M&P 38 (22 conversion) date of mfr?

[2152hq]

The 'C' w/ the Broadarrow on the butt is the Canadian Property marking.

Thos markings on the left side of the bbl & frame ring are the Birmingham Proof Hs proof markings that go along with the Birmingham Nitro Proof mark on the cylinder.

The Bbl markings are 1954/55 and on forward.
They give :
The caliber of course.
The case length (only) in inches.
The Service Pressure in English Tonnes/ sq-inch

Crown/BNP is Birmingham Proof Hs Nitro Proof.

Kind of interesting that the Proof markings are not inside Circles.
That is what was specified in Proof Law for firearms that were not of English mfg'r, and the guns proofing (or lack or it) in it's original country of mfg'r was not recognized in England.
Before 1954/55,,that point was simply made by stamping the firearm with a mark that said 'Not English Make'

Maybe the Circle stamps weren't close at hand that day at the Ol' Proof House!

"...Assuming the barrel markings point to a Belgian Mfr barrel?..."
Perhaps since the conversions were done in such large numbers, the bbl relining work was shuffled off to Belgium/Liege. The completed bbl proofed there before returning them to England.

When the completely assembled conversions were done they would have had to be proofed in England before going out on the commercial market. Even if they were destined for the surplus market in the USA.

Nice revolver..

 

[daveinseoul3160]

"...Assuming the barrel markings point to a Belgian Mfr barrel?..."
Perhaps since the conversions were done in such large numbers, the bbl relining work was shuffled off to Belgium/Liege. The completed bbl proofed there before returning them to England.'

Could another possibility be that the revolver converted then exported to Belgium and proofed again there? The barrel itself appears to be specifically manufactured (not relined) for this conversion.

The plot thickens......thanks for all your info.

 

[DWalt]

I don’t know if they were made in large numbers or not. I remember seeing only two of them - ever. And that was long ago. Others here may be able to provide more information regarding how unusual they may or may not be in the USA. I believe that any serious Victory collector would want a nice example in his collection.

 

[steelslaver]

I worked over a couple of the photos a a bit

You can see that the firing pin bushing has been replaced to work with the bent down hammer hose to fire rim fires

Interesting way to do the alignment pins out on the end of 2 arms. I suspect the 38 arms were machined of and a blank was soldered in place to make the extractor arms. The inert are probably made the od of the original 38-200 round then reamed to 22 lr.

 

[glowe]

Canadian gun is an interesting twist, given it supposedly went to England?? Maybe not? I am seeing a BNP on the frame, so is should have been proofed at some point in Britain. What is the Belgium stamp on this gun?

I have never seen a conversion where the front of the cylinder was shaved, not the rear??? The serial number still is visible on the cylinder between the inserts. Very ingenious. Gun would have been refinished since the barrel was stripped of original caliber and SMITH & WESSON stamps. Do the patent date still show on the top of the barrel? If not, perhaps a replacement barrel?? Muzzle picture please.

 

[daveinseoul3160]

Canadian gun is an interesting twist, given it supposedly went to England?? Maybe not? I am seeing a BNP on the frame, so is should have been proofed at some point in Britain. What is the Belgium stamp on this gun?

I have never seen a conversion where the front of the cylinder was shaved, not the rear??? The serial number still is visible on the cylinder between the inserts. Very ingenious. Gun would have been refinished since the barrel was stripped of original caliber and SMITH & WESSON stamps. Do the patent date still show on the top of the barrel? If not, perhaps a replacement barrel?? Muzzle picture please.

The developingtheory is that the revolver was shipped to the UK in support of the lend lease program as a BSR/pre-Victory in 38/200, THEN shipped at some point to Canada (based on the faint proofs on the butt). Post war, it potentially returned to England, where it was converted to .22 lr. The conversion consisted of modifying the original cylinder (chambers sleeved), refinishing and installing a new 6 1/4" .22 LR barrel that has UK proofs on the left side, and Belgian proofs on the right (no patent dates on top).....

THEN, the revolver somehow made its way back to the US via the surplus market (DWalt posted a 1960s era ad above). Fascinating....

 

[Muley Gil]

Nice, OP.

Those are the nicest faux stag grips I’ve seen, fwiw.

Those look like Jay Scott grips to me.

 

[Muley Gil]

The developingtheory is that the revolver was shipped to the UK in support of the lend lease program as a BSR/pre-Victory in 38/200, THEN shipped at some point to Canada (based on the faint proofs on the butt). Post war, it potentially returned to England, where it was converted to .22 lr. The conversion consisted of modifying the original cylinder (chambers sleeved), refinishing and installing a new 6 1/4" .22 LR barrel that has UK proofs on the left side, and Belgian proofs on the right (no patent dates on top).....

THEN, the revolver somehow made its way back to the US via the surplus market (DWalt posted a 1960s era ad above). Fascinating....

I have read here that the Lend-Lease guns were produced later. This revolver would have been built for and paid for by the Brits prior to the Lend-Lease act being passed.

 

[Green Frog]

I have a nice shooter grade 1948 vintage K-22 that is probably my most used revolver, buuuuttt… given the opportunity to own an example like the one that inspired this thread to use as my going to the range companion (at a reasonable price, of course) my old friend would very likely find itself back in the safe. That conversion just looks like it would be too much fun! I’m thoroughly enjoying the discussion of the history of these neat old guns and the processes involved in their rebirth.

Froggie

 

[daveinseoul3160]

Those look like Jay Scott grips to me.

I just googled some pictures, and they are definitely Jay Scott (#20) grips. Nice catch, and thanks for the info!

 

[daveinseoul3160]

I have read here that the Lend-Lease guns were produced later. This revolver would have been built for and paid for by the Brits prior to the Lend-Lease act being passed.

Almost certainly true. As this revolver doesn't seem to have a US ordnance proof / Property of stamp, nor a V prefix, very likely it was shipped prior to Lend Lease Act revolvers. Even more interesting that it wears Canadian proofs as well....

 

[DWalt]

Lend-Lease revolver shipments to the British Commonwealth began in late 1941. They were stamped "UNITED STATES PROPERTY" on the topstrap. The earliest L-L BSR I have listed is SN 882422. I do not have a shipping date for that one, but it was certainly in late 1941. I have numerous other L-Ls listed which have serial numbers below 900000.

Note that the property stamping was shallow, and could have easily been polished off during refinishing. That is probably what happened to the OP's .22 conversion.

 

[daveinseoul3160]

This is a great thread, so much info out there....

I'm looking hard at the lack of US property markings, no V prefix, as well as the mysterious Canadian proofs on the Butt.

So, based on my research, Canada never received LL from the US during WW2 (in fact, Canada contributed to LL). Canada also purchased over 118,000 M&P revolvers from the US between 1939 and 1943. The M&P served as the primary handgun for the Canadian military through 1944, when it was phased out by the Inglis Hi-Power.

So.....IF this particular revolver was purchased by Canada (supported by the Canadian proof) vs procured through LL (No V prefix / No US Property mark)......how did it wind up with BNP proofs, a Belgian made barrel, and what is most certainly conversion work completed in the 1950s in England?

Not that any of this truly matters, it's just very interesting to me.....thoughts?

 

[2152hq]

The thought occured that the revolver may have traveled to Belgium after it had been converted & properly proofed in England.
Once in Belgium..perhaps the laws at the time (when??) were such that the Belgian Proof Laws required the gun to be re-proofed under their laws before it could be commercially sold.

Under present regulations today, that would not occure.
Both Belgiam and England are members of CIP,,the mostly European grouping of nations that recognize each others firearms proofing standards and firearms specs with regard to cartridge and bore sizes.

The USA has SAAMI,,,they have CIP.

I really don't know if in the past when this revolver was converted and English proofed for such work (Mid 1950's to maybe mid 1960's as a guess),,if around that time Belgium recognized English proofing or not.

If Belgium did,,then the only thing I can think of for the Belgian proof marks to be on the bbl would be for the Belgians doing relining work,,and likely en-masse for the Britts post war.

I doubt the USA surplus dealer/sellers would market these with magazine ads if they only had a few to sell.
The conversion work itself was 'busy work' for the English gun trade in the aftermath of the War. The US was hungry for surplus firearms of any kind.


If the converted revolver was in it's complete state and then re-proofed as required under Belgian Law at somepoint,,the frame and cylinder would also show proper Belgian proof marks as well.,,not just the bbl alone having Belgian proof marks.

JMThoughts

..FWIW I did find an old thread on the forum from a few yrs back about another Victory .22 conversion. Entry#9 mentioned the bbl having Belgian proof marks on it. But no pics remained of the revolver.
British Victory model 22LR conversion ?