Can you ID this gun?
- Thread starter rock_jock
- Start date
Harley Nolden
Staff In Memoriam
Rock-Jock:
The photo is some-what dark, however, it appears that you have a Webley Mark IV 38 Military & Police Model. It was made from 1929- 1957 there-abouts.
HJN
The photo is some-what dark, however, it appears that you have a Webley Mark IV 38 Military & Police Model. It was made from 1929- 1957 there-abouts.
HJN
Johnny Guest
Moderator in Memoriam
Don't recall the Number and Mark, but - - -
It is an Enfield military revolver, caliber .380/200. Also known as caliber .380/2Z. Also as .38 S&W cartridge, though the sights are usually regulated for the 2Z ctg--a 173 gr FMJ at about 700 fps. This puts the standard .38 S&W, 146 LRN at about 725.
Couple of different manufacturers of the revolver. Mine was made by Albion Motorcar Works.
Best,
Johnny
It is an Enfield military revolver, caliber .380/200. Also known as caliber .380/2Z. Also as .38 S&W cartridge, though the sights are usually regulated for the 2Z ctg--a 173 gr FMJ at about 700 fps. This puts the standard .38 S&W, 146 LRN at about 725.
Couple of different manufacturers of the revolver. Mine was made by Albion Motorcar Works.
Best,
Johnny
Johnny Guest
Moderator in Memoriam
British designation of the revolver - - -
Man, I sure hate to contest Harley on ANYTHING pertaining to vintage firearms. Perhaps the image shows more clearly on my screen or something.
The revolver is a "Revolver No. 2 Mark I*." (Mark One Star, is how they say it.)
The No. 2 Mark I had a hammer spur and a cock notch. There is a sideplate on the left side of the Enfield design, making it somewhat easier to produce and assemble than the Webley, which has no sideplate. The "guts" of the two are really pretty different.`
In my earlier response, I meant to say, you can definitely shoot it with .38 S&W, but it tends to shoot quite low with that ammo. If you handload, the 158 LRN with about 3 gr of Unique or 2.2 of Bullseye do pretty well. If you can find some of the old 200 gr blunt round nose .38 Spl bullets, load with 2.3 gr Unique, and they should come close to point of aim.
Sorry, Harley.
Regards,
Johnny
Man, I sure hate to contest Harley on ANYTHING pertaining to vintage firearms. Perhaps the image shows more clearly on my screen or something.
The revolver is a "Revolver No. 2 Mark I*." (Mark One Star, is how they say it.)
The No. 2 Mark I had a hammer spur and a cock notch. There is a sideplate on the left side of the Enfield design, making it somewhat easier to produce and assemble than the Webley, which has no sideplate. The "guts" of the two are really pretty different.`
In my earlier response, I meant to say, you can definitely shoot it with .38 S&W, but it tends to shoot quite low with that ammo. If you handload, the 158 LRN with about 3 gr of Unique or 2.2 of Bullseye do pretty well. If you can find some of the old 200 gr blunt round nose .38 Spl bullets, load with 2.3 gr Unique, and they should come close to point of aim.
Sorry, Harley.
Regards,
Johnny
Mike Irwin
Staff
I thought only the Enfields were made without hammer spurs???
Steven Mace
New member
Rock_jock, the Enfield No.2 Mark 1* was first issued in 1932 and was the standard British Army revolver during WWII. In excellent condition it could be worth about $200-$300. Hope this helps!
Steve Mace
Steve Mace
Johnny Guest
Moderator in Memoriam
A hodge-podge of sidearms
Mike Erwin--- wrote:
I thought only the Enfields were made without hammer spurs???
Mike, I believe you're right. And I should have expanded the nomenclature to include the design originators, at Enfield Lock. It is the "Revolver No. 2 Mark I*, commonly called the Enfield."
As far as I know, all the Webleys had a hammer spur.
It is interesting how many handguns were in general issue in the British forces in WW-II-- Of course, they were hurting for handguns, and relied heavily on U.S. Lend lease, when the domestic arms could barely keep up with the need for SMLE and Bren long guns. (The submachine guns were still another story.)
The Webley .380, I believe designated both the Mark III and Mark IV.
The Enfield .380s, Revolver No. 2 Mark I and Revolver No. 2 Mark I*
The Webley No. 1 Mark VI .455--This was the big, square butt, six-inch barrel revolver.
The U.S. arms makers were well represented, too:
Colt Government Models, in both .455 Webley and standard .45 ACP.
Smith & Wesson Hand Ejector Military & Police revolvers in .38 S&W, mostly with five-inch barrels.
And then there were the old-line officers, from the days when officers were expected to furnish their own sidearms in the service caliber--Many older Mark Webleys, particularly the Mark IV, the round butt .455 with four-inch barrel, and the commercial Webley .380 caliber. Still others struggled through with issue arms from an eralier age, which had never been exchanged.
Best,
Johnny
Mike Erwin--- wrote:
I thought only the Enfields were made without hammer spurs???
Mike, I believe you're right. And I should have expanded the nomenclature to include the design originators, at Enfield Lock. It is the "Revolver No. 2 Mark I*, commonly called the Enfield."
As far as I know, all the Webleys had a hammer spur.
It is interesting how many handguns were in general issue in the British forces in WW-II-- Of course, they were hurting for handguns, and relied heavily on U.S. Lend lease, when the domestic arms could barely keep up with the need for SMLE and Bren long guns. (The submachine guns were still another story.)
The Webley .380, I believe designated both the Mark III and Mark IV.
The Enfield .380s, Revolver No. 2 Mark I and Revolver No. 2 Mark I*
The Webley No. 1 Mark VI .455--This was the big, square butt, six-inch barrel revolver.
The U.S. arms makers were well represented, too:
Colt Government Models, in both .455 Webley and standard .45 ACP.
Smith & Wesson Hand Ejector Military & Police revolvers in .38 S&W, mostly with five-inch barrels.
And then there were the old-line officers, from the days when officers were expected to furnish their own sidearms in the service caliber--Many older Mark Webleys, particularly the Mark IV, the round butt .455 with four-inch barrel, and the commercial Webley .380 caliber. Still others struggled through with issue arms from an eralier age, which had never been exchanged.
Best,
Johnny
Mike Irwin
Staff
Who is this Mike Erwin guy...
I don't know him. -- Mike Irwin
I don't know him. -- Mike Irwin
Johnny Guest
Moderator in Memoriam
OOOOOPPS!
Mike--
Sincere apologies. As one whose surname has been misspelled and mangled for over a half-century, I should be extra sensitive to proper spellling and useage of others' names.
Really sorry, amigo.
Johnny
Mike--
Sincere apologies. As one whose surname has been misspelled and mangled for over a half-century, I should be extra sensitive to proper spellling and useage of others' names.
Really sorry, amigo.
Johnny
Just to complete the picture, the .38, .767 and 3.5 tons are part of the British commercial proof, put on when the revolver was released from military stores for sale in the UK or export.
The .38 is, obviously, the caliber. The .767 is the chamber length in inches, and the 3.5 tons is the nominal working (not proof) pressure of the ammunition.
Not to nitpick (who, me?) but I think the official nomenclature is Pistol, Revolver, No. 2, Mk I *. The hammer spur was supposedly removed at the request of tank crewmen who carried the gun in shoulder holsters and kept getting the hammer spur caught on parts of the inside of the tank. Highly embarassing if trying to get out in a hurry before the tin can blows up.
Jim
The .38 is, obviously, the caliber. The .767 is the chamber length in inches, and the 3.5 tons is the nominal working (not proof) pressure of the ammunition.
Not to nitpick (who, me?) but I think the official nomenclature is Pistol, Revolver, No. 2, Mk I *. The hammer spur was supposedly removed at the request of tank crewmen who carried the gun in shoulder holsters and kept getting the hammer spur caught on parts of the inside of the tank. Highly embarassing if trying to get out in a hurry before the tin can blows up.
Jim