Rummaging through a friend's collection I found this .38 S&W CTG. revolver with "V" serial number, marked "U.S. PROPERTY G.H.D." along the left side of the top strap. All numbers match (I did not remove grips), there are no British proof marks or import marks. It will not chamber a .38 Special round. A 1944 Lend-Lease revolver, but not British, SA, or NZ. Perhaps it never left the USA and was sold as surplus, thus no foreign marks?

Attached Images

	PB160123.jpg (77.6 KB, 271 views)
	PB160124.jpg (77.5 KB, 297 views)
	PB160126.JPG (104.5 KB, 330 views)

__________________
Tom in AZ
Respect the Dingbat

I think it will be a Victory in .38 S&W. The .38 Spl. would chamber on the case mouth and not allow it to fully enter the chamber. Others with greater info will follow. George H Dury was the military inspector.

Regards

Bill

I think you called it as a lend/lease gun, and I'd think it was for the Brits. The absence of both the acceptance marks and the proof marks you would expect to see on a revolver that was cleared for the civilian market make me think it was in a crate that was set aside in the crush of wartime activity and never got marked.

I have an unaccepted .38/200 BSR that saw service as an Austrian Police weapon after WWII. Aside from the Austrian Police stamp on the frame knuckle, the only non-rollmarked stamps on the gun are a P on the cylinder and on the left side of the frame in front of the hammer.

The stocks and finish on your revolver look unmarred. Nice specimen!

__________________
David Wilson

Definitely a British spec Victory. Very late production (mid-1945, I'd estimate) so quite possibly your conjecture regarding its never being exported and then disposed of as surplus is correct.

__________________
SWCA #590
"Colligo ergo sum"

Tom, Get a factory letter for the gun and tell us where it was shipped, OK? Ed.

While it may never have left U.S. shores, we do have higher SNs in the database that did actually see use in U.K. service, so it may have made it over there and was brought back by a returning U.S. (or Canadian) serviceman. I would estimate it left the S&W factory in the first quarter of 1945. The plethora of markings (crown over BNP, .767" 3.5 TONS, etc.) so often found on British Service Revolvers were POST-war civilian proofs applied to satisfy British law in order for them to be sold as surplus in the late '50s/60s.

There's one other thing to consider, especially if you're on the fence about lettering the gun: I don't want to get your hopes up, but this SN does fall within the range of an order sent to the American OSS! Obviously, if a factory historical letter from Roy should confirm that possibility, it would considerably enhance its value. If it were mine, I'd gamble on the cost of the letter.

Good luck!

Steve

Given the later G.H.D. style marking I am not too surprised. One sees all sorts or marks and occassionally none on WWII era S&W revolvers.

Properly the Victory was never British property so it would not have gone through inspection/acceptance/military proof at Enfield (not saying there are not exceptions).

If it was not released to civilian commerce in the U.K. there would not be Birmingham or London civil proofs.

If it did not go to a Commonwealth country it would not have picked their markings.

I own a SA shipped 4" K-200 with no additional markings. I know of at least two 6" versions lettered to the British Purchasing Commission, again with only factory markings.

You can let your imagination run wild. The marks tell a story, the absence, not. I'll bet the simplest answer may be correct. They borrowed, it was not theirs to mark on, or sell commercially; but to return, which they did. Or, it never left.

I can not recall seeing a Victory that was run through the Enfield process and so marked. Returning to the original question can a Victory be considered a BSR K-200 or is it simply in that configuration?

It's a BSR, but possibly not issued by them. The configuration confirms the model, just not their martial use, which it may have seen, if only being stored in reserve, hence the fine condition.

Nice gun!

Bill-

Sorry: his last name was "Drury." Not "Dury." Probably just a typo?

Actually, not to be pedantic, but it was "Guy H. Drewry."

Steve