Victory Models Marked "U.S.N. PROPERTY NOD. 1543"

[ordnanceguy]

Thank you, Speedo2. The information you provided seems to me to be the most convincing yet on the precise meaning of the NOD. 1543 marking.

I have not reviewed the entire gigantic contract document in the link provided by Speedo2. However, I was able to locate a provision which seems most pertinent here.



I would posit that the term "devices", as used in the contract under the subject of Special Plant Protection, can be interpreted to include small arms necessary for the "guarding and protection" of a facility vital to the national defense.

Just why it was thought necessary to engrave the property marking and the NOD reference on these revolvers is not known. The fact that some firefighting equipment, as referenced above, has similar markings suggests that this was not a random occurrence or one designed to mislead collectors.

One hesitation I have is that the original documents are dated December, 1940. There were several later amendments but none that I saw dated 1942. The 4 Victory Model revolvers in question were probably shipped from the factory in the June-July 1942 time frame, so that data point seems to be off just a bit.

Nonetheless, the evidence that Speedo2 has come up with is the most compelling I have seen yet on this issue. There is an old saying in medicine: When you hear hoofbeats, think horses not zebras. I think we should go with the probabilities here, forget about the zebras and conclude that the meaning of NOD. 1543 is a reference to the Navy shipbuilding contract with Seattle-Tacoma Shipbuilding Corporation.

 

[Mrnurse]

Could NOD represent NAVAL Ordnance District? 100% Correct... seen it on Savage shotgun.

 

[Absalom]

Could NOD represent NAVAL Ordnance District? 100% Correct... seen it on Savage shotgun.

Did you see Naval Ordnance District spelled out?

A search produces all kinds of three-word combinations starting with Naval Ordnance ———, like Bureau, Plant, Station, Laboratory, ....

But no District I've come across so far.

 

[glenwolde]

I found this in a thread of vise collectors.

 

[wheelgun28]

I have a customer that builds large items. Until sometime in the 1980s they would stamp or mark equipment purchased with the contract that they were bought under. So today things have a strange number on them. They still have various items from those days and you can see the tags with the old contract numbers.

I was told it was some accounting thing. Why it's not done now I don't know. Now things just get an asset number on them

 

[DCWilson]

In the federal paperwork, the "D" is printed in lower-case; NOd-1543. If you look around for similar contract identifications, you will find the NO, but the lower-case letter varies. I have found NOy-####, NObs-#### and so forth as contract designations. It looks to me as though the lower-case letters identify specific contracts (or, with the numerical portion, perhaps specific contractors) that can be grouped under the larger NO umbrella -- whatever that might mean. Naval Ordnance? Naval Operations? I suppose it could even be some DC Appropriations code that only accidentally uses letters that remind us of the agency or function that the expenditure will serve.

Here's a link to a page that uses the NOy and NObs contract variants:

U.S. Naval Activities, World War II, by State [QWashington]

 

[handejector]

One hesitation I have is that the original documents are dated December, 1940. There were several later amendments but none that I saw dated 1942. The 4 Victory Model revolvers in question were probably shipped from the factory in the June-July 1942 time frame, so that data point seems to be off just a bit.

Charlie,
I only gave part of it a quick look, but note the first printed page at that link says-

and page 1141-

 

[Absalom]

Regarding the 1941 and 1942 dates pointed out by Lee, I think they relate to the context in which the documents containing the NOd 1543 reference were published. That seems to be the work of a later committee studying those contracts to reduce federal expenditures, so we can't tie those to anything in the 1940 Navy contract itself.

......

Although the assumption is that these guns were shipped to the US Navy, none of the four had factory letter data and, thus, it cannot be said for certain that any or all were, in fact, Navy shipments.

... In particular, I would like to see if any of these 4 revolvers have factory or SWHF letters proving shipment to a Navy destination and where that destination was located.

I think if we really want to get a bit further, we need to take action on this.

We don't need an actual letter with all the trimmings, but maybe for a donation to the SWHF we can get Roy to look up the numbers and confirm for us that the 4 guns went to the Navy and if so, whether to the same location. I'd be willing to chip something in.

 

[cmansguns]

Some comments on the early Navy Victories

I had recently asked Roy on my US Navy relatively early S/N about requesting additional information from SWHF after I receive my Letter (recently sent for).

For those interested look in the SWCA Forum and the post was by kscharlie on 02-26-20 with the title "Questions about Historical Documents". My post #4 asked Roy about additional information beyond the Letter on the Navy. He responded in post #6 and what MAY be relevant to this NOD discussion could be his comment " The early Navy shipments MAY have the Naval address"

On this NOD marked Victory, it appears that the Factory did not do the engraving so there may be no record at all via S&W.

On the other hand I think Absalom has a great idea and I would be wiling to kick something in the kitty if others think it may result in something.

 

[DWalt]

In that same document about "Reduction of Non-essential Federal Expenditures" it is fairly clear that NOd-1543 is a supplemental contract which was awarded to the Seattle-Tacoma Shipbuilding Corporation, apparently to add shipyard facilities and equipment for building Destroyers. Could be that small arms for shipyard guards, etc, could have been included as government owned material incidentals under that same contract, and that such small arms were marked with the contract number. Proof of shipment to the S-T Shipbuilding Corp in Seattle might confirm that. But the small arms may well have been originally sent to the Navy, who in turn supplied them directly to the shipbuilding company as government-owned material.

 

[DCWilson]

We don't need an actual letter with all the trimmings, but maybe for a donation to the SWHF we can get Roy to look up the numbers and confirm for us that the 4 guns went to the Navy and if so, whether to the same location. I'd be willing to chip something in.

Great idea. I'm good for a hundred in service to that goal.

 

[oger]

My question was anyone have an idea what #73 is actually worth. The owners daughter is trying to price it.

 

[Absalom]

My question was anyone have an idea what #73 is actually worth. The owners daughter is trying to price it.

I think I told you

Since Charlie got the photos back up, we can make that a bit more precise. If I were selling it, I'd ask 450. If I were buying, I'd probably offer 350 and maybe go to 400 at most, provided the numbers including stocks all match.

 

[KHarms]

I have recently acquired V73 and will be ordering a letter for it. When I get it I'll post a copy of it. I'm curious about the marking.
Thanks!

 

[Wiregrassguy]

Welcome to the forums from the Wiregrass!

 

[opoefc]

NOD vs. NOd stamping/engraving merely means the machine doing the markings did not have a lower case capability. Ed

 

[DWalt]

NOD vs. NOd stamping/engraving merely means the machine doing the markings did not have a lower case capability. Ed

Exactly my thought some time ago. There may not have been lower-case fonts available for the engraving machine.

 

[Quiet 1]

I have recently acquired V73 and will be ordering a letter for it. When I get it I'll post a copy of it. I'm curious about the marking.Thanks!

Wow! That's a seriously low 'V' serial number. Welcome to the forum. We'll be looking forward to seeing it's "history". How 'bout a few photos in the meantime?

 

[Absalom]

... We'll be looking forward to seeing it's "history". How 'bout a few photos in the meantime?

You may have missed the fact that this thread discussed V 73 before. See photos in post #17

 

[Quiet 1]

You may have missed the fact that this thread discussed V 73 before. See photos in post #17

Oh boy. Color me embarrassed and chagrined. Yes, I totally missed that fact. Moreover, I must have totally missed this thread. I assumed this was the "other", long running, one.

So, thank you, Absalom, for diplomatically pointing out my faux pas. Now beginning with the OP I'm going to read the complete thread.

OK, I just finished reading this thread. Wow! This is a compendium of some outstanding "team" research. In my judgement you've (collectively) solved the mystery and the case can be closed. Kudos to all and thank you all for a very interesting and engaging thread.