...I search any information about an approximative date of fabrication ?
Two sorts of british markings. Does somebody have any information about the black finish and the strange markings ?
Sorry in advance for any grammar and vocabulary mistake in my post, english isn't my first language ! Militariaman
Hello Militariaman:
Welcome to the Forum. Your English and grammar are excellent as are your photos which are a big help in interpreting your revolver. From those I can tell you the following.
S&W did not typically record the date of manufacture of its firearms. Instead, it kept records of shipping dates from the factory. Your revolver likely shipped from the factory in the June-July, 1944 time frame. It was a Lend Lease gun.
The markings on the side plate of FTR and 53 indicate that your revolver underwent a post-war Factory Thorough Repair by the British military in 1953.
The odd black, paint-like finish you noted is known as "Suncorite" (sometimes spelled "Sunkorite"). It was a durable finish that was specified by the British military for use on many rebuilt firearms and accessories. It had some adverse environmental aspects so its use was eventually discontinued. The Suncorite finish on your revolver was almost certainly applied when it went through the FTR process in 1953.
The precise meaning of the S mark on the toe of the front grip strap is unknown to me. I can say that it is not a marking that is frequently observed on the Victory revolvers. S marks in other locations do have well known significance but I do not think that they are applicable to this mark in this particular location.
On the left frame aft of the cylinder latch the markings are rather hard to read but in that location appear to me to be a version of Broad Arrow /|\ over a Crown over a sideways E. This indicates that the revolver was British military property which had been inspected at the British arsenal at Enfield. That mark on your revolver is somewhat unusual for two reasons.
First, as a Lend Lease gun this revolver remained the property of the United States government and was only "lent" to the British. Thus, the presence of the Broad Arrow markings is contrary to terms under which the revolver was supplied to the British. This is a fine legal point that was undoubtedly ignored in the exigencies of a world war.
Second, this marking is not usually observed on revolvers that were shipped as late in the War as this one in mid-1944. Indeed, the use of this marking is most frequently observed on the revolvers that were direct purchases by the British in 1940-1941, not Lend Lease guns. The direct purchase guns were owned outright by the British and so it was right and proper that they be so marked.
You have a very interesting Victory. I hope that this information helps you to better understand its history.
Regards,
Charlie
!
