Late WWII 38 Victory Model

[spag]

Just picked this up the other day for a very good price. Not sure on the exact date of the weapon. I believe it's a "lend lease". Here is what I have.

1. 5" Barrel stamped Smith & Wesson on one side, the other side is stamped 38 S&W CTG with two British Crowns an a NP stamping.
2. Top rail is stamped: US Property G.H.D.
3. "P" stamped for proof marking. Upper left side of the frame by Hammer.
4. Stamped just to the right above the trigger is: "Made in U.S.A." with "flaming bomb". Above this is stamped: Not English made.
5. Parkerized finish
6. Nice S&W logo
7. Nice smooth finished wooden grips with matching serial numbers to the pistol.
8. Military serial number:v735448
9. S&W serial numbers 95771 both side of frame.
10. Cylinder stamped with matching Military number.
11. Caliber 38 S&W

 

[spag]

More pictures

 

[spag]

Last of the pictures

 

[Absalom]

Indeed, you have a late-war British Service version of the Victory, from about December 1944, a Lend-Lease gun shipped to Britain.

It was surplused out relatively early, before 1955, as it shows Birmingham commercial proofs under the Rule of 1925, which were replaced by the Rule of 1955, most obviously the NOT ENGLISH MAKE under the cylinder.

The "military" serial is the S&W serial. The five-digit number from the frame-yoke area is just an assembly number.

The gun looks in good shape and all original. Have you checked whether the chambers have been bored out for .38 Special?

 

[spag]

No, the 38 special round will not fit. S&W 38 work perfect. I found some hard to find 38/200 but I'm sticking with the S&W 38/146 for now for shooting if I do so. I really enjoy displaying these WWII weapons more so than taking them out to shoot. What holster would be period correct for my revolver? I was thinking a M3 Pilots shoulder Holster would look nice? Absalom thanks for the feedback.

 

[JP@AK]

Parkerized finish

My colleague Absalom gave you great information, as he always does. I will just add that one thing of which we may be certain, it definitely was not Parkerized. There were not many of those and the serial number on this one is much too high for it to be one.

 

[spag]

My colleague Absalom gave you great information, as he always does. I will just add that one thing of which we may be certain, it definitely was not Parkerized. There were not many of those and the serial number on this one is much too high for it to be one.

I found this on the web.
Finish: Early sandblast blue, sandblast mid-night black (appears grayish black). And finally a parkerized finish. Hammer and Trigger are case hardened. Could mine be the grayish black?

 

[JP@AK]

I found this on the web

You just can't believe everything you read on the web.

There are those here who know much more about this than I do, but here is a quick-and-dirty explanation:

In about April 1942, dissatisfaction with the current finish led the company to switch to the Parkerizing process. However, the Parker Rust-Proof Company owned virtually all the U.S. patents on both the manganese and zinc Parkerizing processes, so because of royalty and patent issues, Parkerizing lasted only about a week in May, 1942. It was then replaced with a similar but different oxide process that was proprietary to the company.

 

[Absalom]

I found this on the web.
Finish: Early sandblast blue, sandblast mid-night black (appears grayish black). And finally a parkerized finish. Hammer and Trigger are case hardened. Could mine be the grayish black?

Your web find appears uninformed. The finish has been a matter of discussion among collectors for some time.

The problem is complicated by the fact that different terms were used over time for what likely is the same finish.

The emerging consensus is based on the now available documents:

There were a few changes in the first months of 1942 from the commercial polished blue to a less polished brush blue and the short experiment with actual parkerizing that Jack mentioned.

For the rest of the war until the end of production the finish was "Sandblast Black Magic". In company paperwork it's usually just referred to as "sandblast", and Black Magic was a black oxide metal finish patented by Hubbard-Hall (which they are still marketing today).

The latter is the correct name for your gun's original finish. The appearance is not that different from true parkerizing. Also many folks tend to use parkerizing as a generic term for any dull military-style finish, akin to the way we use kleenex for any tissue.

 

[JP@AK]

I think I read somewhere recently (either on this Forum or in the SWCA Journal) that only about 6,000 units were actually Parkerized during that brief period in May, 1942.

 

[spag]

Your web find appears uninformed. The finish has been a matter of discussion among collectors for some time.

The problem is complicated by the fact that different terms were used over time for what likely is the same finish.

The emerging consensus is based on the now available documents:

There were a few changes in the first months of 1942 from the commercial polished blue to a less polished brush blue and the short experiment with actual parkerizing that Jack mentioned.

For the rest of the war until the end of production the finish was "Sandblast Black Magic". In company paperwork it's usually just referred to as "sandblast", and Black Magic was a black oxide metal finish patented by Hubbard-Hall (which they are still marketing today).

The latter is the correct name for your gun's original finish. The appearance is not that different from true parkerizing. Also many folks tend to use parkerizing as a generic term for any dull military-style finish, akin to the way we use kleenex for any tissue.

This is why I decided to join this forum. You can really educate yourself on Military weapons. Thanks for all your help. Much appreciated.

 

[Absalom]

I think I read somewhere recently (either on this Forum or in the SWCA Journal) that only about 6,000 units were actually Parkerized during that brief period in May, 1942.

Jack:

The number was 2187 according to the Hellstrom notes that Ed posted in this very old thread:

Victory Model wartime changes

The A.R. Williams notes that Roy printed in the Journal a few years ago confirm this (probably because Hellstrom copied from Williams )

 

[JP@AK]

Jack:

The number was 2187 according to the Hellstrom notes

Thank you! I rather thought 6K was pretty high for 10 days of production! 2200 makes a lot more sense.

Love this Forum. Three cheers for Lee!