Stevens Bayonet Adapters With A Matte Finish

[Ironlip]

Recently I acquired a Stevens Model 520-30 trench gun. It's a late one (SN 69190) and in great shape. The bayonet adapter has an finish that is not typical. While it is the correct Stevens pinkish purple hue, it is not shiny. The adapter and the first four inches of the handguard has what can best be described as a "matte" finish; almost as if it had been dipped in a solution during the bluing process that had left it dull. The balance of the handguard is the usual shiny blue. There is no "S" stamped into the left side of the adapter.

I've seen these before, though they are not common in my experience. Have any of the rest of you seen them? Do they appear on guns from a particular time frame? The absence of a stamped "S" suggests a relatively early gun.

[mtrpdw]

Pictures will help.

[bigskybound]

Maybe some kind of solvent rubbed on that part?

[Ironlip]

Pictures will help.

Fair enough. Here are a few of the handguard/adapter I am asking about and two others, both of which are shiny. I took a few with it on the gun and a few off. Since the gun is a 69000 SN I am thinking this cannot be the original handguard/adapter since it does not have an S. In the last picture the handguard I am asking about is on the left.

[Ironlip]

Maybe some kind of solvent rubbed on that part?

I'm thinking probably not since I've seen this at least once before and the one of the more knowledgeable guys at the shop I frequent says he has seen it before as well. Sadly I don't have a picture of another one like this. I'm wondering if it might have something to do with a bad or overused bluing solution when the whole thing was finished.

That might or might not make sense with the fact that the first 8 inches or so of the whole assembly has more of the matte finish than the rest, even though the last picture shows that the whole handguard is a little less shiny than the others to which it is being compared.

[Tom Doniphon]

I've seen a few other Stevens bayo adaptors that did not have a shiny smooth finish and sometimes the heat shields too. But I did not believe the dull finish to be original. Rather, it was the result of the parts being exposed to something like moisture or some sort of chemical. Every minty 520 or 620 trench gun I've seen had a shiny bright blue heat shield and shiny plum bayo adaptor. The plum color of the adaptors does vary, however.

Are there any xtra proof "P" marks or punch marks on the gun, like on the top of the receiver and/or top of the barrel?

[scosgt]

I also do not think it is original. It could be from storage, the front may have been wrapped in cloth that held some moisture.
It does not really look like it has been redone or messed with, just dulled out for some unknown reason.
I will bet it did not leave the factory that way.
A lot of them became Police guns after the war, may exposure to sunlight in a car rack.

[Ironlip]

Are there any xtra proof "P" marks or punch marks on the gun, like on the top of the receiver and/or top of the barrel?

Now that you mention it, yes. It has the P and bomb on both sides as does my 620 trench, but also has a P with a punch on the top of the barrel and the receiver. On the 620 the P's and bombs on the sides look as if they were struck through the finish, whereas that is not the case on the 520. The same is true of the markings on the right side of both barrels. The extra P and the punch on both the barrel and receiver of the 520 appear to be struck through the finish. Tom, do you have any thoughts on the reason for all of the above?

Pictures are provided below. In the photo showing the two sets of barrel markings, the 620 is on left and the 520 on the right.

[Tom Doniphon]

They all have the Ord bomb and P proof marks on the sides of the receiver and barrel. But it seems many of the late production Stevens trench guns have the xtra P proof marks on top of the barrel and receiver. Some of the 520s have the punch marks too. And I've seen a couple of 620s with only the xtra punch marks. These guns with the xtra marks must have gone through a second proof procedure for some reason. Don't know why.