SV M&P - Note of interest

[JP@AK]

I was browsing through Charlie Pate's book this evening and found a footnote that might be of interest to this crowd.

Footnote 9 on page 129 (Chapter 7) says the following:
"Serial number SV811119 was a civilian revolver and was not shipped until 1946."

This is of interest because S811120 was the first revolver to get an S prefix with no V. According to Roy, that gun was produced on September 12, 1945, if I understood his note to me correctly. SV811119 was assembled on August 27, 1945 and shipped from the factory on March 1, 1946. If the assembly dates that I have in my database are accurate, it would appear that there was an assembly hiatus of about two weeks when the change-over took place.

Pate's footnote is especially interesting since SV811119 is currently owned by a member of this Forum. I will leave it to him to decide if he wants to identify himself. The whereabouts of S811120 is unknown to me. If someone here owns it or knows who owns it, I would appreciate hearing from that person.

 

[wheelgun28]

Thank you for all of your work in this area of interest. I also find this time period of production to be a curiosity.

One thing I cannot get my head around is the S811120 number. Its written as fact that this was the last SV number, but yet we have seen quite a few higher.

Is it that SV811119 was the last true Victory and the rest were then commercial Victories?

I never really got how this is lay out, then again I am kinda thick (just ask my wife)

 

[H Richard]

Would the change over be for the finish change from the parkerized finish to a blued finish?

 

[DWalt]

The SVs I have listed having SNs above SV811119 all show as shipping in early 1946, therefore likely civilian versions. Is it possible that SV811119 is the last military SV shipped? There are many things we don't know about SVs.

 

[JP@AK]

One thing I cannot get my head around is the S811120 number. Its written as fact that this was the last SV number, but yet we have seen quite a few higher.

Is it that SV811119 was the last true Victory and the rest were then commercial Victories?

No, I think you are misreading the facts. As Van Til wrote, there is no such thing as an uninterpreted fact.

1. S811120 is not the "last SV number." In fact, it wasn't an SV number, it was an S number. And there is plenty of documentation showing it was the first of them. That does not mean there weren't SV guns with higher numbers. In fact, we know that is not the case. All of which leads us to point #2.

2. I don't think anyone claims that SV811119 was the last anything. What we know is that it was marked SV and that the very next number in order was marked only with an S. But beyond that we know there was a transition period when revolvers were given SV and S numbers with no observable rhyme or reason as to which prefix they got. This petered out over time and the highest number I've been able to identify with the SV prefix is SV813132, and by the time you get that high, the SV prefix is extremely scarce.

3. Keep in mind that the term "commercial Victory" is a collector-invented term and has no real meaning in S&W history. There is nothing wrong with it per se, but the only thing it denotes is that the gun is in the Victory lineage but was shipped to the civilian market (that is, not to the military or the DSC). In that sense, the term would include every Victory-type revolver with a serial number higher than SV802722, since that is the highest numbered gun shipped to the Navy (it left the factory on August 13, 1945). Of course there were also "commercial" Victories with lower serial numbers that shipped to distributors and civilian law enforcement agencies, which appear to have been made even while S&W was still supplying the military, but were not shipped until after the war (March, 1946 or later).

I hope this helps you sort things out a little bit.

 

[JP@AK]

Would the change over be for the finish change from the parkerized finish to a blued finish?

That is a viable theory. Thanks.

However, I will note one technical matter in your suggestion: Parkerization was used only briefly, back in 1942. Its use was discontinued quickly because of patent issues. "Military Midnight Black" a phosphate process similar to Parkerizing replaced it.

Here is the sequence of finishes, as I understand it:
Carbonia blue
Black Magic
Parkerizing
Military Midnight Black

I believe that after August, 1942, virtually all Victory Models were finished using the Military Midnight Black. Bluing replaced it shortly after the war ended.

 

[DWalt]

It's always stated that "Parkerizing" was used by S&W for only a brief time (May 4 to May 9, 1942), as its use required payment of a royalty to the Parker Rustproofing Company which owned the patent rights. But it's never specifically stated exactly what S&W came up with to replace it. Undoubtedly it was some phosphate coating process chemically similar to Parkerizing which did not infringe on the Parker patents. I've never seen any explanation as to whether it was a process S&W developed in-house (which I feel is unlikely), or if it was another commercially-available phosphate process which did not require a royalty payment to the vendor. As phosphate coatings were in widespread use for all sorts of U. S. war material other than revolvers during WWII, it would be interesting to know just what S&W used instead of Parkerizing, and where it came from. The other question is why did S&W start off using the Parkerizing process in the first place if it knew up front it involved a royalty payment? The Hellstrom factory notes indicate that phosphate coatings were phased in during the period 5/22/42 to 8/16/42, so it is likely that both blued (Black Magic - Hellstrom is clear on that point) and phosphate-finished guns were being shipped during that period. Hellstrom also states that no Navy revolvers received the phosphate finish treatment during this period. Factory letters are seen calling the phosphate Victory finish as both Black Magic and Military Midnight Black. That is probably the result of errors made in factory recordkeeping entries. It is very clear that "Black Magic" refers only to hot oxide bluing, while "Military Midnight Black" is likely to have been the factory term used for phosphating.

 

[Absalom]

I have no experience at all in how to go about researching the existence of a patent. To me the term "Military Midnight Black" sounds almost like it was thought up by the marketing department. One would think that, if it was a proprietary process, there should be a patent application or patent to be found somewhere in S&W files. I don't know whether anyone has ever asked Roy about this.

 

[DWalt]

Phosphate finishing is one of those processes which is fairly flexible, depending upon what is included in the phosphate treatment solution. Salts of Iron, Manganese, and Zinc can be used, each producing slight differences in finish coloration and finish properties and requiring changes in application procedures. The end result is a coating of Iron Phosphate, Manganese Phosphate, or Zinc Phosphate on steel. Perhaps the Parker patent claims were written in such a way that they could be easily be defeated by a slight change in bath composition and application method, but I have never looked at the actual Parker patents. If S&W used another vendor's phosphating product (as I think is very likely), S&W would have had nothing to patent. Remember, S&W was in business to make guns, not to develop coating processes. Somebody at S&W probably just thought "Military Midnight Black" was a sexier handle than "Phosphate."

If you want more details on Parkerizing, go to Parker's website. They explain it fairly simply.

 

[wheelgun28]

Thank You!

No, I think you are misreading the facts. As Van Til wrote, there is no such thing as an uninterpreted fact.

1. S811120 is not the "last SV number." In fact, it wasn't an SV number, it was an S number. And there is plenty of documentation showing it was the first of them. That does not mean there weren't SV guns with higher numbers. In fact, we know that is not the case. All of which leads us to point #2.

2. I don't think anyone claims that SV811119 was the last anything. What we know is that it was marked SV and that the very next number in order was marked only with an S. But beyond that we know there was a transition period when revolvers were given SV and S numbers with no observable rhyme or reason as to which prefix they got. This petered out over time and the highest number I've been able to identify with the SV prefix is SV813132, and by the time you get that high, the SV prefix is extremely scarce.

3. Keep in mind that the term "commercial Victory" is a collector-invented term and has no real meaning in S&W history. There is nothing wrong with it per se, but the only thing it denotes is that the gun is in the Victory lineage but was shipped to the civilian market (that is, not to the military or the DSC). In that sense, the term would include every Victory-type revolver with a serial number higher than SV802722, since that is the highest numbered gun shipped to the Navy (it left the factory on August 13, 1945). Of course there were also "commercial" Victories with lower serial numbers that shipped to distributors and civilian law enforcement agencies, which appear to have been made even while S&W was still supplying the military, but were not shipped until after the war (March, 1946 or later).

I hope this helps you sort things out a little bit.

 

[trashy]

I have been reluctant to post, but maybe a few questions can be answered. As stated above, we know for a fact this is not the last "SV" prefix, only that S811120 was the first "S" prefix. How / why there were later "SV" numbers after S811120 is like other S&W questions, who knows?

Here's a couple pictures of SV811119, these are the only one's I currently have. I would be glad to take more if there's anything of interest anyone would like a better shot of. Also, I would be glad to answer any questions that I can pertaining to it. BUT, JP@AK & DWalt have forgotten more than I'll ever know of this era. As you can see it is all number matching , satin blue, long action with a 5" barrel.

Most the info I gathered on SV811119 came from JP@AK as I supplied the info he requested for his database. Thanks Jack.

 

[DWalt]

Wow, that's a nice one on all counts. Obviously the civilian version, and it has the rare pre-war Magna stocks. As to why there are overlaps between SV and S SNs, I have no idea. I can say only, as I have said before, there is a lot we do not know about the SV series. It should definitely be lettered, if you have not done so already.

 

[JP@AK]

Obviously the civilian version, and it has the rare pre-war Magna stocks.

The prewar Magna stocks are certainly hard to find. However, I think I would stop short of calling them "rare." They were made from the mid-1930s up to the beginning of the war (granted that is a relatively short time period). But my database shows that I have identified 31 SV and S numbered revolvers that shipped with this type of stocks on them. There are, no doubt, many more out there that I have not yet found. The lowest number on a postwar gun I have found wearing this style of stocks is SV769844 and the highest is S816276. All of them seem to have shipped in March, 1946 (there are a couple for which I still don't have ship dates).

What is interesting is that, mixed in with M&P revolvers shipping during this time period having this style of stocks, are guns shipping with the "new" postwar style. Many of these also shipped in March, 1946. It seems obvious to me that S&W was just using up a group of left-over prewar stocks and fitting them to postwar revolvers until they were all gone.

This evidence seems to set aside the documented statement from S&W (made in about 1941, if I recall correctly) that there were no more prewar stocks at the factory by that time. Apparently someone found some after the war!

Rodney
I can't recall if you told me that you've already lettered your revolver. If not, I agree with DWalt that you should do so. It is historically significant, in my opinion, and deserves a letter.

 

[stumper]

Not to hijack the thread but speaking of SVs, has anyone ever come across one with a number higher than SV813132?

 

[JP@AK]

I should add that between serial numbers SV769844 and S816276 are dozens of guns in my database for which I have no information on what style stocks they wore when leaving the factory. These now wear all manner of stocks that are incorrect for the period or not S&W stocks at all, so they are not helpful in determining the number of prewar and postwar style stocks issued at that time.

 

[JP@AK]

Not to hijack the thread but speaking of SVs, has anyone ever come across one with a number higher than SV813132?

Not a hijack in my opinion! I'd love to know the answer to that question myself.

 

[shawn mccarver]

It has been repeated over and over that there was no effort, in those days, to assemble numbered frames in numerical order. Wouldn't that explain why SV-numbered frames were assembled or shipped after the factory started assembling and shipping S-numbered frames? I am fairly certain that I have read that frames, once stamped, were placed in containers on top of frames previously stamped, and that assemblers simply drew frames from the top of the container, which explained why older numbers sometimes ship later, in some cases many years later, than newer frames.

 

[DWalt]

There is the VS(sic) 813414, but there is some doubt about its legitimacy. The real question is why would the SV prefix stop and then re-start, possibly several times. If frames were SN stamped prior to assembly, that does not make much sense. Seems like the guy who was stamping SNs on frames wouldn't have done that.

 

[JP@AK]

There is the VS(sic) 813414, but there is some doubt about its legitimacy.

Yes. Other than one anecdotal reference, no one seems to have ever seen this gun or verified its existence.

I list the serial number in my database, but in the notes box I wrote, "A mythical gun?"

I'd love it if this revolver actually showed up sometime. I don't think I will hold my breath.

 

[mikepriwer]

Its hard to know exactly what happened vis-a-vis serial numbering of the frames.
We do know that they were serial-numbered in batches, and we are reasonably sure, but
not absolutely certain that the guns within a batch were serial-numbered in order.

One of the 'things' I don't know, and perhaps is not known, is whether any frames were
ever serial-numbered initially as SV, particularly during early 1945. I tend to think there may not be any, or if so,
they would be very high-numbered guns. I think there was probably a large number
of frames that were serial-numbered as V, and then subsequently the S was added.
That would almost had to have been the case; otherwise, when the new hammer block
was implemented, they would have had to throw out a lot of frames; I doubt they would
have done this.

Its also possibly the case that, after the implementation of the new hammer block,
some guns may have been made up with the new block, but without adding the S to the
serial number. I don't know if this did happen, but it certainly seems plausible.

It is definitely the case that when a new batch of frames were serial numbered, they
were placed in the same containers that might have still contained frames from a
previous batch. This can be seen if one plots serial numbers vs shipping dates; it
looks like a saw-tooth pattern, instead of a nice continuously-sloping line. This is why
SV frames will appear earlier than one would expect, and why V frames will appear
later than one would expect.

Later, Mike Priwer