I have noticed a new listing (at least I hadn't seen it before) of a US Navy Victory. The seller is selling it as original finish in perfect condition, virtually unshot. I am including some pictures.
Having been both burned and warned, I like posting to keep learning.
This seems a bit too good to be true, to me it looks as if it might have been refinished.
On one Victory I bought, when I was still learning and making rookie mistakes, not that I still don't it was pointed out to me to check the sideplate fit. This one seems to be off at the base by the trigger guard. and there are gaps by the hammer.
It also just seems awfully clean. On the site there is a shot of the grips, which they say aren't the original grips, and they have no marks on the inside of oil or discoloration.
The ejector rod appears blued, but as I was told once before, all originals have blued ejector rods but not all blued ejector rods are original.

I wanted to get other people insights into this gun as to whether it is a claimed or not, so I can continue to learn.

I have several Victorys, but am by no means any kind of "expert". I find it very hard to believe that S&W would put out a revolver with such a lousy fitting side plate.
I'd certainly be wary of this one.

The side plate fit is pretty bad, even for an original war production unit. It would make me believe that the side plate is not original to that gun.

__________________
Richard Gillespie
FBINA 102

I have 5 Victory's (2 of them 38/200's) and the side plates all fit very well. One of them is an obvious refinish, being blue was a hint that as a newbie I didn't catch (ouch), and the edges are rounded. But by the trigger guard the fit very well, don't stick out.

I would look for another. Sideplate fit says "sumpins up" to me.

__________________
Pace

Hmmmmm I see that also.

Still an interesting piece.

__________________
YouJustCantSeeMeLaughingIsAll

I disagree. The "Black Magic" finish is extremely hard to duplicate perfecty and that has all the appearances of being authentic. Guns this clean ARE out there and come up periodically.

No one will disagree with that. And since the gun is retro-marked as having it's side-plate converted after production (see the cylinder stamps), the simplest conclusion is a non-original sideplate ended up being used to fit the hammer-block safety. That would also explain why a new, non-numbered set of grips was fit - the new sideplate didn't mate with the original grips perfectly.

It looks to me to be all original, just an example of how a gun can end up after the safety conversion during rush retrofitting work. I don't think it's got anything "fishy" about it by any stretch - it's just not the finest example.

Bsky B, makes a couple very good points.
This is why I ask these questions, even if I can't afford to buy the gun, I can still learn from it. The more questions I ask the more I learn.
I would love to see Roy weigh in on this.

I'm not buying it. Color on hammer and trigger are way too new looking. I don't like the side plate at all and don't accept the explanation for it. I see no turn ring. No scratches on the hammer? Too perfect. Was this under grandmas pillow? Not.
DW

__________________
"NUTS"

Do you mean the "S" on the cylinder? Isn't that a marking for the hammer Safety block conversion? I am just guessing as I don't know enough about these.

What would they convert the side plate for, and from what to what?

As to the coloring and hammer - well, they do exist that way. I've got one in my drawer (Victory) with the case hardening still that vibrant. It's certainly not common. Also, you know have the reverse argument to make - if it were faked, then why not correct the side plate? Someone who can case-harden like that as well as perfectly restore and replicate the tool marks and Black Magic finish, they would overlook the sideplate? Really?

If someone has that talent and wants to fake it, why do it on a few hundred dollar Victory and not something a lot more precious?

Which necessitate removal and machining of the side plate. If something went wrong with that, or the plate was lost, or for some reason was unsuitable for the safety retro-fit, a new sieplate would have to be retro-fitted. So we know for a fact that the sideplate was removed for re-working at the factory. Any thoughtful commentary on the gun needs to incorporate this fact. To my mind, the fact we know the sideplate had been removed for re-work creates enough suspicion that another one could have been substituted that there's no reason to point at that and say "fake!" It's more likely, since other observable details match, it's just one of the occasional boo-boos or less-than-perfect products that go out the door of any factory, much less one that is operating on a war-basis.

Nobody knows the truth, but there are obvious and credible reasons the sideplate and grips left the factory this way. Were it not retro-fit marked, this theory would not be as compelling.

I own and have looked at quite few Victory models and I have never seen a sideplate as ill-fitting as that one, I would be wary.

__________________
John. SWCA #1586

The safety conversion of these Victory models required a remilling of the back of the sideplate to accomodate the new hammer block. In most cases the original sideplate was remilled and put back on the gun. My guess is that this sideplate is a replacement as the original was damaged during the remilling, and the safety conversion was not done by S&W but by a military arsenal, therefore the mismatch was acceptable to the miltary as the gun functioned OK. The fit is so bad that it almost makes me think an N frame sideplate was used instead of a K frame. The gun may have been refinished at the time. The factory would never have used a replacement sideplate that fit this poorly. The grips are replacement, probably at the time of the rework. To verify this, ask the seller ( a gun store) to tell you the numbers stamped on the back of the sideplate. They will be either no numbers, indicating use of a spare part sideplate, or the number will not match the assembly number shown on the frame under the yoke. (You have to look at the Gun Broker posting to see all the photos posted there) . Bottomline: The gun is overpriced for what it is, in my opinion, but it is reflective of a military style conversion of the new hammer block. Ed #15

I really appreciate all the info we are getting, I have learned quite a bit about the conversion process!

I am glad Ed jumped in to clarify the issue a bit. And contrary to what has been posted the "S" stamping on the rear of the cylinder does not indicate a hammer block update. I checked my Navy guns marked the "S" and they have the old style safety block and not the newer ones and the assembly numbers match inside the sideplate and frame. Perhaps Ed knows the meaning of the "S" on the cylinder.

__________________
John. SWCA #1586

Those Victory models with the new style hammer block had an "S" added to the serial number - either before or behind the "V". This was stamped on the butt of the revolver handle. The serial numbers then become either "SV" or "VS". Some also had a small "s" stamped on the sideplate. This is for those that were returned to the factory for the updated hammer block.

I am not aware of any markings on the cylinder to indicate what style of hammer block was used.

Hope this helps.

Steve

John, I have no clue what the S stamp on the back of the cylinder indicates, or whether it is a factory applied stamp or done by the arsenal. I probably does not mean the gun has the newer safety block, however, as the S stamp to indicate that would have been on the butt or sideplate, if the factory did the conversion. If a military arsenal did the work, anything is possible. The S that is stamped on the cylinder has small serifs at each end of the S, so it's not the style of S stamp used by the factory to indicate the conversion installation. Ed #15

One of my Navy Victories - SV793xxx has a small "S" on the upper portion of the sideplate and no "s" on the cylinder. The cylinder does have the letters "P" and "V" stamped on it however.

Regards,

Jerry

I took a look at the ad on GB. From the number of photographs posted, I would have to say the seller is not trying to hide anything.

I have been in contact with the seller. He is uninformed on Victory Models, so I sent him references on how to tell which safety block is in a S&W, and how to correctly remove the sideplate, etc. He thanked me, but whether he will post any more info. on GB is anybodies' guess. He already has a bid for more that the gun is worth. Ed #15