Hello:

I just picked up this revolver - I believe its a Lend Lease to Australia. It got a parkerized finish and United States Property on the top.

Any help is appreciated.

Chuck

Dropbox - Smith US Property

Couldn't get any of your images to open. If it chambered for .38 S&W (not .38 special) there is a better than fair chance it is a lend-lease pistol to Australia. Probably has a 5" barrel and smooth walnut grips. Likely has a V-prefix serial number. Many were later reamed out to take 38 special cartridges.

It was brought back to the US by Vega in Sacramento CA.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

It is a Pre-Victory British Service Model. It's stamped for Lend-lease, and it is a fairly early one at 880680, late 1941 probably.

The checkered wood stocks should be original at that serial; check for a matching serial inside the right panel. The Australians switched stocks around a lot, so even though the stocks are correct, they may be from a nearby serial.

With Lend-lease guns, it is impossible to tell whether it went directly to Australia or first to Britain. Both happened, but L-L guns were not marked in Britain, so no way to tell.

It had a blue finish originally; it was FTR'd (overhauled, "Factory Thorough Repair") at the Lithgow Small Arms Factory in New South Wales in 1953; that's where all the stamps on the right front frame are from. That's also where it got the "parkerized" finish.

As Muley said, VEGA of Sacramento re-imported them fairly late, sometime in the 1980s. That's why these usually escaped further modifications, like happened to earlier BSR imports in the 50s and 60s.

Below is my specimen, which emerged from the FTR looking pretty much like yours. It's a bit earlier, a pre-Lend-lease gun that shipped to the British Purchasing Commission. I know it went first to Britain because it has Enfield acceptance marks.

Attached Images

	IMG_3750.jpg (97.9 KB, 49 views)
	IMG_3751.jpg (61.0 KB, 53 views)
	IMG_3739.jpg (65.1 KB, 50 views)

PS: I may be learning something new here.

First, by the way, compliments on your photos. If everybody asking questions here presented those kinds of pictures, we'd save ourselves a lot of guesswork.

Looking at your close-up of the stamping, I may have to modify my opinion that Lend-lease guns were not marked. It appears that in contrast to my gun, where ALL stamps there were undoubtedly applied after the refinish and on top of the new finish, your picture clearly allows to distinguish between markings struck on top and some covered by the new finish. And that covered marking looks a lot like the Enfield acceptance, except with an L (for Lithgow?) instead of the sideways E for Enfield.

Maybe the Australians had an acceptance process like the British, and in contrast to the British, they applied it to L-L guns.

I've contacted the curator at the museum attached to the Lithgow factory, and she told me they have not come across any files relating to the S&W revolvers, including the FTR program. That's too bad.

Attached Images

Austr. BSR stamp 880680.jpg (54.5 KB, 50 views)

As said above, my compliments on the photos. They are the best I've ever seen on this Forum. If all posters used the same photo DropBox system, we would be able to quickly give clear and accurate comments on posted gun questions. Ed.

880680 indicates that it likely left S&W close to the end of 1941 (Nov-Dec). It is entirely possible, and even likely, that the UNITED STATES PROPERTY topstrap stamping (Lend-Lease) would have been used at that time. But it is probably among the earliest of the pre-Victories to have a property stamp. I list several having nearby SNs on either side of yours which also have the property stamping. It's very fortunate that the grips on it are correct. Excellent pictures.