Victory data base

[jclinton46]

What an amazing resource! I discovered this forum after finding 38 Special ammo would not chamber in my revolver. I wondered why.

It is a Smith & Wesson, V 489572, matching serial number and "p" on frame, barrel, cylinder and inside grip (number only); Springfield Mass on the barrel; U S Property G. H. D on top; and smooth grips. It is tight. See pictures for condition, etc.

From what I have read this was probably shipped about December '43 - January '44 . It appears to be all original. My guess is a factory letter will add nothing to its value. Anything else you can tell me including an estimated value is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!

 

[jclinton46]

Thank you. Not being able to fully chamber a 38 Special round is what started my search. I later confirmed the cylinder had a shoulder at the right spot leading me to believe it was still original, not rebored. The jpeg was taken in open shade so that may affect the apparent color. To me the gun has a dull black tone but I would need to do a side-by-side to say it had not been blued. I can only guarantee it was not done in the last 50 years.

 

[LOBO]

.38 special, 4"

 

[Mike in Wis.]

... Serial number is V495759, it has no US Property markings on the top strap or GHD. It is marked .38 Special and has a 4" barrel. It does display several ordnance bomb stamps and a couple P proofs on the cylinder and frame. All numbers match where and what they should and it still has about 90% original finish. The rear of the grip frame is hand engraved USMC #55. I assume this is likely the US Maritime Commission.

I received my S&W LOA yesterday and it answered many of my questions and created a few more. Attached is a scan of the Letter... Shipped from S&W on Jan 18, 1944 as part of a DSC contract to Bethlehem Shipbuilding Supply Depot, Alameda,CA. The specific order was for 100 revolvers. I actually had an opportunity to briefly discuss this revolver with Roy Jinks. He informed me that a 100 revolver order to a specific purchaser from a DSC contract is odd in that it was very large order, most were quantities of 5 - 15. In addition, some revolvers shipped for the US Marine Commission were direct USMC contracts delivered to their warehouses ... some via DSC contracts, shipped direct to Maritime Commission controlled entities like this one. No idea what the USMC #55 marking is... had it been placed there to track who was issued the weapon, why not just a serial number ? Maybe something as simple as a badge number, ship hull number, personal ID number for quick ID... and why such a large revolver order in 1944 by Bethlehem? Who really was the end user? We may never really know unless some Bethlehem or USMC records might shed some light on it. As Roy told me, S&W records only list the Government specifications, authorization for delivery and the initial delivery point of the weapons. Very interesting...

Regards all,

Mike

 

[lamarw]

Mike, How long did it take to receive your letter from the time of your request? Thanks~

 

[Mike in Wis.]

Sent for on March 9.... received reply in the mail August 3. Mr Jinks told me today there are over 900 requests in the queue as of today so I suspect the wait may be even longer. He does the best he can, he said telephone interruptions and the fact he's 80 years old are slowing him down.

 

[bplvr]

I have a chance to pick up a 2" Victory #5960074 .38 cal. for $700.00.
Very nice condition with perfect grips. It is not one of those cut down barrel jobs. Does this seem legit?,worth the price?

 

[ordnanceguy]

I have a chance to pick up a 2" Victory #5960074 .38 cal. for $700.00. Very nice condition with perfect grips. It is not one of those cut down barrel jobs. Does this seem legit?,worth the price?

Not if the serial number is 5960074 as you stated. That is not a Victory serial number. A correct, unmessed with, USGI 2 inch Victory would be worth multiples of the $700 price quoted to you.

Perhaps you could post a pic or two of this one? That would help us to help you.

 

[Waidmann]

An ugly old gun with a serial that caught my eye.

 

[Waidmann]

Resubmit photo

 

[Waidmann]

I can not capture the pictures: on the butt SV 811862, under the barrel V 811862 N. Unless I am mistaken this would be the highest SV serial observed per SCSW 3rd Ed.

 

[Absalom]

....... I actually had an opportunity to briefly discuss this revolver with Roy Jinks. He informed me that a 100 revolver order to a specific purchaser from a DSC contract is odd in that it was very large order, most were quantities of 5 - 15. In addition, some revolvers shipped for the US Marine Commission were direct USMC contracts delivered to their warehouses ... some via DSC contracts, shipped direct to Maritime Commission controlled entities like this one........ and why such a large revolver order in 1944 by Bethlehem? Who really was the end user? We may never really know unless some Bethlehem or USMC records might shed some light on it.....

There is really not much mystery here. Mr. Jinks may not be familiar with the scope and size of the Emergency Shipbuilding program during the war, and Bethlehem's Alameda Yard was one of the largest facilities in the country that was building and servicing ships in that program. Since Victorys were also used to stock the gun lockers of merchant ships engaged in war duty, 100 guns to the Alameda depot would be peanuts. I suspect there were more orders like that.

 

[kwill1911]

There is really not much mystery here. Mr. Jinks may not be familiar with the scope and size of the Emergency Shipbuilding program during the war, and Bethlehem's Alameda Yard was one of the largest facilities in the country that was building and servicing ships in that program. Since Victorys were also used to stock the gun lockers of merchant ships engaged in war duty, 100 guns to the Alameda depot would be peanuts. I suspect there were more orders like that.

Further to the point, there were at least 300 pre-Victory and Victory revolvers delivered to Bethlehem Steel. These shipments are well documented. Here is a document about another shipment:

 

[Mike in Wis.]

Correct you are... Bethlehem-Alameda had over 6200 employees and on facility housing. Big outfit... US Maritime Commission records indicate only 7 ships were built there from 1939-1945 under their programs. It was a major repair facility, I think that was it's main function during the War. It was also used as a repair dock for Navy ships.

I wonder if there is any repository that might have record of the purpose of the engraved number (U.S.M.C. #55) on the back strap. I think what may cause confusion is that many of the Victories delivered were shipped to the US Maritime Commission and their various supply depots. This one was shipped to Bethlehem Ship Building Company - Supply Depot in Alamedia.

 

[kwill1911]

I guess I'm not understanding the source of the confusion. The guns were "owned" by the U.S. Maritime Commission and so marked. They were on loan to the Bethlehem Steel employees (guards).

 

[Mike in Wis.]

This gun, and the other 99, were delivered by the DSC to Bethlehem Shipyard Inc. Supply Depot via an order placed with the DSC by Bethlehem Shipyard Almeda. Suggesting they were "owned" and ordered by Bethlehem.

Generally, other guns known to be "owned" by the USMC were delivered to various US Maritime Commission Supply Centers via a S&W contract with the US Maritime Commission, the USMC then sent them where they needed to go (ship, shipyard etc).

I just find it interesting the revolver is marked USMC, although it was not ordered by them, not delivered to them, nor was it part of a contract to USMC.

Maybe I'm over thinking all this... I'd have thought if the Maritime Commission was going to provide arms to Almeda, they would have ordered them as they had done in the past, not Bethlehem Shipbuilding. Of course, technically all shipyards were supervised by the Maritime Commission during the War.

 

[Absalom]

This gun, and the other 99, were delivered by the DSC to Bethlehem Shipyard Inc. Supply Depot via an order placed with the DSC by Bethlehem Shipyard Almeda. Suggesting they were "owned" and ordered by Bethlehem.
............
I just find it interesting the revolver is marked USMC, although it was not ordered by them, not delivered to them, nor was it part of a contract to USMC.

I think at some point one must also consider questioning the authenticity of the "USMC" marking. In your original post you describe it as "hand-engraved"; I don't know what you mean by that exactly, but it doesn't bode well. Below is another example; I snipped those pictures out of a very old thread in another gun form quite some time ago and don't remember the exact circumstances, but nobody there could figure out a definite answer, and suspicions went so far as to suggest someone wanted to fake a Marine Corps provenance.

 

[kwill1911]

This gun, and the other 99, were delivered by the DSC to Bethlehem Shipyard Inc. Supply Depot via an order placed with the DSC by Bethlehem Shipyard Almeda. Suggesting they were "owned" and ordered by Bethlehem.

Generally, other guns known to be "owned" by the USMC were delivered to various US Maritime Commission Supply Centers via a S&W contract with the US Maritime Commission, the USMC then sent them where they needed to go (ship, shipyard etc).

I just find it interesting the revolver is marked USMC, although it was not ordered by them, not delivered to them, nor was it part of a contract to USMC.

Maybe I'm over thinking all this... I'd have thought if the Maritime Commission was going to provide arms to Almeda, they would have ordered them as they had done in the past, not Bethlehem Shipbuilding. Of course, technically all shipyards were supervised by the Maritime Commission during the War.

The guns were never owned by Bethlehem Steel. The US Maritime Commission was responsible for mass production of merchant shipping while the War Production Board was accountable for assuring the the most effective prosecution of war procurement and production. Add to this the Defense Supplies Corporation, which was created to purchase and stockpile critical materials, including small arms for defense plant guards, various civilian police organizations and other non-military personnel. These entities tended to bump into each other. Also, the Maritime Commission provided arms for ships transferred under lend-lease. My guess is that, assuming the marking is authentic, the Maritime Commission marked them because ownership was supposed to revert to the U.S. I strongly recommend Charlie Pate's excellent book on U.S. Handguns of World War II. He goes into a lot of detail about these entities, contracts and procurement processes.

 

[Absalom]

The guns were never owned by Bethlehem Steel. The US Maritime Commission was responsible for mass production of merchant shipping...................
Also, the Maritime Commission provided arms for ships transferred under lend-lease. My guess is that, assuming the marking is authentic, the Maritime Commission marked them because ownership was supposed to revert to the U.S. ........

I don't have Pate's book (yet), and maybe he sheds light on this, but based on what I know so far, guns acquired under a DSC contract (like the one discussed here) were different from those acquired by the USMC. Compare the wording in Mike's letter with that for two other Victorys (apologies to the unknown donors) attached below. I think this clearly indicates these were two different types of contracts, so any categorical statement of who "owned" the guns seems problematic based on the available evidence.

 

[kwill1911]

As I understand it, there were only 3 possible entities that could buy small arms: Army, Navy or DSC. The U.S. Maritime Commission actually took delivery of handguns that were ordered and paid for by all three of these purchasing entities. (Remember that most of the Navy's Victory Models were bought by the Army.)

Guns for non-military purposes (law enforcement and defense plant guards) were bought by the DSC. That is the case with the Mike in Wis.' gun and is clearly confirmed by Roy's letter.

Guns intended for lend-lease were ordered/paid for by the Army. However, the Navy originally supplied small arms (through the U.S. Maritime Commission) for merchant vessels and some allied ships. That practice was stopped in 1943-44. Afterwards the Maritime Commission received guns from the Army.

But, again, Mike's gun is not mysterious as I see it: it was bought by the DSC and loaned to Bethlehem Steel. The Maritime Commission comes into the picture, if at all, because they were responsible for the production of merchant and lend-lease vessels.