S&W Victory with "bogus" USMC marking

[Honored]

I am a new member although I have been reading the forums for a number of years to learn. Please excuse my posting etiquette. I am looking to purchase a S&W Victory revolver. The seller clearly indicates the item is in worn condition with a refinish at some point and that the backstrap markings are likely bogus. I have also posted to the S&W forum for information.

 

Unable to attach all files due to size limit?

 

 

[Honored]

Until I can figure out photo upload to avoid size limits I provide the following information:

 

S&W Victory model

38 S&W special CTG

Clearly worn

S&W logo greatly worn

Victory serial number

No picture of top to verify US Property or other marking

Back strap has "bogus" "Property of U.S. Marine Corps" stamping

 

[Brian Keith]

Bogus markings kill collector value even more than a refinish. What is your intent with wanting a Victory? If you want a nice WW II collectable that will make your buddies go "WOW" Nice! This would not be it. If you want a Victory as a shooter or to carry at the next WW II reenactment and not be too concerned if something happened to it, then this might be worth a couple hundred bucks. I actually lost a Victory revolver at a re-enactment once, worse, it wasn't even mine! We did find it, but I was sweating bullets until then!

BKW

[silverplate]

If you want a Victory revolver at a decent price, with wartime finish and markings, they can usually be found on Gunbroker. I found my Navy-marked Victory there, and still search from time to time to see what's out there.

 

Original Victory revolvers were blued, and although the list of backstrap markings found in Pate's book "U.S. Handguns of WWII" is extensive, the markings you describe above are not included. Buyer beware!

 

Good luck with your search. It's a great WWII collectible that can still be found at a reasonable cost.

[thorin6]

I understand that most Victory Revolvers were parkerized. According to Pate, early ones (prior to March 1942) were either bright blue (prior to Dec 41) or sandblasted blue. After March 1942 they were "sandblasted "Black Magic"" i.e. parkerized.

[digi-shots]

I would definitely question this Victory... worn condition, possible refinish and markings that are said to be bogus. Limited photos.

 

Id keep looking.

[silverplate]

Sorry, my mistake. I mixed up original with early when I was referring to the finish, plus the finish in the photo of the butt didn't look right. I knew it should be darker.

[Navybean]

The finish in the second photo looks correct for a victory, can’t speak for the USMC markings.

[Charlie Flick]

Honored:

 

I pulled your photo of the back strap with the dubious Marine Corps marking off of the thread you started over at the S&W Forum. I am posting it here so that others can see what the marking looks like.

 

Regards,

Charlie Flick

 

[dalbert]

Charlie and I corresponded about an H&R Reising Model 165 Rifle today, and the subject of this S&W Victory revolver came up. The reason it came up was a Model 165 sold at auction recently that featured what appears to be the same markings and finish of the Victory revolver featured here. For those who may not know, I have an affinity for Reisings, particularly the .22 rifles, such as the Models 65, 165, 150, 151, and MC-58. The Marine Corps adopted the H&R Reising Model 65 as their M1 Garand training rifle in 1943, and repeated so in 1958 with the MC-58, again for the M1 Garand. They did not adopt the Models 165, 150, and 151, which were all branded as H&R's "Leatherneck" series of .22 rifles. Just to clarify, the USMC did not adopt any of the "Leatherneck" branded rifles.

 

I've been working on a book on Eugene Reising's Firearm Designs for several years now, and when I saw a Model 165 available at auction that featured similar USMC markings, and a unique serial number, I wanted to see it. I placed an auction bid that ended up being less than half of what the rifle sold for, which was about $1400. In placing the bid, I let my guard down a bit, based on the overall appearance of the USMC marked Model 165, and thought that just maybe, H&R gave the USMC a rifle or two to evaluate, or for some kind of special presentation. Based on the appearance of this S&W Victory revolver that Charlie pointed out, I am now convinced both were faked.

 

Here is a comparison of the markings and finish of the Victory, and the Model 165. Both firearms were refinished similarly.

 

 

I want to thank Charlie for remembering, and forwarding this post to me.

 

Happy New Year!

 

David Albert

[email protected]

[Brian Keith]

Great update! Thanks for adding the photo's. I could go on a rant about destroying artifacts with new/fake markings, but I suppose anybody reading this could also!

BKW