UPDATE with letter: DSC Pre-Victory w/ US PROPERTY mark

[Absalom]

I recently acquired the pre-Victory #910507 pictured below. At $380 not a steal (I didn't find out until afterward I was bidding against another forum member), but interesting enough to be well worth adding to my collection. All-matching including the stocks.

This gun was produced in early 1942 just shortly after the smooth walnut stocks replaced the checkered medallion style. If I interpret DWalt's Pre-Victory/Victory Timeline correctly, the fact that this gun's utility finish is noticably different from my later Victorys is due to the Black Magic oxide finish being used at that time (in contrast to the later Midnight Black phosphate).

The interesting part about this gun are the stampings. As mentioned, the serial would place its production in early 1942, yet it bears the stampings of a 1943 or later gun. According to Pate, not until April 1943 was the U.S.PROPERTY stamping found on this gun applied to US Victory models; it also has the P proofs in the post-1943 locations (under barrel, side of frame, cylinder face). Col. Drewry's G.H.D. initials appear somewhat earlier, but Pate states V85,000 as the lowest-numbered S&W revolver so stamped.

Since the ordnance inspectors did their work at the S&W factory, I suspect the gun took a trip back to Springfield at some time during the war. It does not have the S, any re-work star or re-work date stamp.

The only other explanation would be that it was held back at the factory for over a year before shipping; that did happen, I have another Victory to prove it. So I really look forward to new letters being processed so I can find out the ship date.

 

[KEN L]

According to my database it most likely shipped Feb 1942.

 

[Hondo44]

Nice.

I agree it's likely a later shipper.

 

[two-bit cowboy]

Glad to see you've posted it here. You had the same questions/presumptions as me -- held back at the factory till at least late '43 for whatever reason. Cleaned up nicely! I'll look forward to seeing the ship date when you get your letter. This one certainly fits in the category of ones that make you go, "Hmmmmm."

 

[murphydog]

The serial number is in the Victory Model (WW II) format. It very likely left the factory in 1942 as noted above (with the serial number reading barrel to the right) and went back to the factory for a rebuild, with the then-current stampings applied at that time. Here is a thread with a similar situation:

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-hand-ejectors-1896-1961/428351-victory-6-a.html

 

[two-bit cowboy]

Thanks for that link, murphydog. It preceded the beginning of my tenure here. Most interesting and completely logical.

Would Roy's letter likely detail the return trip to the factory?

 

[murphydog]

Thanks for that link, murphydog. It preceded the beginning of my tenure here. Most interesting and completely logical.

Would Roy's letter likely detail the return trip to the factory?

You're welcome. Highly unlikely to letter with this refurbishment mentioned, and especially during WW II.

 

[Absalom]

The serial number is in the Victory Model (WW II) format. It very likely left the factory in 1942 as noted above (with the serial number reading barrel to the right) and went back to the factory for a rebuild, with the then-current stampings applied at that time. Here is a thread with a similar situation:

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-hand-ejectors-1896-1961/428351-victory-6-a.html

My gun does have the inverted V stamp underneath the barrel that puzzled everybody including me in the old thread linked by murphydog and wasn't able to be explained even by an expert like Charlie Flick. It may not even be a V; it's clearly not related to the serial and could be a steep pyramid without a base line .

 

[Hondo44]

Upside down stamped digits are not unheard of. It may be no more of a mystery than just that.

 

[Absalom]

Upside down stamped digits are not unheard of. It may be no more of a mystery than just that.

That's certainly true, but it wouldn't really solve the mystery of the meaning, upside down or right side up. It's clearly not a V-prefix, can't be for a 900-thousand serial, and to my (admittedly limited) knowledge we don't usually find assembly marks, other proofs and such on the flat of the ejector knob cut-out of other M&P iterations.

 

[murphydog]

Based on the two examples here, it could have been to mark the barrel as a replacement for a Victory Model prior to finishing. As in, don't spend too much time on the polishing...the factory was still servicing commercial guns during the war.

 

[Hondo44]

That's certainly true, but it wouldn't really solve the mystery of the meaning, upside down or right side up. It's clearly not a V-prefix, can't be for a 900-thousand serial, and to my (admittedly limited) knowledge we don't usually find assembly marks, other proofs and such on the flat of the ejector knob cut-out of other M&P iterations.

All excellent points!

 

[Absalom]

So here's the letter:

I received the letter on this pre-Victory today. Very speedy service, by the way; I mailed the request Monday last week.

For once the gun shipped when I would have expected it in late January 1942. The destination, however, came as a bit of a surprise in view of the full military inspection and U.S. PROPERTY marks: the Defense Supply Corporation. In addition, I haven't encountered a DSC gun shipped directly to the DSC yet, so it's neat to see one; especially early on, the DSC appears to have envisioned an active role as distributor of handguns to qualifying recipients, and ordered larger quantities of both the Victory and Colt Commando to be delivered to its own warehouses. This seems to have been streamlined rather quickly; most Victory models on the DSC contract letter as shipping directly to the end user, probably after the DSC approved the recipient as eligible and signed off on the order.

That leaves the question of the inspection and ordnance marks. Since these were applied by ordnance contractors at the factory, the gun must have gone back there after mid-1943, but before the S-conversion started. And it must have been sent back by a military entity, or it would not have received the military stamp treatment.

I think I've found the most likely explanation in Charles Pate's book. Take a look at the two quotes in pictures 2 and 3. The first one documents substantial numbers of DSC revolvers being transferred to military use in 1942. The second one, talking about factory-reworked guns, mentions four known early DSC guns with 1943-45 markings.

I believe I now have the fifth known one.

 

[DWalt]

Odd that the letter describes it as having the "Midnight Black" finish, which is phosphate. The Hellstrom notes make it clear that in early 1942, the finish used was still the hot oxide blue called "Black Magic." The first use of phosphate (Parkerizing) mentioned by Hellstrom indicates that it started in early May (May 4 to May 9) 1942, shortly after the V-series began.

 

[Absalom]

Odd that the letter describes it as having the "Midnight Black" finish, which is phosphate. The Hellstrom notes make it clear that in early 1942, the finish used was still the hot oxide blue called "Black Magic." The first use of phosphate (Parkerizing) mentioned by Hellstrom indicates that it started in early May (May 4 to May 9) 1942, shortly after the V-series began.

I agree, as I already mentioned in my original post. I perceive the finish as distinctly different from my later midnight-black Victorys in tone and texture. It does not come across really well in photographs, but below is 910507 (right) next to V626880. As you've speculated before, and supported by the intermittent use of the black magic term on much later guns, the factory records may not have used very precise nomenclature.

 

[kwill1911]

There was a war going on. Not only was the factory probably imprecise in using and recording the nomenclature, Hellstrom's notes were compiled ~10 years after the fact and have been shown to not be particularly accurate in a number of areas.

 

[Absalom]

There was a war going on. Not only was the factory probably imprecise in using and recording the nomenclature, Hellstrom's notes were compiled ~10 years after the fact and have been shown to not be particularly accurate in a number of areas.

I don't disagree with any of that, but it's not particularly helpful to solve this little puzzle here.

There is no question that this gun from January 1942 has a different finish than my later Victorys. I don't need Hellstrom to be particularly precise for that, whatever his shortcomings.

Pate also is clear on that. Both his model summaries for the BSR and the US Victory give the finish as "sandblast blue" from 12/41 to 3/42 and "sandblast 'Black Magic' (parkerized)" from 3/42 to the end of the war. Pate is not infallible, and his equating Black Magic with parkerizing may be problematic, but I don't think that there can be any doubt about a change in finish in spring of 1942.

It would be interesting to do a bit of research into the "(Military) Midnight Black" term, and whether that was made up at S&W or, like Parkerizing and possibly Black Magic, too, was developed elsewhere. Did S&W marketing leave a paper trail in the records? I've always wondered who at S&W thought they needed a funky name like that, especially since they were selling their whole production to a captive customer base. Besides, it's pretty misplaced; having owned one and seen quite a few unissued and as-new Victory specimen by now, the finish was more of a medium-to-dark grey and midnight black would not occur to me as a suitable label.

 

[DWalt]

I think I have mentioned previously that "Black Magic" was (and still is) a trademark of the Hubbard-Hall Company for a proprietary black oxide finishing process for steel and other metals. See: Hot Black Oxide Chemicals, Gun Blueing | Hubbard Hall