Victory data base

[anonymouscow]

I recently purchased this 5” 38 S&W, BSR / “pre-victory” mostly because it is a low serial number 685135, numbers match butt, cylinder, barrel, looks to have some wear before it was refinished.

Left side: Import mark - VEGA SAC CA

Bottom near trigger guard: Broad arrow

Right side:
D^D
FTR \ MA55
M
30
L

Right grip on bottom: “F”

——-

FTR = “Factory Thorough Repair”
MA55 = “Munitions Australia” Lithgow arms factory \ 1955
L = Lithgow inspection mark

The M and 30 Pate says it means percent, “believed to indicate a sampling method wherein a sample of some percent of a lot is given a detailed inspection in order to determine the acceptability of the entire lot” Page 111, similar marks in the photo examples. I am not sure exactly what he means by this, 30% of the lot have had a detailed inspection?

——-

I thought it was interesting because the early BSRs were 4 and 6 inches. I would think if it was a replacement barrel that it would have British, South African, or Canadian markings. Maybe it was just held back by Smith & Wesson and was part of the 8,000 Australian order on 4/1/1941?

 

[Absalom]

FTR = “Factory Thorough Repair”
MA55 = “Munitions Australia” Lithgow arms factory \ 1955
L = Lithgow inspection mark

The M and 30 Pate says it means percent, “believed to indicate a sampling method wherein a sample of some percent of a lot is given a detailed inspection in order to determine the acceptability of the entire lot” Page 111, similar marks in the photo examples. I am not sure exactly what he means by this, 30% of the lot have had a detailed inspection?

.....

The MA most likely stands for Mach Arms. And as far as the explanations of the other Australian stamps go, Pate's explanation on pg. 111 seems rather fanciful, and makes no sense to me. He doesn't source it either. Following Enfield's pattern, a simple inspector's code below the crown and a Lithgow L would be my guess.

If you look at the comparison below, there are also differences in the stamping pattern which I can't explain.

.....

I thought it was interesting because the early BSRs were 4 and 6 inches. I would think if it was a replacement barrel that it would have British, South African, or Canadian markings. Maybe it was just held back by Smith & Wesson and was part of the 8,000 Australian order on 4/1/1941
....

According to Pate's list, the first large contract for 5" barreled BSRs started in 10/1940, a bit late for your serial. Before that there was supposedly a contract for 65,000 5" M&Ps in .38 Special only. But Pate got the numbers from Skennerton, who's been shown to be wildly off on US revolver shipments before. It fits the general ballpark.

 

[anonymouscow]

The MA most likely stands for Mach Arms. And as far as the explanations of the other Australian stamps go, Pate's explanation on pg. 111 seems rather fanciful, and makes no sense to me. He doesn't source it either. Following Enfield's pattern, a simple inspector's code below the crown and a Lithgow L would be my guess.

If you look at the comparison below, there are also differences in the stamping pattern which I can't explain.

According to Pate's list, the first large contract for 5" barreled BSRs started in 10/1940, a bit late for your serial. Before that there was supposedly a contract for 65,000 5" M&Ps in .38 Special only. But Pate got the numbers from Skennerton, who's been shown to be wildly off on US revolver shipments before. It fits the general ballpark.

Thanks! I was getting “Munitions Australia” from Pate on page 110.

I am questioning the 65,000 5” 38 Specials on 5/28/1940 to Britain.

I know there were 38 Specials being shipped, and some were 5 inch (I have one), but I don’t think they were all 5 inches, or all, if any, shipped to Britain. Maybe the 65,000 is the total number of 38 specials shipped during the period in between the production of BSRs, those were the civilian ones and the ones for the USNCPC. 65,000 is just too large a number for there not to be a bunch of examples floating around (in my opinion).

 

[Absalom]

Thanks! I was getting “Munitions Australia” from Pate on page 110.

..... 65,000 is just too large a number for there not to be a bunch of examples floating around (in my opinion).

I did too. And then I got the “Mach Arms” from the curator at the Lithgow Factory Museum in an e-mail. It was Lithgow’s telex code. Better source

The actual ammunition factories in Australia (Lithgow made primarily guns, not ammo) all had an M code for Munitions Something. The oldest, at Footscray, was MF for Munitions Footscray. So I think way back somebody was trying to explain the MA on Lithgow guns and since it wasn’t ML they got creative fishing for another possible explanation. And then everybody in the literature copied that; before the internet, actually checking would have been too much work

And as for the large number, whenever I check Pate’s footnotes and see Skennerton as the source, I remember the supposedly 49,764 Colt Official Police 38/200 for the BPC, which I discovered upon having the Colt archivist check the ledgers, to have been only 18,252.

 

[anonymouscow]

I did too. And then I got the “Mach Arms” from the curator at the Lithgow Factory Museum in an e-mail. It was Lithgow’s telex code. Better source

The actual ammunition factories in Australia (Lithgow made primarily guns, not ammo) all had an M code for Munitions Something. The oldest, at Footscray, was MF for Munitions Footscray. So I think way back somebody was trying to explain the MA on Lithgow guns and since it wasn’t ML they got creative fishing for another possible explanation. And then everybody in the literature copied that; before the internet, actually checking would have been too much work

And as for the large number, whenever I check Pate’s footnotes and see Skennerton as the source, I remember the supposedly 49,764 Colt Official Police 38/200 for the BPC, which I discovered upon having the Colt archivist check the ledgers, to have been only 18,252.

Thanks for the additional information.

I did find it a little odd that 49,764 Official Police 38/200 revolvers were listed by Pate, but in his book they hardly even get a mention. I know information isn’t always available, but for that large of a number I would have expected there to be more than just a mention of them.

I don’t suppose you have any more information about the Official Police 38/200’s? I am mostly wondering if it’s known how many were shipped to the different commonwealth countries. I have seen a couple with Australian markings and was curious if it’s know how many were sent there.

 

[Absalom]

I don’t suppose you have any more information about the Official Police 38/200’s?...

I don’t. So far I haven’t managed to find a good one, unmodified, for a decent price. This isn’t the right place for discussing this further, but some have been shown here; you might do a forum search. I also know there have been threads over on the Colt Forum about them over the years. Consider joining and searching there.

 

[grendelbean]

Information for Database

Recently acquired another Victory Model - on G.B. as usual.
Serial Number V 352776. Marked on butt, cylinder, and bottom of barrel and behind ejector star.

Right side of barrel: 38 S&W SPECIAL Ctg

Finish is brushed (sandblaster) black - Probably refinished.

Detail markings on right side of grip frame: "S", "ES", "S", "4".

Detail markings on left side of grip frame: "X", "6".

Backstrap smooth, trigger grooved.

Left Top Strap Marked (shallow letters): U.S. PROPERTY G.H.D

Yoke and yoke frame: "6412" Bore excellent.

 

[Absalom]

Serial Number V 352776. Marked on butt, cylinder, and bottom of barrel and behind ejector star.
.........
Finish is brushed (sandblaster) black - Probably refinished.
.....

Mid-1943, maybe July.

The artificial light in the photos isn’t ideal, but I see no sign of a refinish. Surface texture and appearance, including the sharpness of the stampings, would make me consider this the original finish with reasonable certainty.

 

[grendelbean]

Thanks very much. I appreciate the input and the knowledge. Its just the finish looks so good for its age. I have read of the "Black Magic" and even the Carbonia finishes being kind of thin also. Again, thanks for your insight, I am learning more all the time on this forum.

 

[Absalom]

.... Its just the finish looks so good for its age. I have read of the "Black Magic" and even the Carbonia finishes being kind of thin also. ...

If the gun ended up on some stateside Navy base, it may not have seen much use and abuse or even just sat in some officer's desk drawer.

Victory refinishes tend to be fairly easy to spot. The Sandblast Black Magic actually looks distinctly different from a regular parkerizing-type phosphate finish, which post-war refinishes usually are; once you've looked at enough, you can tell most of the time. In addition, the property stamping on the topstrap is pretty shallow and delicate, so a very careful and thin no-buffing refinish would be required. The Australians figured out how to do it in the 1950s, but they only refinished British Service versions, and the result looks nothing like the original finish.

 

[grendelbean]

Pre-Victory - Model 1905, 4th change, M&P

Just received a very nice S&W Model 1905, 4th CHange M&P and a sure enough pre-victory model.

Serial No, 999245, on butt, cylinder, bottom of barrel, back of ejector star, and backside of right hand stock. (That's 755 revolvers prior to V1)

On yoke - 42551 and an "S"

On Yoke frame - 42551 and small "43"

Barrel marked S&W 38 Special Ctg

Stocks are smooth walnut with correct serial number inside right stock.

On the left grip frame at bottom - "1", "DBN" and "511" in 3/16" high letters.

On right grip frame "S", very small "4", "F", "G", "3", "." and on inside near top of backstrap two pricked dots ".."

Black very nice finish. I'll not try to guess which finish, but it ifeels kind of smooth and is well worn on the front and backstraps of the grip.

There are no government property markings on the revolver.

Finally is the post-factory (I think) marking on the left frame below the cylinder "US-AC-16528" Charles W. Pate pictures this mark in his great book U.S. Handguns of World War II - The Secondary Pistols and Revolvers. He felt this Defense Supplies Corporation contract revolver had this and others sent to the Ford Motor Co. (Automotive Center Security) by contract.
He shows a picture of a S&W with this same marking and cites having encountered a Colt Commando with the same marking.
Maybe someday someone will come up with some documentaion or proof about this marking. I would sure like to know.

"...999245 was shipped from the factory on July 7, 1942 and delivered to Ford Motor Co., Dearborn, MI. The records indicate this revolver was shipped with a 4 inch barrel, mid-night black finish, butt swivel and smooth walnut square butt grips. This shipment was for 12 units all in the same configuration."

 

[ordnanceguy]

Hello Grendelbean:

That is a nice pre-Victory. Thanks for posting the data and the pics. When I checked the Victory Model Database, as sometimes happens I found that your revolver was already in the Database. It appears to have been offered for sale by Rock Island Auction Company at its February, 2020 auction as part of Lot #5129.

Your revolver is one of four such pre-Victories in the Database with the enigmatic marking of US-AC-16528 on the left frame below the cylinder window. Two of the guns lettered as having been shipped to Ford Motor Company and one had the specific destination of Dearborn, Michigan which is where Ford had its World HQ. Those 2 guns shipped to Ford on July 7, 1942. My guess is that your revolver was likely part of the same shipment.

The US-AC-16528 marking was applied after leaving the factory. I would agree that it likely is a reference to the DSC contract under which these revolvers were supplied.

The DBN 511 marking is rather odd in its positioning on the grip frame. It is not a factory applied marking. It is likely a property marking, although most property markings are not concealed and, instead, are deliberately positioned to be readily visible. I do not know the precise meaning of the marking. However, my guess is that DBN is shorthand for Dearborn with the 511 the rack number applied to this particular gun.

If you chose to letter the gun I hope that you will circle back here with the details. It helps to improve the Victory Database.

 

[walkcubs]

New Victory Addition

Just picked up this very nice Victory model. Serial number V437601. Manufactured sometime in 1943.

Notice the "O" stamp on the left side near the grip. Any ideas???

 

[walkcubs]

USAC Stamp

In reference to Grendelbean's post, I have a Colt Commando with the same USAC marking. I never got a very good explanation about the stamp from the Colt Forum.

 

[grendelbean]

Many thanks for the feedback and ID on the gun. Most interesting that it was in an RIA auction so recently. I purchased in on Gun Broker from a dealer in North Dakota.
It is also very satisfying to connect the frame markings DBN 511 with Dearborn and thusly Ford. Thank you very much for that insight and knowledge. I have sent in a request for a Letter of Authentication to SWHF and will report back promptly and fully. Thank you again for the knowledge and better understanding.
This is what makes research and collections so satisfying. Best Regards.

 

[Texas Star]

Is that frame def. marked AC? I think the C may be an O. It may be an officer's serial number, perhaps self applied.??

It's probably a C, but looks enough like an imperfect O that I wonder.

 

[tenntex32]

Just picked up this very nice Victory model. Serial number V437601. Manufactured sometime in 1943.

Notice the "O" stamp on the left side near the grip. Any ideas???

It's a pin/stud that has a flattened end instead of a rounded end ya goober!

Dale

 

[Absalom]

Is that frame def. marked AC? I think the C may be an O. It may be an officer's serial number, perhaps self applied.??

It's probably a C, but looks enough like an imperfect O that I wonder.

Texas:

Since the US-AC-16528 is discussed in Pate’s book and as Charlie mentioned, appears on several guns in the database and also (see above) Colt Commandos, any individual explanation, such as an officer, can pretty much be excluded here.

 

[grendelbean]

Yep - it "US-AC-16528" for sure. Thanks for the interest. grendelbean

 

[walkcubs]

Thanx tenntex32

I feel like such a goober!!!