When I first looked at this I thought it may be a a very early 220 post DBA stamping, but the sn reads like a dba and dba is stamped on the on the grip. Also grips are not dba, the bevels on the dolphin nose seem exaggerated to me, oh and it’s 7.65mm. Anyone know what this is?

I know nothing about this. Only noticed the interesting thing: frame is marked BDA 45 at the front strap, but the gun barrel’s caliber is 7.65 mm Para. Wonder what the barrel’s serial number is.

The catalog number on the front strap (1065) indicates the pistol was intended for the Italian market.

SIG-Sauer using up leftover parts to build oddballs for a country which- at the time- prohibited civilian ownership of firearms in military calibers. Why the prefix indicating .45 ACP on a slide which was intended for .30Luger, 9x19mm or .38 Super, I don't know. HK proof date indicates 1979 production.

Here's another one in .30 Luger which showed up in the forum years ago, same configuration.

Thank you Para. Is this a collection worthy pistol, or just an oddball in your opinion?

It's an obscure variant. Most people wouldn't care. It's up to you.

With regard to BDA/P220 crossovers, try this one on for size. From my collection. .38 Super. Original box. My notes says "Manufactured the 14th of March, 1977, per Ralf Vanicek at Sauer."

Apparently intended for the European market. SIG-Sauer serial number, period-correct SIG-Sauer box, and not the Browning box. Otherwise, a BDA in all respects.

If it helps your decision. This serial would be the highest Browning slide serial reported.

I don't think there is anyone walking around this planet who knows more about the P220 than Para. Always the most educational posts on the model amongst my favorites. Makes me want a .30 Luger just to have one.

OTD knows more. Lorenz Vetter knows more. Ralf Vanicek knows more.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
OTD knows more. Lorenz Vetter knows more. Ralf Vanicek knows more.

top 4, Pretty good.

It's definitely an odd variation. As for the serial number prefix not matching the caliber (as Para mentioned), here's what I think:

The BDA was specifically created for the purpose of marketing the P220 platform in the US. This was in the 1970s, meaning that it would have legally been required to have a serialized frame. Therefore, it stands to reason that any frame originally slated for BDA production (regardless of how it would ultimately be used) was already appropriately serialized. Since the P220 uses the same frame dimensions for all calibers, a BDA-specific frame could also be employed in the assembly of any other kind of P220.

However, by the logic that the frame had already been serialized (and was just pulled off of the parts shelf), the serial number on the slide (as required by German law) would have had to be matched to it, even if the result was an "improper" serial number prefix (with respect to the caliber of the newly-completed firearm).

Thanks for everyone sharing their knowledge. I don’t think I have room in my safe for this one right now, but it’s available on GB if anyone is interested.

I agree with your assessment, MacGyver. The same thing occurred to me as I was drifting off to sleep last night. The frame is the key. Sales of the BDA were poor for Browning. Beginning in 1978, Hawes was importing P220s in all three calibers, which didn't help Browning sales one bit. SIG-Sauer had frames prepped for further BDA orders which never materialized, and this is how they cut their loss.

It appears SIG depleted their inventory of BDA-marked frames in 1979 or 1980. I have in my collection a 1980-proofed P220 in .30 Luger, no BDA markings, serial number G106231, also intended for the Italian market, the difference with mine being that rather than simply "1065" engraved in the front strap,it has "CAT.1065" which is barely visible in the photograph.

The pistol is ANIB in a numbered blue plastic piano hinge box of the type we see accompanying many of the surplus P6 pistols. Spare magazine, correctly marked, and the first version of the commercial P220 manual.

I never cared much for .30 Luger, but that's a really cool one. Is it import-marked?

Anyway, I guess the other unanswered question is why SIG bothered with the whole prefix-caliber coordination for the BDA in the first place. Functionally, it's completely useless (other than maybe for inventory management) and they clearly never practiced the same for anything non-BDA. Perhaps Browning Arms Co. requested that?

The three number prefix- indicating the type and configuration of the pistol- followed by a two letter date code- is a convention adopted by Browning Arms in 1977.

As for my pistol, it is discreetly marked with the importer's mark on the left flat of the barrel's chamber, and nowhere else; a practice, I am certain, which would not be permitted these days.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
The three number prefix- indicating the type and configuration of the pistol- followed by a two letter date code- is a convention adopted by Browning arms in 1977.

As for my pistol, it is discreetly marked with the importer's mark on the left flat of the barrel's chamber, and nowhere else; a practice, I am certain, which would not be permitted these days.

would it be correct to assume Browning asked? or required? SIG to mark the serial in the Browning format,


re the import mark you mentioned,
I had a very early CZ75 thru the shop some years ago, the import mark was on the barrel, done as a ring, and only visible when the slide was locked back

The BDA was marketed as a Browning Arms product, exclusively for the North American market. Naturally, the serial number of these pistols followed their convention.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
As for my pistol, it is discreetly marked with the importer's mark on the left flat of the barrel's chamber, and nowhere else; a practice, I am certain, which would not be permitted these days.

The rules are very weird indeed. BATFE demands that the importer's name be conspicuously (I believe that's the exact word they use) marked, and that the impression be a certain (I can't remember the number) depth. However, you'd think that since they are this specific about the marking, that they would have already thought to make it a requirement that it be on the receiver of the firearm.

I just won an auction for the BDA P220 in .30 luger. I was researching the forum to find out more information about this configuration and found this thread. Any additional information as to the production numbers would be greatly appreciated!

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/1161818061

Congrats. Much better price than what they initially offered it for. I would have done that too.