Number of "US Navy" marked S&W Victory Model Revolvers

[wwiiusa]

Can anyone tell me approximately how many "Navy" marked (top strap) Victorys were produced. I know that over 810,000 Victorys were producd by S&W.

Thanks,
wwiiusa

 

[Absalom]

The US NAVY stamping ended sometime in the spring of 1943 in the mid-V 200-thousands. DWalt likely can narrow that down further.

However, from that serial number you have to subtract the Lend-lease British Service models (the majority) and the unstamped US variants shipped on DSC and Maritime Commission contracts.

My copy of Pate’s book is currently out of reach. One can reconstruct the number of guns going to the Navy, but whether it is possible to ascertain how many shipped there before the stamping change to US PROPERTY I do not know.

 

[DWalt]

There were a few pre-Victory Navy stamped revolvers, and the Navy property stamping on Victories stopped around V267xxx, which was probably shipped around March 1943. The highest SN for a Navy-stamped gun I have listed is V267511. However I also list several Victories which were shown to have been shipped to the Navy having lower SNs but without a Navy stamp. Those may possibly be some which were supplied to the OSS via the U. S. Navy.

As previously mentioned, those Victories shipped to the British Commonwealth were probably made in somewhat greater numbers than those which went to the Navy by the time the Navy stamping ceased. And there were others with SNs below V 267xxx which went to the U. S. Maritime Commission and also to the Defense Supplies Corporation (DSC) without any property stamps. As a wild guess, I would say that there were fewer (and maybe far fewer) than 100,000 Victories and pre-Victories shipped to the Navy prior to early 1943. I somewhere saw a number of around 85,000 Navy-marked victories but I don't know the source or its reliability. One would need to go through wartime factory shipping records to establish a more precise figure. And that I cannot do.

 

[tenntex32]

I have a red-letter sideframe US NAVY marked pre-Victory example.
No topstrap markings and s/n in 985033. All matching including grips.

It has an engraving on the right side for "LB FOSTER" which is still a company that states "Today the company markets its products to businesses involved in transportation, construction, energy, utility, recreation and agriculture."

L.B. Foster Company History

I'll eventually contact them and discuss this revolver and possibly try to determine how many they might have received/purchased/used. Most likely purchased by them as surplus after WWII...…….?

This example begs the question...... approx. how many red-letter sideframe NAVY examples do collectors feel are out there, and what are the accepted earliest and latest serial numbers for them?

Just curious as to what collectors feel the rarity of the red-letter Navy examples actually is.

Thanks in advance, as I have several Navy marked Victory revolvers, only one of which is a (pre-Victory) red-letter sideframe marked example.

Dale

 

[Absalom]

I’ll be curious to hear what others think, but that “red letter” inscription does not give me good vibes.

The red color itself is definitely fresh or refreshed, but I have doubts about the inscription itself.

My default assumption would be that, based on your info, this was a DSC gun shipped to Foster which someone later tried to “value-enhance”.

 

[DWalt]

No one has yet come up with exactly where the Red Letter (and sometimes White Letter) Navy revolvers came from, i.e., where was the engraving performed (not by S&W). One problem is that anyone with access to an engraving machine and a can of red paint could easily duplicate it, and for that reason I would be suspicious. I wouldn't expect them to be in the V-series or have the U. S. NAVY topstrap stamp, but I do have on my list several Navies in the V-series which do have the red letters. The highest is SN V268xx.

 

[Absalom]

.... I wouldn't expect them to be in the V-series or have the U. S. NAVY topstrap stamp, but I do have on my list several in the V-series which do have the red letters. The highest is SN V268xx.

I think Pate documents a few double-stamped V-prefix examples, but has no explanation either.

This gun is indeed in the right serial range for the red letters. So it could be genuine, except the paint definitely is not. Foster could have gotten it post-war as the OP mentioned.

Ultimately, one would need to letter the gun. If it shipped to the Navy, it’s likely genuine, if to Foster or another DSC recipient, definitely not.

 

[DWalt]

My suspicion is that it could have been a DSC gun which could have been fraudulently converted into a Red Letter Navy. If a letter says it was a DSC gun, it would confirm that, or at least make its originality very doubtful.

 

[tenntex32]

My suspicion is that it could have been a DSC gun which could have been fraudulently converted into a Red Letter Navy. If a letter says it was a DSC gun, it would confirm that, or at least make its originality very doubtful.

I was hoping LB Foster was going to be a post WWII company, unfortunately they have a rather long history and either outcomes could be correct...….with regards to legit or not.

I did find a pre-Victory factory "somewhat" close to the red-letter example's s/n I posted about(982373)...……..and it did ship to the U.S. Navy. Obviously it means absolutely squat with regards to my example.

I guess I'll need to get it lettered to be absolutely certain. Has there been any concrete verifiable evidence of someone actually fraudulently marking Victory models as such? Just curious, as it seems guilty until proven otherwise with these.....and if so based on what known fake examples?

Dale

 

[tenntex32]

I’ll be curious to hear what others think, but that “red letter” inscription does not give me good vibes.

The red color itself is definitely fresh or refreshed, but I have doubts about the inscription itself.

My default assumption would be that, based on your info, this was a DSC gun shipped to Foster which someone later tried to “value-enhance”.

Please post pics as to why the inscription does not give you "good vibes".

Comparable pics of lettered pre-Victory examples if available, as I've looked at several similar marked examples found online and it doesn't seem unlike them at all.

Thank you very much,
Dale

 

[tenntex32]

Here's a red-letter Navy for sale on this website.

WTS “RED NAVY” VICTORY PRICE REDUCED

Thoughts? (Vibes?)

Dale

 

[tenntex32]

I think Pate documents a few double-stamped V-prefix examples, but has no explanation either.

This gun is indeed in the right serial range for the red letters. So it could be genuine, except the paint definitely is not. Foster could have gotten it post-war as the OP mentioned.

Ultimately, one would need to letter the gun. If it shipped to the Navy, it’s likely genuine, if to Foster or another DSC recipient, definitely not.

Have there been absolutely zero instances of a DSC gun being diverted to military use in a perceived time of need? Just curious as to if DSC records may have ever indicated such a thing ever happening.

Dale

 

[opoefc]

FWIW- I lived in San Diego during and after WW2 and saw many items from numerous tools, equipment & guns stamped with the "Red Navy" stamp, at gun shows, flea markets, garage sales, etc., as well as the equipment & dies to stamp the "Property of US Navy" sold as surplus material by the Government after the war. Later on, working in Law Enforcement, items recovered from various sources that could not prove legal ownership and were Navy property stamped, were returned to the Navy, which usually meant they were dropped overboard off the coast by the next ship to leave port. Ed

 

[ordnanceguy]

Has there been any concrete verifiable evidence of someone actually fraudulently marking Victory models as such? Dale

Hello Dale:

You won't know to a certainty if your revolver was USN shipped unless and until you get a letter from the S&W Historical Foundation. I recommend that you do so.

To answer the question you posed above about “concrete, verifiable evidence” I suppose that one would have to have either a confession from the faker or photographic evidence that the gun had no such markings at one time and then later showed up with such markings applied. Evidence of the former is highly unlikely. Evidence of the latter circumstance has, in fact, turned up on Victory Models. Whether it was a Red Navy gun or another desirable version escapes my memory at the moment. An FFL dealer in Southern California, out of the business now for some years, was implicated in that scheme.

There is some variability recognized in the details of the PROPERTY OF U.S. NAVY markings seen on genuine Navy shipped guns. Your revolver has its own anomaly seen on the left side of the letter U in that it extends slightly above and at an angle as compared to the right side of the U. Other variations noted in the markings on these guns can reveal them to be spurious. I won’t say what those are here to avoid helping fakers to improve their product.

On Red Navy Victories there are known examples with what appear to be illegitimate markings. A very quick look through the pre-Victory guns in the 980000 range in the Victory Model Database showed, for example, 9804XX with the red letter PROPERTY OF U.S. NAVY left frame marking. Factory historian Roy Jinks reported that this serial did not letter as having shipped to the Navy.

I’d say that’s pretty concrete evidence, unless one wants to engage in the endless and ultimately futile exercise of “couldn’t it have possibly shipped to XYZ non-military destination but ended up in the hands of the Navy?” Anything is possible, I suppose, but on this subject I prefer to go with the probabilities rather than speculative possibilities.

I will, however, speculate on this. I think your revolver is probably a legit US Navy shipped pre-Victory. It has a number of features that lead me to so conclude. I suspect that the right frame Foster marking was a post-war addition.

Nonetheless, I do urge you to get a SWHF letter as that is the gold standard on the question as to where your revolver shipped. If you do get the letter, I hope that you will post it here so that we can all benefit from the information it reveals. After all, we are all here to learn something.

Good luck. Hope this helps you.

 

[tenntex32]

Thank you Charlie.

I don't mind someone having issues with an items authenticity as long as they back it up with something tangible.

To just say it gives off "bad vibes"...……...well I guess I was hoping for a little more to go on there, facts wise.

Heck I can say that about every item in everybody's collection and then state it's "my bad vibes" opinion until otherwise proven wrong by a factory letter.

In fact I may start doing that...……….whether or not I know absolutely anything about what I'm talking about! (Said in jest)

This was an item I found at a local small town gunshow here in North Texas, a few years ago. The seller was asking $600 for it and I told him I would do my homework and get back to him. I researched known examples on the internet and also found it fell within a known U.S. Navy serial number range. Nothing about it's markings gave me any "bad vibes" from what I had seen research wise, so I purchased it for his asking price.

I don't think I'm hurt too badly, monetarily, either way, but doubtful I will be rushing out and getting all my S&W revolvers lettered anytime soon. May have to put this one at the head of the line if I ever decide to do so though.

Do we also consider all topstrap marked U.S. NAVY examples as "suspect" until a factory letter is in hand? All my topstrap NAVY marked examples fall in the "accepted" s/n range for them. (Below V270,000)

Dale

 

[ordnanceguy]

Thank you Charlie.

Do we also consider all topstrap marked U.S. NAVY examples as "suspect" until a factory letter is in hand? Dale

You are welcome, Dale.

The Victories which are marked U.S. NAVY on the left top strap have been faked, but I have never seen a good fake. There are a number of poor fakes out there which are easily detectable. That marking was a factory rollmark which I think makes it harder to fake. So, no, I don't consider the top strap marked Navy guns as a group particularly suspect unless the marking is execrable.

The so-called "Red Navy" guns are interesting and get a lot of collector attention. There are actually 3 variants: those with no left top strap markings; those with U.S. NAVY left top strap markings; and those with ð U.S. PROPERTY G.H.D. left top strap markings.

 

[Absalom]

...
I don't mind someone having issues with an items authenticity as long as they back it up with something tangible.

To just say it gives off "bad vibes"...……...well I guess I was hoping for a little more to go on there, facts wise.

Heck I can say that about every item in everybody's collection and then state it's "my bad vibes" opinion until otherwise proven wrong by a factory letter.
...

If you come someplace where people know what they are talking about, don’t get testy if you don’t like what you hear.

As the others have already explained, these are a fake risk (and have been faked) because a genuine red letter marking can increase the value up to double, and the faking isn’t hard to do.

As I also mentioned, the almost garish freshness of the paint is another warning sign. The paint on presumed originals, including the one you linked, hasn’t held up nearly to that level; attached some more typical specimen. Of course someone could have re-painted the original stamping. But this is not a gun I would buy without a letter confirming Navy shipment.

Have there been absolutely zero instances of a DSC gun being diverted to military use in a perceived time of need? Just curious as to if DSC records may have ever indicated such a thing ever happening.

The DSC did transfer some guns from its stores to the military early on; in fact, I have one in my collection.

But this did not happen after the guns were shipped to civilian buyers. The DSC guns were actually sold to their recipients, like defense contractors. So if Foster bought this gun in 1942 for its security guards, the most common reason, it became their property (which would explain the inscribed name) and was gone as far as the government was concerned.

If the gun letters to the Navy, meaning the inscription is highly likely authentic (although not the paint ), Foster would have bought it out of surplus post-war without any record we could access, other than indeed the company itself if you get lucky.

 

[tenntex32]

You are welcome, Dale.

The Victories which are marked U.S. NAVY on the left top strap have been faked, but I have never seen a good fake. There are a number of poor fakes out there which are easily detectable. That marking was a factory rollmark which I think makes it harder to fake. So, no, I don't consider the top strap marked Navy guns as a group particularly suspect unless the marking is execrable.

The so-called "Red Navy" guns are interesting and get a lot of collector attention. There are actually 3 variants: those with no left top strap markings; those with U.S. NAVY left top strap markings; and those with ð U.S. PROPERTY G.H.D. left top strap markings.

Which would you say of the three variants there are the least? Or are they all about equally hard to obtain?

I'll keep an eye out for the additional marked side marked examples, but to be honest just about every 4" Victory I see gets my inspection...…..especially if a U.S. NAVY marked variant at a decent price.

Dale

 

[blockislander]

The gun fore sale on this forum is my gun. For what it is worth, a shop near me had several Victory Model revolvers that came from the local police department. They were received directly from the US government some time ago to be used by small town police departments. One was a Red Navy Marked and has appeared on this forum in an earlier post. It is marked exactly like mine and in the same serial number range. That is pretty good evidence that some of these guns were marked by the Navy with red paint in my humble opinion.

 

[tenntex32]

If you come someplace where people know what they are talking about, don’t get testy if you don’t like what you hear.

As the others have already explained, these are a fake risk (and have been faked) because a genuine red letter marking can increase the value up to double, and the faking isn’t hard to do.

As I also mentioned, the almost garish freshness of the paint is another warning sign. The paint on presumed originals, including the one you linked, hasn’t held up nearly to that level; attached some more typical specimen. Of course someone could have re-painted the original stamping. But this is not a gun I would buy without a letter confirming Navy shipment.



The DSC did transfer some guns from its stores to the military early on; in fact, I have one in my collection.

But this did not happen after the guns were shipped to civilian buyers. The DSC guns were actually sold to their recipients, like defense contractors. So if Foster bought this gun in 1942 for its security guards, the most common reason, it became their property (which would explain the inscribed name) and was gone as far as the government was concerned.

If the gun letters to the Navy, meaning the inscription is highly likely authentic (although not the paint ), Foster would have bought it out of surplus post-war without any record we could access, other than indeed the company itself if you get lucky.

So I guess I need to scratch all that rascally red paint out...……on second thought I think I'll leave it just the way it came to me.

How exactly were you able to determine your DSC gun was transferred to the military? DSC records......or other such as markings, etc? (Assuming a factory letter would just show it going to DSC?)

I'll try to get an e-mail out to LB Foster just to see if it gains any traction with them. You never know, it might get the interest of the right person...……..just possibly. I'm really curious as to their available info whether I get a factory letter or not.

Now let's see that DSC military transfer gun!

Dale