George,
A few things here, just for clarity.
1) I’ve always assumed serial numbers were applied (full on frame, serial less suffix, if any, on barrel and barrel extension).
2) This gun challenged my assumption. Either my assumption was wrong or this gun is an aberration.
3) I don’t have any preference as to which was done first, I’m just curious.
I posted to get other opinions, and in the hope someone might have primary source info that would settle the question. No luck so far on primary source info, but the thread is young – we’ll see what if anything crops up.
Opinions are running for serial number first, proof second. That’s fine by me.
That just leaves us with this aberrant gun, and the question of why it got its barrel extension SN after final proof. I haven’t seen a persuasive explanation of that just yet. And yes I saw Don’s comment the “ … left chamber number was added much later… “, but that just belabors the obvious (that the barrel extension was applied after proof) and don’t address the question of “why?”
Let’s remember that both military and Alphabet DWM commercial had the barrel extension serial number in the same place; on the left barrel extension flat. The only thing unusual about the barrel extension SN on this gun is it was struck over the existing commercial proof.
Which brings us full circle to the question, “why?” I look forward to reading the speculations.
Kyrie
|