| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:Smith & Wesson 6900 pistol series: Difference between revisions
Commando552 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Incorrect Names== | ==Incorrect Names== | ||
Didn't want to put this on the main page for this article, but I figured it might make a fun addition to the discussion page. I think it's kind of strange that every one of the 6900s seems to have an incorrect name. | Didn't want to put this on the main page for this article, but I figured it might make a fun addition to the discussion page. I think it's kind of strange that most every one of the 6900s seems to have an incorrect name. | ||
The S&W third gen names all come from numerical codes. It's astonishingly complex (so much so that S&W had to supply dealers with a "whiz wheel" that explained what they meant), so I'll try to explain. | The S&W third gen names all come from numerical codes. It's astonishingly complex (so much so that S&W had to supply dealers with a "whiz wheel" that explained what they meant), so I'll try to explain. | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
: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. [[User:Votesmall|Votesmall]] ([[User talk:Votesmall|talk]]) 10:42, 19 September 2021 (EDT) | |||
Revision as of 14:42, 19 September 2021
Incorrect Names
Didn't want to put this on the main page for this article, but I figured it might make a fun addition to the discussion page. I think it's kind of strange that most every one of the 6900s seems to have an incorrect name.
The S&W third gen names all come from numerical codes. It's astonishingly complex (so much so that S&W had to supply dealers with a "whiz wheel" that explained what they meant), so I'll try to explain.
The first two digits were used to designate the caliber and magazine size:
- 39 = single stack 9mm
- 59 = double stack 9mm
- 69 = double stack compact 9mm
The third digit was used to designate the frame size and action.
- 0 = full-sized double action/single action
- 1 = compact double action/single action
- 4 = full-size double action only
- 5 = compact double action only
And the fourth and final digit refers to the frame material and finish.
- 3 = aluminum alloy frame, all white
- 4 = alloy aluminum frame, all black
- 5 = alloy steel frame, all black
- 6 = stainless steel frame, all stainless
So if S&W followed their own rules, the 6904 would be the 6914, the 6906 would be the 6913 and the 6946 would be the 6953.
Just thought it would be fun to break it down.
- 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. --commando552 (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2021 (EDT)