I have read about these and seen photos of the S&W revolvers that were converted after the war, but had never seen one in person - until last weekend at a local gun show. The seller said he bought it twenty-some years ago and it has been sitting in his safe ever since. Based on it's condition, I believed him. At the last minute he decided to bring it to the show, and I'm glad he did! We worked out what I considered a fair price for both of us and brought her home. I didn't buy it for any type of collector's value, but for the uniqueness, history behind it, and what I consider to be very well done creative workmanship.

Can anyone tell me what this started out as (I believe a Victory model) and the year of manufacture?

Attached Images

	20210119_071442.jpg (100.1 KB, 371 views)
	20210119_071515.jpg (114.2 KB, 321 views)
	20210119_071527.jpg (70.5 KB, 320 views)
	20210119_071659.jpg (45.7 KB, 303 views)
	20210119_071740.jpg (53.0 KB, 336 views)

Well, congratulations! I can't tell you what it started as, although it likely was a .380 BSR. Serial puts it in 1943, I believe, but someone with better data will come along and pin it down for you. That's a nice looking conversion and I'm waiting to hear how it shoots.

__________________
Guy
SWHF #474 SWCA LM#2629

Saw one of those at a gun show a couple years ago. Interesting conversion and I was somewhat interested in it as a novelty but the $800 asking price seemed way too high to me. Let us know how it shoots.

Jeff
SWCA #1457

Well, that makes me feel great about the $380 I paid for it!
I can't shoot it just yet - it's is missing the rear sight blade and finding an original is impossible. It shouldn't be too difficult to fabricate one and will be a fun weekend project. There's enough photos out there that I have a good guideline for it.

So is the cylinder and barrel sleeved or replaced?

__________________
SWCA #3356, SWHF#611

The cylinder is sleeved (with a half-rim to prevent empties from jamming), but the barrel is replaced with one that PH made just for these conversions. I'm actually surprised that they didn't sleeve the barrel, since PH was well known for their Enfield .22 conversions, in which they sleeved the barrels.

Interesting find. And a good price. V 260069 is originally from spring 1943, likely around May.

The proofs on the left are clear, but your photo’s resolution does not permit reading the inscription on the barrel’s right side. What does it say there? Parker Hale usually marked their Victory conversions with a cartouche on the barrel attesting to that, which I do not see. See below.

Attached Images

B7FCFB47-22E0-43AA-B6FE-FDBBD85C9435.jpeg (13.7 KB, 568 views)

I wondered this too.

And the front sight doesn't look like any of the PH conversions I've previously seen (although those were all to 38 Special from the original 38/200), but that could be because of caliber and POA/POI shifts.

Interesting nonetheless, thanks for sharing it.

P-H had been building good guns for a long time before that one passed through their shop. I have never heard a negative word said about their quality. At $380, I would have been all over that gun like white on rice! I know purist collectors blanch and wail over any alteration to original configuration but this piece has more historical value, IMHO at least, than any but a pristine example preserved with Mongomery’s Fingerprint under the oil. Congratulations on a great find and I know you’ll enjoy it.

Froggie

PS Does the rear sight use opposing screws to retain and adjust the sight blade? That would indicate one step up in quality from the basic drift adjustable blade used for Bisley revolvers.

I agree that this is an odd one without the cartuche on the right side. This all that's stamped on the right side of the barrel. I wonder if it might be an early model, before they went to the expense of recessing that section.

As for the sight blade, it is indeed the type with screws on both sides, and adjustable for height as well.

Attached Images

	20210119_142512.jpg (58.5 KB, 127 views)
	20210119_155015.jpg (30.9 KB, 112 views)

Aha. These are Belgian proofs, and it becomes a chicken-egg question where this gun was built and first proofed, since the Birmingham proofs are also for .22 and thus post-conversion. But I suspect the barrel is Belgian.

Did you actually find Parker-Hale’s name anywhere on the gun or are you going by the seller’s word? P-H were not the only Birmingham gun makers to fabricate these conversions. P-H even sold their branded sights into the trade, and P-H marked front sights can be found on guns of other manufacturers.

Just when I thought I seen everything something different pops up. Surprise, surprise, surprise.........

The last time I was stumped and lost for words was when my LGS offered me a 38-44 I had no clue as to what it was. He wanted $800 for it. Of course I asked here about it after.

__________________
Plant garlic in the fall

I doubt it was a new barrel. That flat spot is where they ground off the original caliber marking. Sure it was sleeved.

__________________
No life story has happy end.

The seller did say it was a Parker Hale, which may have skewed my perception. I thought I saw a small PH stamp on it, but it turns out my ageing eyes tricked me once again. The half rim sleeves appear to be indicative of PH, and the rear sight looks like just like the ones in ad photos from back in the day. But the Belgian barrel has really thrown me off.

So I guess the question now is, what the heck did I buy???

Attached Images

	20210119_162802.jpg (50.1 KB, 84 views)
	20210119_162839.jpg (50.8 KB, 76 views)

It has to be a new (or at least different) barrel, because I can guarantee that V 260069 did not leave the factory with a 6“ barrel.

The barrel is definitely not sleeved nor original. Any idea who would have made the Belgian barrel?

The Belgians???

A Ruger rear sight may fit or could be modified to fit. George Dye on this forum usually has original pre war S&W rear sight blades that may fit also.

BTW, WAR EAGLE! Class of '77.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

I forgot to mention that I'm 99% sure the grips, with the crown medalion,
are PH.

Muley Gil - I'm a Yankee that finally made it South about 10 years ago. Definitely WAR EAGLE!

I had some time over the weekend so I decided to try my hand at making a rear sight blade for it. I'm not a machinist by any means, but I do wield a pretty mean Dremel. Not knowing what the height needed to be, I made a practice blade out of plastic, then used a laser boresighter to mark a spot about 25' away. After adjusting the base's elevation half way up, I eyeballed it and marked where the top of the blade should be.

I found some .032" shim stock that fit the slot perfectly, so I grabbed the Dremel, some files, and had at it. I put a pyramid shape on the lower section so the screws will hold it down and tight. It looks kind of tall from the rear, but it gives a perfect 6 o'clock hold on the laser. I just cold blued it for now. Next time I set up for a rust blue project I'll throw it in the mix. Hopefully the weather will clear up later this week so I can take it to the range and try it out.

It's not perfect, but I'm happy with it. Not bad for an old wood butcher, lol.

Attached Images

	20210123_103053.jpg (50.2 KB, 103 views)
	20210123_160629.jpg (47.3 KB, 105 views)
	20210123_160713.jpg (40.7 KB, 103 views)

Looks perfect to me. Great job!

__________________
Guy
SWHF #474 SWCA LM#2629

Foreign exchange controls meant dollar imports would be expensive. Belgian gunsmiths imitated most every popular US types in the 19th c. and imitating the P-H conversions later would be within their powers.

I think the simplest explanation is the likeliest:

The “Belgian barrel” may have been misdirection. To my knowledge European proofhouses did and do not proof handgun components as such. The Belgian proofs were applied when the gun was whole, or when the barrel was attached to another gun, but that’s unlikely.

Both the Birmingham proofs and the Belgian proofs are blued over; the gun was refinished at some point, so we have no way to establish where it was proofed first. This was more likely a Birmingham conversion by a gunmaker other than P-H that was later exported to Belgium than the reverse, which would be carrying coals to Newcastle.

And back in the 1950s or ‘60s, when this happened, Britain was not a C.I.P. member state, so there would have been no reciprocal recognition of proofs.

very interesting gun and work. the location of the front side is kind of odd. Could you show a picture of the recoil shield and the the hammer nose. I would love to see how they went from center fire to rim fire.

Absalom, your idea is certainly plausible and could be exactly what happened. It sure would be nice if this thing could talk and give us its story, instead of the little snippets of information.

Here are photos of the bushing and hammer. Very creative work!

Attached Images

	20210127_065934.jpg (30.9 KB, 69 views)
	20210127_070033.jpg (26.0 KB, 67 views)

I took it to the range yesterday, primarily to function test and to see how my sight blade worked out. I will say that it functioned flawlessly! I need to do some adjustments to the rear sight blade before I post any target pictures though. My guesstimate was a bit off, lol.

Can you show us a picture of the sight blade out of the sight body?

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

As requested, here's a pic of the blade that I made. Please note that this was before final dressing, so it looks a little crude in this photo, lol.

Attached Images

20210131_120753.jpg (20.1 KB, 52 views)

Good deal. That's the basic shape of a Ruger rear sight blade.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

Thanks for the photos. Reworked hammer nose and a new bushing installed. Interesting work and gun.

A better use of a Victory than chopping the barrel off so there was no lug and reaming to 38 special. IMHO

Yes it is, as well as a pre-war Smith and the old Micro sights. In fact, the sight base is reminiscent of the Micro as well.

I was finally able to get the ol' girl out to the range today to at least get it sighted in with the new blade. Started out high left, but I eventually got it dialed in. This was at 45' with a wrist rest. Not K-22 accuracy, but I'm happy with it. Minute of squirrel for sure.

Attached Images

20210305_115726.jpg (88.2 KB, 41 views)

My brother and fellow Forum member Louisiana Joe has one that he bought for less than $200.00 many years ago. We didn't know what it was at the time. We just shot it and it did shoot very well and accurate. His was formerly a .38/200 converted to .22 cal. It has the barrel and cylinder inserts and the right side of the barrel is ground down and marked Parker Hale. It shoot as well or better than any other .22 revolvers I've ever shot. My brother has always been mean to me and won't sell it to me.

Can't say I can blame him Charlie - I'm hanging on to this one too! I gave my son his grandfather's K-22 12 years ago for his 21st birthday and he won't let me have it back either.

Every man ought to have at least one good 22 revolver to shoot, and if you’re trying to talk father, son, brother, or complete stranger out of theirs... we’ll all I can say is good luck. If I had an “extra” 22, I might let it go (and actually have in the past as I “traded up”) but if it were the one I considered my own shooter, you’d better be ready for a struggle if you want to get it away from me!

“... from my cold, dead hands...”

Froggie

Very nice work and I think you got a great deal on that one!
When I saw the front sight I thought it looked like the location the Belgians like to place theirs. I have seen Belgian copies of .44 S&W Americans with the front sight similarly located. I don't know why you would not place it at the muzzle but I guess they had their reasons!
It shoots well- that makes it all the better!