the only 'common' one of those to ever be encountered), I don't see it as such a big deal myself. Besides, their point about consistency follows since they already used '69' for previous small double-stack 9mm autos (469/669), clearly they just carried on that logic and spread the '69' to its own 'series'. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan\|talk]]) 13:19, 19 September 2021 (EDT)		Which the 'fine print' at the bottom clearly states - just as Commando posited - in the case of the 6904/6906 there's no '1' since they are already compact-sized by default; that number code being reserved for indicating a 'compact' size for the other, by-default larger, guns (I don't believe the 3 and 5 codes are used on the 6900s either, which would follow). As for the last code, yes, strictly-speaking for the 69x6 it is a gaff as the '3' code indeed denotes stain alloy frame and stainless slide on all other models, but as pointed out every company has their bit of arbitrariness. Given that this 'misnumbering' applies to only a scant few guns (something like two or three) out of their entire lineup (with this one being the only 'common' one of those to ever be encountered), I don't see it as such a big deal myself. Besides, their point about consistency follows since they already used '69' for previous small double-stack 9mm autos (469/669), clearly they just carried on that logic and spread the '69' to its own 'series'. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan\|talk]]) 13:19, 19 September 2021 (EDT)

StanTheMan: /* Incorrect Names */

2021-09-19T17:31:08Z

Incorrect Names

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:31, 19 September 2021
Line 35:		Line 35:
	[[File:Sw3rdgen-num.jpg\|thumb\|none\|600px\|S&W 3rd Gen Model Number Info]]		[[File:Sw3rdgen-num.jpg\|thumb\|none\|600px\|S&W 3rd Gen Model Number Info]]

	Which the 'fine print' at the bottom clearly states - just as Commando posited - in the case of the 6904/6906 there's no '1' since they are already compact-sized by default; that number code being reserved for indicating a 'compact' size for the other, larger, guns (I don't believe the 3 and 5 codes are used on the 6900s either, which would follow). As for the last code, yes, strictly-speaking for the 69x6 is it a gaff as the '3' code indeed denotes stain alloy frame and stainless slide on all other models, but as pointed out every company has their bit of arbitrariness. Given that this 'misnumbering' applies to only a scant few guns (something like two or three) out of their entire lineup (with this one being the only 'common' one of those to ever be encountered), I don't see it as such a big deal myself. Besides, their point about consistency follows since they already used '69' for previous small double-stack 9mm autos (469/669), clearly they just carried on that logic and spread the '69' to its own 'series'. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan\|talk]]) 13:19, 19 September 2021 (EDT)		Which the 'fine print' at the bottom clearly states - just as Commando posited - in the case of the 6904/6906 there's no '1' since they are already compact-sized by default; that number code being reserved for indicating a 'compact' size for the other, by-default larger, guns (I don't believe the 3 and 5 codes are used on the 6900s either, which would follow). As for the last code, yes, strictly-speaking for the 69x6 is it a gaff as the '3' code indeed denotes stain alloy frame and stainless slide on all other models, but as pointed out every company has their bit of arbitrariness. Given that this 'misnumbering' applies to only a scant few guns (something like two or three) out of their entire lineup (with this one being the only 'common' one of those to ever be encountered), I don't see it as such a big deal myself. Besides, their point about consistency follows since they already used '69' for previous small double-stack 9mm autos (469/669), clearly they just carried on that logic and spread the '69' to its own 'series'. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan\|talk]]) 13:19, 19 September 2021 (EDT)

StanTheMan: /* Incorrect Names */

2021-09-19T17:29:59Z

Incorrect Names

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:29, 19 September 2021
Line 35:		Line 35:
	[[File:Sw3rdgen-num.jpg\|thumb\|none\|600px\|S&W 3rd Gen Model Number Info]]		[[File:Sw3rdgen-num.jpg\|thumb\|none\|600px\|S&W 3rd Gen Model Number Info]]

	Which I should point out clearly shows the third or 'type' number in the sequence doesn't strictly denote a change in frame/barrel size, but also notes a change in controls/features instead of or in addition to. More the point here, the 'fine print' at the bottom clearly states - just as Commando posited - in the case of the 6904/6906 there's no '1' since they are already compact-sized by default; that number code being reserved for indicating a 'compact' size for the other, larger, guns (I don't believe the 3 and 5 codes are used on the 6900s either, which would ~~make sense~~). As for the last code, yes, strictly-speaking for the 69x6 is it a gaff as the '3' code indeed denotes stain alloy frame and stainless slide on all other models, but as pointed out every company has their bit of arbitrariness. Given that ~~that~~ applies to only a scant few guns out of their entire lineup (with this one being the only 'common' one of those to ever be encountered), I don't see it as such a big deal myself. Besides, their point about consistency follows since they already used '69' for previous small double-stack 9mm autos (469/669) so they just carried on that logic and spread the '69' to its own 'series'. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan\|talk]]) 13:19, 19 September 2021 (EDT)		Which the 'fine print' at the bottom clearly states - just as Commando posited - in the case of the 6904/6906 there's no '1' since they are already compact-sized by default; that number code being reserved for indicating a 'compact' size for the other, larger, guns (I don't believe the 3 and 5 codes are used on the 6900s either, which would follow). As for the last code, yes, strictly-speaking for the 69x6 is it a gaff as the '3' code indeed denotes stain alloy frame and stainless slide on all other models, but as pointed out every company has their bit of arbitrariness. Given that this 'misnumbering' applies to only a scant few guns (something like two or three) out of their entire lineup (with this one being the only 'common' one of those to ever be encountered), I don't see it as such a big deal myself. Besides, their point about consistency follows since they already used '69' for previous small double-stack 9mm autos (469/669), clearly they just carried on that logic and spread the '69' to its own 'series'. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan\|talk]]) 13:19, 19 September 2021 (EDT)

StanTheMan: /* Incorrect Names */

2021-09-19T17:25:26Z

Incorrect Names

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:25, 19 September 2021
Line 35:		Line 35:
	[[File:Sw3rdgen-num.jpg\|thumb\|none\|600px\|S&W 3rd Gen Model Number Info]]		[[File:Sw3rdgen-num.jpg\|thumb\|none\|600px\|S&W 3rd Gen Model Number Info]]

	Which I should point out clearly shows the third or 'type' number in the sequence doesn't strictly denote a change in frame/barrel size, but also notes a change in controls/features instead of or in addition to. More the point here, the 'fine print' at the bottom clearly states - just as Commando posited - in the case of the 6904/6906 there's no '1' since they are already compact-sized by default; that number code being reserved for indicating a 'compact' size for the other, larger, guns. As for the last code, yes, strictly-speaking for the 69x6 is it a gaff as the '3' code indeed denotes stain alloy frame and stainless slide on all other models, but as pointed out every company has their bit of arbitrariness. Given that that applies to only a scant few guns out of their entire lineup (with this one being the only 'common' one of those to ever be encountered), I don't see it as such a big deal myself. Besides, their point about consistency follows since they already used '69' for previous small double-stack 9mm autos (469/669) so they just carried on that logic and spread the '69' to its own 'series'. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan\|talk]]) 13:19, 19 September 2021 (EDT)		Which I should point out clearly shows the third or 'type' number in the sequence doesn't strictly denote a change in frame/barrel size, but also notes a change in controls/features instead of or in addition to. More the point here, the 'fine print' at the bottom clearly states - just as Commando posited - in the case of the 6904/6906 there's no '1' since they are already compact-sized by default; that number code being reserved for indicating a 'compact' size for the other, larger, guns (I don't believe the 3 and 5 codes are used on the 6900s either, which would make sense). As for the last code, yes, strictly-speaking for the 69x6 is it a gaff as the '3' code indeed denotes stain alloy frame and stainless slide on all other models, but as pointed out every company has their bit of arbitrariness. Given that that applies to only a scant few guns out of their entire lineup (with this one being the only 'common' one of those to ever be encountered), I don't see it as such a big deal myself. Besides, their point about consistency follows since they already used '69' for previous small double-stack 9mm autos (469/669) so they just carried on that logic and spread the '69' to its own 'series'. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan\|talk]]) 13:19, 19 September 2021 (EDT)

StanTheMan: /* Incorrect Names */

2021-09-19T17:22:41Z

Incorrect Names

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:22, 19 September 2021
Line 35:		Line 35:
	[[File:Sw3rdgen-num.jpg\|thumb\|none\|600px\|S&W 3rd Gen Model Number Info]]		[[File:Sw3rdgen-num.jpg\|thumb\|none\|600px\|S&W 3rd Gen Model Number Info]]

	Which I should point out clearly shows the third or 'type' number in the sequence doesn't strictly denote a change in frame/barrel size, but also notes a change in controls/features instead of or in addition to. More the point here, the 'fine print' at the bottom clearly states - just as Commando posited - in the case of the 6904/6906 there's no '1' since they are already compact-sized by default; that number code being reserved for indicating a 'compact' size for the other, larger, guns. As for the last code, yes, strictly-speaking for the 69x6 is it a gaff as the '3' code indeed denotes stain alloy frame and stainless slide on all other models, but as pointed out every company has their bit of arbitrariness. Given that ~~they~~ only ~~do this toa~~ scant few guns out of their entire lineup (with this one being the only 'common' one of those to ever be encountered), I don't see it as such a big deal myself. Besides, their point about consistency follows since they already used '69' for previous small double-stack 9mm autos (469/669) so they just carried on that logic and spread the '69' to its own 'series'~~. Makes sense to me~~. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan\|talk]]) 13:19, 19 September 2021 (EDT)		Which I should point out clearly shows the third or 'type' number in the sequence doesn't strictly denote a change in frame/barrel size, but also notes a change in controls/features instead of or in addition to. More the point here, the 'fine print' at the bottom clearly states - just as Commando posited - in the case of the 6904/6906 there's no '1' since they are already compact-sized by default; that number code being reserved for indicating a 'compact' size for the other, larger, guns. As for the last code, yes, strictly-speaking for the 69x6 is it a gaff as the '3' code indeed denotes stain alloy frame and stainless slide on all other models, but as pointed out every company has their bit of arbitrariness. Given that that applies to only a scant few guns out of their entire lineup (with this one being the only 'common' one of those to ever be encountered), I don't see it as such a big deal myself. Besides, their point about consistency follows since they already used '69' for previous small double-stack 9mm autos (469/669) so they just carried on that logic and spread the '69' to its own 'series'. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan\|talk]]) 13:19, 19 September 2021 (EDT)

StanTheMan: /* Incorrect Names */

2021-09-19T17:20:27Z

Incorrect Names

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:20, 19 September 2021
Line 35:		Line 35:
	[[File:Sw3rdgen-num.jpg\|thumb\|none\|600px\|S&W 3rd Gen Model Number Info]]		[[File:Sw3rdgen-num.jpg\|thumb\|none\|600px\|S&W 3rd Gen Model Number Info]]

	Which I should point out clearly shows the third or 'type' number in the sequence doesn't strictly denote a change in frame/barrel size, but also notes a change in controls/features instead of or in addition to. More the point here, the 'fine print' at the bottom clearly states - just as Commando posited - in the case of the 6904/6906 there's no '1' since they are already compact-sized by default; that number code being reserved for indicating a 'compact' size for the other, larger, guns. As for the last code, yes, strictly-speaking for the 69x6 is it a gaff as the '3' code indeed denotes stain alloy frame and stainless slide on all other models, but as pointed out every company has their bit of arbitrariness. Given that they only do this ~~to maybe two or three~~ guns out of their entire lineup (~~all but~~ this one being ~~very rare anyway~~), I don't see it as such a big deal myself. Besides, their point about consistency follows since they already used '69' for previous small double-stack 9mm autos (469/669) so they just carried on that logic and spread the '69' to its own 'series'. Makes sense to me. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan\|talk]]) 13:19, 19 September 2021 (EDT)		Which I should point out clearly shows the third or 'type' number in the sequence doesn't strictly denote a change in frame/barrel size, but also notes a change in controls/features instead of or in addition to. More the point here, the 'fine print' at the bottom clearly states - just as Commando posited - in the case of the 6904/6906 there's no '1' since they are already compact-sized by default; that number code being reserved for indicating a 'compact' size for the other, larger, guns. As for the last code, yes, strictly-speaking for the 69x6 is it a gaff as the '3' code indeed denotes stain alloy frame and stainless slide on all other models, but as pointed out every company has their bit of arbitrariness. Given that they only do this toa scant few guns out of their entire lineup (with this one being the only 'common' one of those to ever be encountered), I don't see it as such a big deal myself. Besides, their point about consistency follows since they already used '69' for previous small double-stack 9mm autos (469/669) so they just carried on that logic and spread the '69' to its own 'series'. Makes sense to me. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan\|talk]]) 13:19, 19 September 2021 (EDT)

StanTheMan at 17:19, 19 September 2021

2021-09-19T17:19:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:19, 19 September 2021
Line 31:		Line 31:
	::Interesting thought! I bet you're right. The last digit would still be incorrect though, unless I'm missing something. --[[User:Votesmall\|Votesmall]] ([[User talk:Votesmall\|talk]]) 10:42, 19 September 2021 (EDT)		::Interesting thought! I bet you're right. The last digit would still be incorrect though, unless I'm missing something. --[[User:Votesmall\|Votesmall]] ([[User talk:Votesmall\|talk]]) 10:42, 19 September 2021 (EDT)
	:::Yeah, it is harder to justify the last digit. You could argue that the 6 on the final digit means "standard" frame and there is not version with a steel frame so the "standard" is alloy, but that makes less sense than the barrel length argument (especially as the 6904 is corret rather than being the 6905). S&W have been known to just make up designations that don't fit the formula, for example the 4040 makes no sense at all. --[[User:Commando552\|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552\|talk]]) 13:08, 19 September 2021 (EDT)		:::Yeah, it is harder to justify the last digit. You could argue that the 6 on the final digit means "standard" frame and there is not version with a steel frame so the "standard" is alloy, but that makes less sense than the barrel length argument (especially as the 6904 is corret rather than being the 6905). S&W have been known to just make up designations that don't fit the formula, for example the 4040 makes no sense at all. --[[User:Commando552\|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552\|talk]]) 13:08, 19 September 2021 (EDT)
			<BR>
			First off, I believe this is indeed the 'whiz wheel' to which you are referring, which is already posted in the discussion for the main S&W page.
			[[File:Sw3rdgen-num.jpg\|thumb\|none\|600px\|S&W 3rd Gen Model Number Info]]

			Which I should point out clearly shows the third or 'type' number in the sequence doesn't strictly denote a change in frame/barrel size, but also notes a change in controls/features instead of or in addition to. More the point here, the 'fine print' at the bottom clearly states - just as Commando posited - in the case of the 6904/6906 there's no '1' since they are already compact-sized by default; that number code being reserved for indicating a 'compact' size for the other, larger, guns. As for the last code, yes, strictly-speaking for the 69x6 is it a gaff as the '3' code indeed denotes stain alloy frame and stainless slide on all other models, but as pointed out every company has their bit of arbitrariness. Given that they only do this to maybe two or three guns out of their entire lineup (all but this one being very rare anyway), I don't see it as such a big deal myself. Besides, their point about consistency follows since they already used '69' for previous small double-stack 9mm autos (469/669) so they just carried on that logic and spread the '69' to its own 'series'. Makes sense to me. [[User:StanTheMan\|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan\|talk]]) 13:19, 19 September 2021 (EDT)

Commando552 at 17:08, 19 September 2021

2021-09-19T17:08:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:08, 19 September 2021
Line 30:		Line 30:
	:I'd disagree that it is incorrect, but it does appear odd at first glance. The reasoning for it is that the "0" means "standard" barrel length, and for the 6900s the standard length is 3.5". There is not model with a 4" barrel to be the basis for the standard "0" models, so the numbering goes off of the 3.5" being the norm for the 6900s. --[[User:Commando552\|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552\|talk]]) 18:10, 18 September 2021 (EDT)		:I'd disagree that it is incorrect, but it does appear odd at first glance. The reasoning for it is that the "0" means "standard" barrel length, and for the 6900s the standard length is 3.5". There is not model with a 4" barrel to be the basis for the standard "0" models, so the numbering goes off of the 3.5" being the norm for the 6900s. --[[User:Commando552\|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552\|talk]]) 18:10, 18 September 2021 (EDT)
	::Interesting thought! I bet you're right. The last digit would still be incorrect though, unless I'm missing something. --[[User:Votesmall\|Votesmall]] ([[User talk:Votesmall\|talk]]) 10:42, 19 September 2021 (EDT)		::Interesting thought! I bet you're right. The last digit would still be incorrect though, unless I'm missing something. --[[User:Votesmall\|Votesmall]] ([[User talk:Votesmall\|talk]]) 10:42, 19 September 2021 (EDT)
			:::Yeah, it is harder to justify the last digit. You could argue that the 6 on the final digit means "standard" frame and there is not version with a steel frame so the "standard" is alloy, but that makes less sense than the barrel length argument (especially as the 6904 is corret rather than being the 6905). S&W have been known to just make up designations that don't fit the formula, for example the 4040 makes no sense at all. --[[User:Commando552\|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552\|talk]]) 13:08, 19 September 2021 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:08, 19 September 2021
Line 30:		Line 30:
	:I'd disagree that it is incorrect, but it does appear odd at first glance. The reasoning for it is that the "0" means "standard" barrel length, and for the 6900s the standard length is 3.5". There is not model with a 4" barrel to be the basis for the standard "0" models, so the numbering goes off of the 3.5" being the norm for the 6900s. --[[User:Commando552\|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552\|talk]]) 18:10, 18 September 2021 (EDT)		:I'd disagree that it is incorrect, but it does appear odd at first glance. The reasoning for it is that the "0" means "standard" barrel length, and for the 6900s the standard length is 3.5". There is not model with a 4" barrel to be the basis for the standard "0" models, so the numbering goes off of the 3.5" being the norm for the 6900s. --[[User:Commando552\|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552\|talk]]) 18:10, 18 September 2021 (EDT)
	::Interesting thought! I bet you're right. The last digit would still be incorrect though, unless I'm missing something. --[[User:Votesmall\|Votesmall]] ([[User talk:Votesmall\|talk]]) 10:42, 19 September 2021 (EDT)		::Interesting thought! I bet you're right. The last digit would still be incorrect though, unless I'm missing something. --[[User:Votesmall\|Votesmall]] ([[User talk:Votesmall\|talk]]) 10:42, 19 September 2021 (EDT)
			:::Yeah, it is harder to justify the last digit. You could argue that the 6 on the final digit means "standard" frame and there is not version with a steel frame so the "standard" is alloy, but that makes less sense than the barrel length argument (especially as the 6904 is corret rather than being the 6905). S&W have been known to just make up designations that don't fit the formula, for example the 4040 makes no sense at all. --[[User:Commando552\|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552\|talk]]) 13:08, 19 September 2021 (EDT)