New to me Webley!

T

TripHlx

New member
New to me Webley! (Correction: Enfield Revolver!)

Hi guys, I recently acquired what I believe is a Webley Revolver in .38 S&W. I've given it a thorough once over and it seemed safe to fire, so I ran a box of ammo through it. Had a lot of fun. :)

I'm interested in the history of this little gun, but I'm having a little trouble finding much information on it. If anyone here can direct me to a resource I can use to research and maybe more accurately identify my Webley, I would be very appreciative. Thanks guys!
 
Last edited:
TripHlx wrote:

I recently acquired what I believe is a Webley Revolver in .38 S&W.
Click to expand...

Why do you "believe" its a Webley? If it is, it will be plainly marked, something like "Webley 7 Scott & Sons" or similar marking. And the caliber designation would be something like .380 Mk V or so.

A photo is necessary!

Bob Wright
 
How does the latch work? One trademark of the Webley is the thumb activated stirrup latch.

Lacking markings, I tend to believe you have an American made top-break from years back, maybe one made by Marlin.

Bob Wright
 
Mine is the pocket model.

attachment.php


Deaf
 
I agree with Bob Wright in that a real Webley should have enough markings to identify it as such. Webley was quite proud of their products and was not at all shy about putting their name and other identifying information on them. Consider the following pictures of my own Mk. IV:

First an overall view

WebleyMkIV.jpg


Now the topstrap

20121207_202402.jpg


The left side of the topstrap

20121207_202335.jpg


The right side of the topstrap

20121207_2026031.jpg


And the Webley & Scott "flying bullet" logo on the upper frame just ahead of the cylinder on the right side

20121207_202530.jpg
 
Ok guys, finally got around to doing some more research and found out a few things.

It isn't a Webley after all, it appears to be a Enfield No. 2 Mk 1* manufactured in 1942.

It's covered in British Proof stamps, and a couple of other markings. Seems to be in original condition, and if it matters at all, matching numbers.

I'm still reading up in my spare time, but I've caught passing mention of safety concerns regarding these revolvers, but no mention of SPECIFIC concerns. Any help there would definitely be appreciated. Now that I actually know what I have, more research should be easier. Any help or advice you guys have is still appreciated, and pictures should be coming soon!
 
OK, the confusion is understandable.

In the 1920s when the British were looking for a new gun to replace the MK VI in .455, Webley and Scott offered up their version.

The government didn't like the lock work, so they went off and at the Enfield Lock small arms factory developed their own handgun, based largely on the Webley pattern, but with a different lock.

The Webley, as others have said, always has copious markings on it identifying it as a product of that company and, to the best of my knowledge, was never supplied in a Mk I* (double action only) configuration.

Mk I* Enfields are virtually all you find these days, as virtually all of the ones that were made with hammers with spurs were, throughout the years, converted to Mk I* pattern.
 
I'm still reading up in my spare time, but I've caught passing mention of safety concerns regarding these revolvers, but no mention of SPECIFIC concerns. Any help there would definitely be appreciated.
Click to expand...

The only safety concerns I know of are not with the No. 2 Mk. 1 or No. 2 Mk. 1*, but rather with the No. 2 Mk. 1**. The Mk. 1** was introduced in 1942 as a wartime expediency and was basically a Mk. 1* which was further simplified by omitting the hammer stop. This means that were the gun dropped on the hammer while fully loaded with six rounds, there is a possibility that it could accidentally fire. After the war, the vast majority of Mk. 1** revolvers were recalled and retrofitted to the safer Mk. 1* configuration.
 
Even without the safety stop (hammer block), the Enfield has a pretty sturdy rebound lever that will keep a loaded gun from firing unless the hammer is dealt a very hard blow, much heavier than simply dropping the revolver. The British apparently felt that with the hammer spur removed, the chances of the gun sustaining such a blow would be much less and the safety stop could be eliminated to speed production.

Jim
 
"The British apparently felt that with the hammer spur removed, the chances of the gun sustaining such a blow would be much less and the safety stop could be eliminated to speed production."

Exactly.

In fact, right through the end of the war wasn't it standard policy for the British to use a lanyard to attach the revolver to the soldier?

That alone would make a drop fire unlikely as I don't believe the lanyard is long enough to allow it to hit the ground.


But, it should also be noted that after the war, all of those revolvers were (or were supposed to be) recalled to be fitted with the hammer block.
 
Grr, having camera issues guys, looks like I need to replace it. In the meantime, I found that under very strong lighting the stampings are more legible. It is stamped as a No. 2 Mk1**.

Forgive my ignorance, but how do I identify if this revolver has been refitted to Mk1*, and what effect will it have on the value of the revolver if it has not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top