[Erik Jensen]

I've been looking into getting a Webley, and I've been wondering... when did the brits start converting them to .45ACP? was it before WWII or after? I'd like one in .455, but they seem to be really hard to find. if the .45ACP conversion is a WWII thing, I wouldn't feel too bad getting one that's been converted, since it'll be a bit cheaper to buy and shoot. anyone know the time period when they converted them?:confused:




I posted this in the Harley Nolden section, too, I just thought it might fit in both, and I would get a quicker answer over here.

[P95Carry]

Beretta ... not gonna be much help here but - I have a .455 ..... built up from parts virtually - and self cold blued (below) ......... IIRC .... when it was the issue weapon in WW I it was solely .455 ........ it was still in use on a more casual basis in WW II (.38 S7W Enfields becoming the issue most times) ..... but even then I think .455 was still the cal ..... in UK and associated forces anyways.

I'd guess ... subject to someone with better firearms history knowledge than me ..... that .45 ACP versions came about well post WW II ..... waiting to be corrected!!

http://www.patriotnetwork.net/cb_gun/MkVI.jpg

[Old Fuff]

The Brits never converted any of their .455 Webley revolvers to .45 ACP. That happened in the early-middle 1950's when they were made surplus, having been replaced by .38 revolvers and later with 9mm Browning Hi-Power's. The importers in the United States had a problem - very little ammunition was available and therefore not much demand for the guns. Then someone discovered that if the back of the cylinder was turned down so that half-moon clips could be inserted you could fire the .45 automatic cartridge in them. This was not an ideal conversion because both the chambers and bore were oversized. But most of the buyers who bought them weren't particularly good marksmen either.

Unfortunately unconverted Webleys are not easy to find in this country, and in my view converting them to .45 ACP wasn't a good idea. If you do find one in .455 ammunition is available but it's not cheap. They do pop up on collector web sites, but are usually priced around $300.00 to #500.00 bucks.

If you are interested in a British WW-2 service revolver consider the following:

Enfield No3 (Chambered in .38 S&W)
Webley (Chambered in .38 S&W)
S&W 38-200 (Chambered in .38 S&W)

These were used in place of the .455, good examples cost a lot less, and ammunition is not difficult to obtain.

[P95Carry]

Good info Fuff .. I had meant to say ..... Foicchi still produce brass for .455 .. i bought a hundred (from where i forget right now) .... and load my own ... using in fact a 45 230 grn cast LRN .... My sizer is actually makin them about a thou small but ... in essence, they work ...... needs a firm crimp tho.

[Erik Jensen]

Old Fuff..

are those revos you mention all top-break as well? isn't the Enfield more or less a copy of the Webley in a different caliber?

[P95Carry]

Beretta .. used to have a couple of those Enfields .. they are totally a scaled down version of MkVI .. top break yeah. I had one with hammer spur ..... one without. Sorry, lo res pics .......

http://www.patriotnetwork.net/cb_gun/Enfield1.jpg


http://www.patriotnetwork.net/cb_gun/Enfield2.jpg

[Erik Jensen]

hmmm.... looks pretty cool! still waiting for my C&R to go through, but it looks like I know what I'll be getting...

any idea what they go for? the .38s, that is.

[P95Carry]

Ages since I had those ..... I paid not much .. maybe approx $100 each ..... of course as Fuff mentioned ammo well available ...... now tho i'd guess .. maybe $150 to $200 ..... whereas a genuine .455 could as Fuff said .... run $300 to $500 dependant on condition etc.

[Mike Irwin]

Beretta,

The S&W was not a top-break revolver. It was a standard S&W side-swing type hand ejector.

Webley and the British government initially worked together to develop the .380-200 revolver to replace the Webley Mark VI, but apparently had a falling out, and a long and storied association between the Crown and the company ended around 1926.

As the government had paid for developement to that point, they took the design to Enfield and put the finishing touches on what was adopted as the No. 2, Mk I.

The lock work is largely Webleys, but there are differences.

[Jim Watson]

The Enfield has a sideplate as Webleys do not.
After the MOD stiffed Webley, war broke out and they had to crawl back and buy all the Mk IV .38s Webley could turn out to go along with the Enfields. They got at least the first batch of Smith M&Ps as substitutes for the beautifully made but weird and not very effective Smith & Wesson Light Rifle... a semi-auto 9mm carbine, all milled parts.

[Keith]

I have an old Mark II in .45 acp. A beautiful old piece, with the birds-head grips.
Anyway, I've found that if I shoot it with cast slugs it's accurate enough. Perhaps lead slugs just fill the bore a bit better than jacketed?

Accuracy is limited by the antique style sights more than anything else, but it's beer can accurate out to 20 yards or so.

Keith

[Erik Jensen]

is that .38 S&W short? or .38 S&W long? or do am I confusing cartriges?

[P95Carry]

Beretta ....... the round for the Enfields is the usually termed ''38 S&W'' .... it is a short round ... see the pics of my two old Enfields .. and the rounds in front of them.

Did initially load for those using cut down 38 spl cases ..... and a 9mm 125 grn cast bullet ... sized 357.

[Jim Watson]

Keith, et al,

Please note that any Webley prior to Mk VI is essentially a black powder gun. Many were retrofitted with new cylinders but even smokeless .455 is a lower pressure round than .45 ACP. Load 'em light and make them last.

Beretta92,

.38 S&W is a short case round only. There is no Short and Long as with the proprietary Colt rounds of the same age. It is, however larger o.d. brass and bullet than .38 Colt/Special/Magnum. You can make shootable ammo with .38 Special dies and bullets (I have.) but it is not exactly right.

The British round was the .38-200; similar to the 200 grain Winchester Super Police. They got nervous about the Hague Accord and decided they better have a jacketed bullet. The weight was reduced to 178 grains. I have read that they were known to stick bullets in barrels, which is why you don't read light load data with jacketed bullets.

A lot of British surplus S&W M&P and Victory models were altered for the US surplus market by rechambering for .38 Special. This would give a bulged case because of the .005" smaller Special brass and mediocre accuracy because of the .003" smaller Special bullet. I don't know anybody who shot one enough to find out if they were prone to rupture Special brass, but we are more cautious these days and you will see warnings against shooting these old guns as butchered.

Webley and Enfield cylinders are too short for Specials, except maybe wadcutters and they were not reamed out.

[Old Fuff]

Those who are otherwise interested in weapons of World War Two generally neglect the history of British military sidearms used during that time. In a way this is good, because those who are can pursue their hobby with modest financial sacrifice. You can often find British or British Commonwealth .38 revolvers for $200.00 or less (usually less - sometimes much less).

The venerable firm of Webley & Scott, Ltd. was the prime supplier of handguns from the adoption of its Model Mark 1 in 1887 through 1926 when a new .38 revolver, the Enfield No.2, Mk. 1 froze Webley out of the picture. While many reasons and excuses were advanced to explain and/or justify this, the most logical one seems to be that a worldwide depression was on and the military wanted to keep the government arsenal at Enfield Locke busy so the cost-cutters in Parliament would stay away.

The Enfield was in all important respects a Webley – with lockwork “borrowed” from Smith & Wesson and Colt. It can be honestly said that the designers at Enfield didn’t design, they stole. Eventually Webley sued the government over patent and design infringement – and won! Never the less the No. 2, MK1 is in its own rights an interesting revolver, as is the No.2, Mk1* which is the same gun modified to double-action-only and the hammer de-spurred. While some attribute this to the Commandos the main issue was to fighter pilots and tank crews (mostly the latter) who carried the weapon in open-top or shoulder holsters in tight quarters and complained about the hammer spur catching on things.

When the war unexpectedly came along (wars are always unexpected it seems) the British, like the Americans found themselves dangerously short of hand-weapons. This condition was aggravated by the fact that anti-gun laws passed between the First and Second wars had decimated what domestic firearms industry they had. Consequently the War Office had to go begging to Webley & Scott and place orders for the previously rejected Webley Mark IV .38 revolver. As previously mentioned, they are much like the Enfield – so much so that the two are often confused with each other – but the Webley has a entirely different kind of lockwork and internal construction. Those made during the war lack Webley’s famous commercial blue, so they are marked “War Finish.” Interestingly they did not officially adopt the Webley as a substitute standard until after 1945, although they purchased and used thousands of them during the conflict.

Purchasing revolvers from Smith & Wesson and Colt further augmented the supply of handguns. These were either S&W Military & Police or Colt Official Police guns chambered to use the Enfield/Webley .38 cartridge, which was nothing more then the “short” .38 S&W with a 200 (later 179) grain bullet. Why not .38 Special? Because the Webley and Enfield cylinders were too short to handle it.

The older .455 Webley revolvers saw limited service in the Second War. Officers who had them carried them, and apparently did so without objection. But for the most part they were held in reserve, “in case ….”

All of the revolvers were eventually declared surplus after being replaced with Browning P-35 Hi-Power’s. Most were sold in the United States during the middle 1950 to early 1960’s – sometimes for as little as $10.95! Those days are gone forever.

[P95Carry]

Good info Fuff ... thanks :)

[Erik Jensen]

Wow! thanks for all the info! well, I guess I know what i should be looking for, then. I think I was confusing .38S&W with .38(long and short) Colt.

now, if I could only find a brit military proofed wheelgun... hmmmm. have to do some googling.

[4v50 Gary]

Good stuff Old Fuff. Thanks! :)

[Mike Irwin]

Jim,

The Webley Marks IV, V, and VI, cal. .455, were all designed for use with cordite/smokeless rounds.

The Mark V had a slightly larger cylinder, however, to increase its weight and durability with the cordite rounds.

The .455 Mk I cordite round for these revolvers was adopted in 1894, with the .455 Mk II round (with a slightly shorter case) hitting production in 1897 or so.

[Lone Star]

Old Fuff-

What is your source for the statement that Webley sued the Crown and won? It is my understanding (read it in some British book) that the Crown cannot be sued, and that's why they were able to violate Webley's patents. They were already (after WW I) making Mk. VI .455's at Enfield.

I think the goal was twofold. One was they genuinely wanted the integral triggerguard and sideplate of the Enfield, the other was that they wanted to manufacture official arms in government facilities, and begin to phase out civilian gun makers, starting with handguns. The Russian/Soviet Bolshevik revolution panicked the upper classes, and they began passing ever more restrictive gun laws. But I think that BSA continued to make No. 1 Mk. III rifles...?

If you do know that Webley was able to win a suit, please tell us about it. I'm not trying to insult you, just get the right information onto the forum.
You may have just what I want to know.

Thanks,

Lone Star

[guy sajer]

I see British marked S&W's and Colt's advertised somewhat frequently in the Gun List publication including the latest issue . They turn up . Most common are the S&W 2nd Model Hand Ejector and the Colt New Service .

JMO but I would stick with .455 as opposed to the converted to acp guns . Some of the conversions are done rather crudely . After you have a hundred or so .455 Fiocchi casings , reloading .455 is a snap .

Mitch

[Jim Watson]

Correction noted, Mike.
Actually, Ezell says even the Mk II of 1894 was rated for Cordite. But as you say, they did not actually beef up the cylinder until the Mk V of 1899. An earlier mark with two stars probably has a Mk V cylinder installed.

Even .455 Cordite is much lower pressure than .45ACP. I would not put anything heavier than .45 Auto Rim (14,000 CUP vs 18,000 for ACP) in a cut Webley, although I might load it in ACP brass to use clips with.

[Mike Irwin]

I'm sort of curious about the Webley suing the Crown statement as well.

It was my understanding that the Crown paid for ALL development work on the Webley series of handguns, with all use patents for military firearms being assigned to them as they were developed.

[Old Fuff]

In regards to my previous post …..

I know I read about the Webley litigation over the Enfield No.2 Mk1 revolver, and I think that it was in “The Webley Story” by W.C. Dowell. Unfortunately at the moment I am in one place and the book’s in another so I can’t confirm this. If anyone else who is reading this thread has a copy perhaps they can help out.

As for the situation regarding Webley being pushed out of the picture. Military establishments tend to protect they’re own – on both sides of the Atlantic.

Around the time it became clear that a new .38 revolver would be adopted to replace the .455 the Government Arsenal at Enfield was producing a version of Webley’s .455 revolvers. Writing in the 1985 edition of “The Gun Digest” Wilfrid Ward penned an article entitled “The Gun That Followed the Famous Webley .455.” In it he offers a rather concise history of the Enfield .38’s and they’re competitors, and offers the following observations:

“It is of interest that at the same time as the .38s were under consideration the Enfield Factory (wishing to provide work for its skilled men) was producing an Enfield version of the Webley Mk. VI (.455). This was designated the Pistol Revolver No. 1, Mk. VI .455.”

During the middle 1920’s appropriations for new small arms of any kind were few and far between. If the new .38 revolver turned out to be the Webley it was doubtful that .455 production would continue at Enfield, and equally doubtful that with only limited numbers being needed contracts would go to both Webley and Enfield. However if the designers at Enfield could come up with something else maybe they could keep the work.

Their offering “looked like a Webley, waddled like a Webley and quacked like one. In appearance they’re so close that casual observers can’t tell the difference. It has a left-side mounted sideplate like a Colt, and inside you’ll find a “V” mainspring. Rebound bar and “two-point” hand. The hammer’s profile also resembles those made in Hartford, CT. On the other hand the cylinder stop looks like it came out of the S&W works in Springfield, MA. I would challenge anyone to point out a significant feature that didn’t originate somewhere else. But at least when they “borrowed” they took the best.

This is not to say that the Enfield No2 Mk1 was not a good revolver, and that it wasn’t, in some respects superior to the Webley. But I still maintain that the reason the Webley IV didn’t stand a chance is the same as to why the M-14 was adopted in the United States rather then the AR-10 – or for that matter, the AR-15, until president Johnson’s wiz-kids got into the picture.

Now if I’ve done nothing else maybe I’ve got some of you intrigued. Perhaps the next time you’re at a gun show or at a local dealer’s showroom and you see one of these “kinda-worthless” top breaks you’ll give it a second look. Oh yes, I know it isn’t a Magnum, and it’s sure not “tactical” in today’s world. But they served through several wars, and in some places they are still serving. History has some value, and when you hold one of them the history is there.

[Mike Irwin]

The only thing that makes me suspicious about this being a case of the military establishment protecting its own is that Webley had a LONG, nearly 60-year, run with the British government on the design and production of military revolvers, and before them Adams and Tranter had manufactured the revolvers for the military.

Essentially, the Crown would have had to have started from scratch, with none of the machinery needed to manufacture the new revolver, and with precious little experience in manufacturing handguns.

I believe the last handgun manufactured by a government arsenal in Britain was the 1854 Tower percussion single shot.

[Old Fuff]

Don't know Mike, but I'll try to nail it down. I'm sure in my own mind that I read it somewhere, but right now I can't prove it. I hate it when my books are in one place and I'm in another.