Curious about Webley .455

I don't have a 3rd edition (1976), but I do have a 4th edition (1980), when Barnes was still primary editor.

This is the salient part in my issue...

"However, in 1894, the propellant was changed to the then new cordite and after a few years it was found the smokeless powder burned more efficiently in a shorter case."

How does yours read? I'm thinking you may be misinterpreting the comment about smokeless powder.

In the 4th edition it's clear that by "smokeless powder" he's referring to cordite.
 
Oh, fun fact about cordite...

Alfred Nobel, who held the European patents on a lot of stuff having to do with nitrocellulose, sued one of the developers of cordite over patent infringement.

Not exactly sure how it worked out, but it seems that Nobel lost the case.
 
Ive had several Webleys modified to 45acp only one in original 455. They had one thing in common, they weren’t very accurate. I have a Colt NS in 455 that is in excellent shape and accurate. Load my own with 272gr soft cast / 4.5 gr Unique at approx 600fps. Ended up with 4.5gr load to bring gun to point of aim at 50’.
 
Mike, mine reads the same and I think you are right, the problem was me.

nd after a few years it was found the smokeless powder
apparently my addled brain changes "the" to "that" and since the author said "smokeless powder" in that sentence, and not "cordite" (why??) my tired old late night dog ate my homework thinking assumed some other powder (not cordite) was used.

Apologies for my misunderstanding, and thank you for helping me realize what had happened. I suppose I could blame the author for being "unclear" but I am the one who misunderstood, and worse, ran with it. My bad! as the kids say..

If anyone catches me in error on any factual information, PLEASE do correct me. I am sometimes wrong and don't mind being shown where I screw up facts. The point is to get correct information to everyone reading the forum, not for me to be "right".

On the other hand, don't bother to correct me about my opinions. Those are never wrong! :rolleyes:

(edit to add, "never wrong...unless you ask my wife! :D)
 
Another owner of Webley Mark I shaved, and Mark VI (Enfield) not shaved. Bought them for interest in things unusual, and they were very inexpensive at the time. Both may be physically accurate, but the heavy sa trigger pull is tough to deal with. Shot the Mark I once, and the Mark VI several times. While they were fun and exotic, wouldn't buy them in any hopes of improved accuracy/reliability over the other revolvers mentioned. A lot of the accuracy may be related to the cylinder throat size of the revolvers considered. The Webleys owned have tight throats/bores, while the American made versions i have seen had much larger cylinder throats. The evolution of the cartridge is quite convoluted and beyond my comprehension, especially if the pre Mark I's are taken into account.

Given the apparent price of decent shape un shaved ones, would admire them from afar, unless having adequate funding and high desire.
 
I don't generally care for revolvers, but I have a fascination for the top break Webleys. I found an unshaved Mk VI on gunbroker with a few hundred rounds of .455 for an acceptable price a year or two ago.

Not the original cylinder, but works fine. Pretty heavy double action, but a pretty short and crisp single action. I haven't shot it much, I plan to take it out a bit more this year, but I was quite pleased with it in every way at the range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top