Not true. Your post-Reformation reduced canon of Scripture only has 39 OT books, but this is not the Church's original canon. The original OT canon of the Church was the Septuagint, which contains books Protestants have expunged. Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox all have more OT books than Protestants and always have had, so part of your defence of sola scriptura (likewise a Reformation era doctrine - nobody prior to the protests against Rome holding to it) would have to be why, based on Scripture alone, these books were removed. You'd also have to explain, using Scripture alone, why you have the books of the NT you have (I can answer this, but it won't be based on Scripture alone) and why you didn't eventually remove certain other books that the Reformers thought spurious, such as the Epistle of James that Luther so hated, and why you never thought to add certain books that historically were (and in some cases still are - the Ethiopian Orthodox NT is larger, for instance) part of at least some historical Christian canons. Until you can define exactly what is or is not Scripture coherently, I can't see how you can claim to base your faith on Scripture alone without the phrase becoming meaningless.
James