While I was at a cop shop today picking up an AR I saw what I took to be a Model 10 in the case.

On closer examination, it was not only not a Model 10, it wasn't even a .38 Special.

It was a four inch, commercial blue, fish-hook hammer, no lanyard ring, .38 S&W. The barrel was marked ".38 S&W Ctg", and the cylinder was not bored out. There were no military markings at all. It was wearing obviously incorrect K frame targets (no diamond).

The bluing looked worn, but original. The trigger and hammer were color casehardened. I didn't take a picture or write down the serial number, but I'm pretty sure it was 22XXX.

As soon as I pointed out is wasn't a .38 Special, but a .38 S&W, the price dropped to $275.

I know I should have gotten it, but I was already committed to the AR and I wasn't sure about the configuration.

So what was this? I'm pretty sure it was a commercial original finish. I am absolutely sure it was a 4" barrel, and that there were no military markings at all. Maybe it is as common as a fence post, but I haven't run across one like it before.

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

It could have been a pre-Model 11 or Model 11, but in that case a five-digit serial with no prefix would make no sense (I know you know enough not to have overlooked a prefix). Any 4” early-war M&P in .38 S&W, like the South African contract guns, would have a six- digit serial. And S&W did not make any K-frame hand ejectors in that caliber in the early 1900s where a five-digit no-prefix 22-serial would place. I’m stumped, unless I’m overlooking something obvious.

I'm not sure at all on the SN. I know there was no prefix, and it started with 22. It could have been 22xxxx. It was definitely a pre-war long action.

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

Go back and take some photos, & post them with full serial number. I can't think of a K frame, with a ser. # beginning with "22" with no prefix, that would be in .38S&W cal., perhaps it was a J frame , with incorrect square butt stocks, like a Regulation Police ?
Ed.

Picking nits here, but it could have been an I-frame (no prewar J's), but we'd need Hondo44 to weigh in -- I don't know about those small-frame actions.

__________________
Wrangler of stray Chiefs
Bob

I was briefly thinking I-frame, too, but they are so tiny compared to the K-frame, the Regulation Police is the only 4” .38 and is a 5-shot, and I think the OP would have noticed since he looked close enough to determine that the chambers were not reamed. Also, on the RP, where the M&P says 38 S&W CTG it reads REGULATION POLICE, which I’d also think would have been noticed. So I’m not sure whether that is a viable suspect.

Definitely a 6 shot K frame.

Was there a “pre-Model 11”? If so, that is what this is.

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

They weren’t officially catalogued as far as I know, so I am not sure we even have actual numbers produced. However, one thing is certain: if it is, it either had a six-digit serial not starting with a 2, or you overlooked a prefix, as all were serialed within the regular M&P sequence.

There were some postwar non-model-marked .38 S&W M&Ps manufactured under contract for Commonwealth countries, or at least one of them. South Africa ordered a few batches of these up through the early '60s. Despite the ambiguities about the serial number, I agree that this has to be a pre-Model 11. Based on the hammer you describe, it should have a C prefix, in which case a five-numeral serial number might be correct and the gun would date to 1948 or 1949 (or later, of course, if it was sold from retained stock produced in a contract overrun). I found a reference to C271xxx in .38 S&W, shipped in 1954. This would necessarily be a five-screw Pre-11 if the chambering has not been misreported.

If it's not too much trouble, I would really like to see photos of this one and get full details on it. These postwar BSRs (if that's even a proper term since the British seem not to have ordered any of them) are interesting varieties for period collectors. No worries if time is limited or the shop is out of your way.

__________________
David Wilson

There is also this problem, which should preclude a C-prefix serial.

I think it's either for India or South Africa.

I sure missed the part about the long action, but I don't know how a long-action gun could incorporate the short-action sculpted/fishhook hammer without some kind of tuning or smithing. Maybe I am just under-informed about the possibility of that kind of modification.

I'm now considering that this could be some kind of put-together gun with BSR parts hung on an old M&P frame. Did you happen to notice if it had the four-line or one-line address block, or even no address block at all?

Did you read the serial number from the butt of the gun or was it written by the dealer on a hang tag?

I feel myself going all OCD about this gun. Maybe I need to take a walk and swear off coffee for the day.

__________________
David Wilson

Looking at it now. Serial is actually 685xxx. The other was from the crane and put on the tag. Took off the grips and found a plugged lanyard hole in the butt. Numbers on the barrel and cylinder match. No military markings at all. Not a fish hook hammer as I misremembered. Commercial blue.

Attached Images

10A490C1-E738-4BA2-A986-34CBD1726D85.jpg (58.9 KB, 186 views)

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

Just a pre-Victory BSR. SN indicates mid-1940 shipment. Grips are far newer (post-1969) targets. I'd buy it for $275, even lower if I could get them to back off a little more. .

A deal was struck, and I think I did ok even if it is just an early BSR.

I'll clean it up tomorrow and start the search for some correct stocks.

It has the usual dents and dings from a long life that somehow led it to a Cripple Creek, Colorado police evidence locker. The action is smooth and it locks up tight. I already reload for .38 S&W so it will see plenty of range time.

My other BSR (below) is the usual 5" variety, replete with British proof marks and stampings. This 4" one avoided all of that.

What would the correct grips be? Checkered service, with medallions? Or would it have already had the smooth ones?

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

At that time, correct grips would have been the wooden round-top style, checkered, with the small silver medallions, as used throughout the 1930s. Smooth grips were not used until early 1942.

I’d still be curious whether it is an original 4” barrel. Comparing the position of the barrel stampings with your 5” specimen should clear that up. If it is original, it’s an uncommon variant. The South Africans all got the U marks on the upper backstrap, really struck too deep to remove without a trace. I’ll have to check Pate to see whether he shows other 4” BSR orders in that time frame.

Nice gun, fine deal. Thanks for clearing up the uncertainties, and I wish you many years of safe and satisfactory shooting with it.

__________________
David Wilson

Its the original barrel length, I’m sure. I’ll post up some decent pics tomorrow.

I’d have never thought it was a BSR if it wasn’t for the plugged lanyard ring hole.

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

If the lanyard hole was plugged, is this gun possibly reblued?
I don't understand this hangup some here (and nowhere else I've been) have about all four-inch BSR's being sent to South Africa.

I think the Commonwealth got a mix of four, five, and six-inch barrels until about April, 1942, after which the dull finish, smooth grips and five-inch barrels became standard.

I read somewhere that British troops assigned Field Security duty preferred the four-inch barrels, as they often carried their guns in a coat pocket.

Not all six-inch barrels went to Canada, either. Nor were all Canadian BSR's six-inch. My brother once had a six-inch with only UK proof and property markings, no Canadian. And I've seen pics of Canadian troops with the usual five-inch barrels. And seen a photo of an Aussie cleaning his six-inch .38-200! A pic of a New Zealand machine gunner at Monte Casino had the five-inch. His holster flap was folded back, and the gun was an S&W, not a Webley or Enfield.

Peter showed us his five-inch carried by a South African warrant officer in a armored car regiment, a man named Bucke. He kept the gun and his daughter sold it in South Africa after her dad died. Kept it very well, too, judging from the photos.

If you've paid attention here, we've also seen the six-incher issued BY THE RAF to a South African pilot named Harry Hoffe. He kept that gun issued in North Africa while serving there attached to the RAF, and then in Burma, and kept it after the war. Said it was only fired in anger at a rat...

Harry's daughter or grand- daughter told us he died at about age 96, a few years ago. He flew both Hurricanes and Spitfires,and was shot down by a B-29 over Burma. He flew his Spitfire close to a B-29, wanting a better look at the new American bomber. The gunner evidently mistook his Spitfire MK VIII for a Tony (Ki-61 Hien) and opened fire! Harry had to bail out and was rescued from the jungle.

I thought his name might be Afrikaans/Dutch, but the grand-daughter (?) said he was of Irish descent.
He was in the SAAF, which had Army-like ranks, so he was a Major, not a Squadron Leader. He was just serving in the RAF as a "seconded" officer. But his revolver came from British stores. (Supplies.)

Brad-

Been thinking more. If your gun has that hole plugged and wasn't reblued after the war...Might it be released here after the war by S&W? They were plugging lanyard holes from wartime frames and making civilian guns. Maybe this was a leftover .38-200 that was surplus to a foreign order, so they sold it here. ??

Nothing else makes a lot of sense, as far as I can see.

Let us know how it shoots, and what your handload is. Can you get 180-200 grain bullets? Surely you know that Buffalo Bore makes a hot .38 S&W load. But its 125 grain bullet probably doesn't shoot to the sights.

Besides the two South African contracts, not all of whose guns actually ended up in South Africa, there is exactly one BPC contract listed in Pate’s chart, from 6/17/40, for 4,879 guns in .38/200 with 4” barrels.

Australia, Canada, and South Africa had their own contracts during the pre-Lend-Lease period, but of course in the course of the war these different streams of guns did not remain strictly separated; I myself have a BSR that first went into British service and later ended up with the Australians.

Now that is a maximum number; Pate seems to have based his chart on contracts, not actual deliveries. Just recently over at the Colt Forum, we determined with the help of the Colt archivist that of the 49,764 Colt OP 38/200s that Pate lists, Colt only ever shipped 18,252.

Unless there is a weird left-behind story like Texas Star suggests, I would think the gun is one of those 4,879. The serial fits in the general time frame. It either ended up elsewhere but Britain, or made it back here through other than regular surplus channels. The third alternative would be a refinish that removed any markings; I can’t tell from the photos; it looks like it might be refinished in the first picture, but not in the second.

Here it is, in all of its naked glory:





Barrel markings are centered.







The usual BSR hammer.



Plugged lanyard ring hole. The scratches are from me. It is very soft, most probably lead.



No signs of a refinish here. S&W logo is sharp, the screws are unbuggered, and the sideplate seams are appropriately modest.



Nothing to see here:



Or here:



Likewise bare of clues:



Numbers match:





So there you have it. I welcome all opinions.

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

Hot darn, yes. There is no doubt that is the original finish, and no markings were removed.

It is a standard Carbonia-blue pre-war M&P, due to the lanyard hole most likely made for an “official” contract, and due to the caliber very unlikely for an American recipient.

The gun also still has the B for blued finish on the barrel flat. That ended sometime soon thereafter in the 700-thousands, and never resumed.

I would letter that. Except for the refinish being off the table, my guesses from my previous post #22 still apply.

Were all the usual BSR hieroglyphics applied on the way back to the US, not on their arrival in the purchasing country? So this one either stayed here somehow, or came back in a duffle bag?

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

Those surplussed out by the British in the 1950s-60s got the proof stamps. Yours got here by extra-legal means.

As DWalt said, no British commercial proofs, no honorable discharge in Britain.

I also do not believe it shipped directly to Britain originally, because the pre-Victory BSR’s of the BPC period, until the start of Lend-lease shipments in late 1941, were initially inspected at the RSAF Enfield and so marked on the frame above the grip and with the crossed pennants in front of the cylinder. (See attached photos; this BSR has dull finish due to FTR)

Your gun has none of that either, nor the Canadian arrow-in-a-C, South African or NZ backstrap marks, or anything Australian. So that eliminates probabilities, although nothing is certain, some guns just slipped through.

Frustrating, but unless the letter tells you it shipped directly to the British governor of Bermuda or something, we may never be able to nail it down.

Attached Images

	48DD2BDD-EAFB-4C00-87ED-D6CD1058EDF4.jpg (45.9 KB, 49 views)
	C830CC26-521B-4326-8D4F-7E88508034B3.jpg (32.7 KB, 56 views)

Gentlemen, thanks one and all for a very interesting thread. All my very best to you all and I hope you all have a very Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays, Joe.

As expected, it shoots well.

I didn't have any .38 S&W reloaded, so I used Fiocchi lead round nose.



It shot low at 50 feet, the max length at the indoor range. I'm sure these were sighted for the slower 200 grain lead or 178 grain jacketed British load.

I've emailed the Sheriff's Office that sold it to the shop to see if they'll tell me how it came into their possession. It is probably from the evidence locker, but there is a very slim chance its been sitting in the armory for a few decades as a spare or a reserve officer gun. No answer yet, and I may never get one. Eventually I will letter it.

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

I know these aren't right, but they look better than the 1975 targets and they were only 50 bucks.



My son is getting me a historical letter for Christmas, so maybe the mystery of the unmarked 4" pre-Victory Cripple Creek British Service Revolver will be solved.

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

As the more learned members suggested, this revolver did indeed go to South Africa:



If only I knew how it came to be in an evidence locker in Cripple Creek, CO.

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

You have a cool historic firearm there congratulations . And your son giving you a letter for Christmas wow he's such a nice boy lol I gotta let my sons read this so they can give me better presents ,congratulations on tne gun and the son.Oh yea I almost forgot thanks for letting us know what the letter said.I like these old ex police and military revolvers just wish yours could talk bet ya it would have some interesting stories.

That is pretty cool. I’m not sure how unusual Souh African contract guns without any markings are. I took the liberty of alerting our member Peter in South Africa, our expert on these, to your new post, and hopefully he’ll comment.

This subject has been discussed here before! At the end of May 1940 South Africa agreed to let Britain have the first 4600 4" guns that were ready to be shipped to SA. This was after the guns had left the S&W factory, which is why a factory letter says that they were sent to SA.

Britain agreed to replace these guns in July and August. This must be the reason the BPC order for that Pate mentions was placed on the 17th June. However, they seem to have ordered an extra 279 guns for some reason.

The first S&W M&Ps actually delivered to South Africa were not received until August 1940. All M&Ps received by the Union Defence Force (UDF) were given a rack number and Arrow in U on the back strap. Well actually I have a Lend lease one without the Arrow in U; probably a tea break mistake by the armourer.

Source: South African UDF archives.

Peter

So the mystery continues, despite a letter.

Since my gun has neither British markings nor South African markings, I am at a loss.

Maybe it never left the States, or maybe its another tea-break special.

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

That continues to be the oddity. If it entered British service “officially” in that time period, it should have the Enfield acceptance marks. And the fact that it just coincidentally should also have missed the commercial proofing post-war? It might indeed come down to the gun having been “diverted” somewhere along the line, unprovable and unreconstructable, and never entered any official duty.

The diversion of the SA revolvers was on account of "the parachute menace" immediately following Dunkirk. Given the urgency (of an expected invasion) I doubt that Enfield inspection was seen as top priority! Other BPC purchases of the same period are found without inspection stamps.

We have discussed diversion before, and it is quite likely that this particular revolver was one such case.

Peter

On my list are three others with very close SNs which shipped that same day, two of which are identified as being South African.

We collectors definitely like to take these guns and tie them up into little bundles wrapped with red ribbons. There are numerous possibilities as to why any single gun does not fit into some specific shipped group. These guns were made by humans, shipped by humans, unloaded by humans, numbered or not by humans etc.

It is possible that this gun was grabbed by any number of folks that had access to it and it never followed its numbered group on the proposed historical journey.

Somebody named Wesson walked on the factory floor and saw this gun and said "wow that's a neat gun, maybe I'll have that one and give it to XXXXXX for his/her birthday." Again, I am not saying that is exactly what happened here but it is possible. We weren't there or anywhere during the life of this gun so there are a hundred possible scenarios as to how this gun came to be where it is today in its current configuration.

As I have said many times, "we just don't know what we don't know". As Roy has said many times, "if only these guns could talk."

__________________
James Redfield
LM #497

You’re absolutely correct. Probability-wise, it’s more the combination of neither pre- nor post-service markings that makes a scenario like laid out by James more likely.