Is this a S&W Victory Model?

[lageologist]

I inherited this gun when my grandfather passed about 15 years ago. I've read many posts about victory models, and my gun doesn't seem to fit with the normal victory models.

Some specs:

Serial number is 842XXX with no V or SV in front of it. It looks like there used to be a lanyard attachment that is now plugged. The SN is also stamped forward of the lanyard attachment. The victory model pictures I've seen have it stamped behind it. There is a partial stamped letter on the butt too. It might be a P or B or maybe an H (see pics). The SNs match on all 3 places.

4" barrel that seems to have been shortened after-market. I think this because the front sight cuts off the words "Smith and Wesson" on the top of the barrel. The front sight was also shortened.

It was reamed for 38 special and has BNP stamps all over it.

It says made in USA and has caliber stamps for the UK.

The back of the frame in the handle has a P stamped on it.

The shortened barrel, lanyard loop hole, and original caliber suggests it was built to British specifications (5" barrel and 38-200 cartridge) and sent over during lend-lease.

Some questions:

Were the guns tested and stamped BNP only if they were reamed for 38 spl or did they test and proof all calibers that left military service? This could help me determine when the modifications took place.

What's up with the serial number? Is it a very late victory model or post war and they just didn't put the V there for some reason? Does it pre-date the practice of putting the V?

I've included some pictures. Please excuse the bad condition of the finish and the very ugly plastic grips. I plan on having it reblued at some point. My grandfather seems to have been the only person of that generation that didn't care about maintaining his stuff. Thank you all for any info on this gun.

 

[lageologist]

Some more pictures

 

[Texas Star]

I don't think any original U K guns had that combo of rough gray finish and four-inch barrels. I think the barrel was shortened. The guns with four and six-inch barrels all had commercial blue finishes and checkered walnut grips. They look like commercial M&P's, except for caliber and a lanyard ring. Ditto, naturally, for five-inch guns made at that time, 1940-early 1942.

I think some of the bad finish on the frame isn't tool marks, but pitting caused by rust and poor care. I think the gun has already been refinished, badly. I agree that a GOOD refinish is in order.
The gun has no real collector value as is, and it does have great sentimental value within your family.

Because the caliber wasn't changed, it 's possible that an armorer in the UK, India, or South Africa may have replaced the barrel, altering it from five-inch. That may have happened when the gun was switched from Army to police issue. Cops in those countries usually used four-inch barrels. And some had surplus Army guns as well as later commercial .38-200 examples, named Model 11 by S&W..

As this gun now takes .38 Special, although not British proofed for it, I suspect the work was done by a nameless American gunsmith.

 

[ABPOS]

I like it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you posted this one over at ARfcom and this is the one I did my first drawing of, eh?

My guess is someone modified it over here. After it was re-imported. Why would they need to over there? Unless someone was trying to pawn it off as an American Victory.

Obviously American Victories were 4" and they were parked. It looks to me like someone was trying to make it look like one. For whatever reason.

 

[Texas Star]

I like it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you posted this one over at ARfcom and this is the one I did my first drawing of, eh?

My guess is someone modified it over here. After it was re-imported. Why would they need to over there? Unless someone was trying to pawn it off as an American Victory.

Obviously American Victories were 4" and they were parked. It looks to me like someone was trying to make it look like one. For whatever reason.

READ MY POST. It has your answer as to why it may have been altered overseas!

 

[Absalom]

It was a pre-Victory British Service model from fall 1941. Thus no V yet. At that serial, it would still have had a commercial polished blue finish, so any present roughness is indeed from later degrading of the surface.

The barrel was cut, not replaced. Based on the position of the roll mark, it was a 5" barrel.

Since it was Birmingham-proofed for the original caliber per the barrel markings, it was converted here in the US.

This was very common to make these more attractive to US shooters.

 

[Absalom]

...
Some questions:

Were the guns tested and stamped BNP only if they were reamed for 38 spl or did they test and proof all calibers that left military service?.......

Proofing was required on all guns before they could be sold commercially if they only had military proofs, which were not considered sufficient.

On these .38 cal. guns, case length of the proof load is the key. Yours is stamped .767", that's the original .38 S&W. Special would be 1.15".

 

[OldChief]

From all I've read above, your revolver's cylinder was re-reamed for the .38 Special round. I take it you haven't shot it because if you had you would have noticed some bulging of the cases and not the best accuracy. That is because the .38 S&W round had a bullet with a larger circumference than the .38 Special round, I believe something like, .359" while the .38 Special is .357". The British insisted the revolvers being sent them be .38 S&W caliber with a bullet weighing 200 grains, and the cartridge was labeled the .38/200.

 

[Absalom]

....That is because the .38 S&W round had a bullet with a larger circumference than the .38 Special round, I believe something like, .359" while the .38 Special is .357". The British insisted the revolvers being sent them be .38 S&W caliber with a bullet weighing 200 grains, and the cartridge was labeled the .38/200.

A minor correction: The issue actually wasn't and isn't the bullet; especially with lead bullets, the difference in circumference factually does not matter, which is why nothing was done to the barrels. The issue is the case, which was longer and slightly narrower on the Special, so reaming could lengthen the chamber, but not narrow it down to fit the case snugly; only a small number of British conversions accomplished that by sleeving.

 

[ABPOS]

READ MY POST. It has your answer as to why it may have been altered overseas!

I probably missed something but I thought I did read it. All I could see was that you are thinking because it has British proof marks that that is evidence that it was modified over there? Am I understanding that correct?

My thinking was that there are British proof marks because it was a lend lease gun. And used over there. And I don't think the Brits reamed their guns for .38 special. At least not officially. I don't think.

But really I'm no expert. I'm only going by what I hear around here. So I should probably just let someone else with more knowledge answer. I'm sorry if i wasn't any help.

 

[ABPOS]

I stand corrected about them not being converted over there. I just read in another thread that one guy has one marked converted by Cogswell and Harrison in London or something like that. So I guess they did. LOL.

I don't think they did it while they were in the service, because I'm pretty sure the British didn't use .38 special but their own 38/200. But I could be wrong about that too. LOL.

 

[tenntex32]

I stand corrected about them not being converted over there. I just read in another thread that one guy has one marked converted by Cogswell and Harrison in London or something like that. So I guess they did. LOL.

I don't think they did it while they were in the service, because I'm pretty sure the British didn't use .38 special but their own 38/200. But I could be wrong about that too. LOL.

Here's a pic of a rather nice Cogswell and Harrison .38S&W to .38Special Victory conversion I used to own. It definitely was converted in London. If you enlarge the pic you can read the inscription on the left side.

Dale

 

[Absalom]

...
I don't think they did it while they were in the service, because I'm pretty sure the British didn't use .38 special but their own 38/200. But I could be wrong about that too. LOL.

Just as a reminder why I always add terms like "usually", "generally", "mostly", or "as far as we know" to any statement I make about S&W, especially wartime happenings:

At least according to Pate, the US did ship a few million rounds of .38 Special to Britain. That's not a lot, but they did use that caliber.

And there are actually some .38 Special M&Ps from the early war years, with British markings, which were reamed to fit .38 S&W. These likely were transitional solutions before the regular pipeline of British Service models first to the BPC and then through Lend-lease was established.

 

[Jack Flash]

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of non-British-standard ammunition was sent over to England after the evacuation of Dunkirk.

They were desperate for anything that would shoot, and of course the ammunition to match. A few years back I saw a letter to the American NRA from a British citizen who possessed a Winchester 30-30 he had obtained during the war. It had been donated by some nameless American per the appeal shown below. I doubt 30-30 was widely available in England at the time.

 

[lageologist]

Thank you. That makes sense. I had read somewhere that the testing which resulted in the BNP stamp was to prove that the gun could handle the more powerful 38 spl. I now realize that is not correct.

 

[lageologist]

Thank you everyone for your input. I learned a lot. Of course, right after I posted this the site suggested the post by Dwalt about timelines for these guns. That was incredibly helpful. I was interested in when the gun was modified because I thought my Grandfather might have bought it in England. He was stationed there in the early 1950's. I now know that since the gun is stamped with .767 it must have left British military service with the original caliber. That certainly points to being modified for American markets by an unknown importer/dealer. I still think the piece is very cool for the unknown history behind it, especially since it was shipped fairly early in the lend lease deal. Who knows where it went and what it did during the war. That's the coolest part for me. It was probably just carried by an old man in the home guard or a police man, etc. But who knows? Maybe it went to North Africa, or was carried by a RAF pilot, or maybe it went along with the armies invading mainland Europe. I think it's really interesting to think about.

 

[ABPOS]

Well, I most definitely got schooled in this thread. I am going to start remembering I don't know squat. LOL. Well, I don't think that's completely true but I don't know why I would've assumed things about what the brits were using during the war.

I guess sometimes I feel like I know about WWII stuff because I have done a lot of reading and studying on the subject since my Grandpa died there. But you could probably spend your life studying the subject and still not know a lot.

Sorry guys.