Enfield #2 questions


March 3, 2010, 11:35 PM
Here's my new baby:


Her name is Daphne. (She's British, she gets a British name. I have a CZ named Hanka.)

I don't suppose it will be easy to find snap caps in 38 S&W. If I can't, is there any other snap cap spec that would work? I gather that some snap caps are much shorter than the cartridge they're based on, so maybe 38 Special will work? (Possible rim diameter issues?)

If I can't find snap caps, is it still okay to dry fire, and if so, how much? I gather that "new" revolvers are okay for a lot of dry firing, and Daphne isn't very new....

When she's broken open, can I just close her firmly, or should I pull down the stirrup lock (to minimize wear and the little snapping sound)?

Her collectibility is about zero and I'm not interested in authenticity. I think she's Parkerized. (She certainly isn't blue.) Does a Parkerized finished need "refreshing" or something?

Is there a half-cock position for the hammer?

Those are all the questions I can think of.

If you enjoyed reading about "Enfield #2 questions" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
March 4, 2010, 02:41 AM
The pistol you have is an Enfield No2 MkI*. The * denotes it was modified to the double-action only standard - adopted sometime in the late 1930's. There is no single action notch on the hammer - this revolver only fires by pressure on the trigger. The date of manufacture should be on the barrel rib (two digits) and a full four digit date below the Enfield crest on the right side of the frame. Yours was originally a SA/DA Enfield No2 MkI, judging from the early grips.

You will not wear out the stirrup latch - take a look at the front edge of the latch and the rear bottom edge of the cylinder bridge - they are beveled to minimize wear.

These guns were originally blued but wartime finishes and refinishes consisted of a phosphated finish (parkerized) covered with a thick black paint (suncorite - similar to barbecue paint).

A-Zoom makes .38 S&W snap caps - somewhere between $20-30 for a pack of six. There's not a whole lot to break on these guns. You'll probably wear out the stirrup latch spring before you break the hammer nose. Note that it is suppose to wobble freely on the hammer. 148gr .38 S&W will shoot a bit low in these guns. The sights are calibrated for the 178gr .380 MkII cartridge which is a bear to find anymore.

I've got a couple of these - rather fun little guns to shoot. My Enfields are a 1944 MkI** (top) and a 1937 MkI. Note the MkI still has the hammer spur - it somehow avoided being 'updated'.


March 4, 2010, 06:25 AM
Got one myself...couldn't find a buyer, so I guess it's part of my permanent collection...

March 4, 2010, 08:56 AM
Yup. Fun guns. Got mine for $100 from a guy because the action was frozen. Flushed out the congealed grease and it worked fine.

Must reload for this one. Factory fodder rare and pricey. I used lead 357" bullets in my 38 S&W revolvers and they work pretty well despite the .360 bore. At 15 yards I can shoot groups that can be covered with the palm of my hand. Not bad for DA fire using undersized bullets.


Old Fuff
March 4, 2010, 11:44 AM
You folks that handload the .38 S&W cartridge might find this link to be interesting.


March 4, 2010, 11:49 AM
I've had three or four of those things,and currently have a ''War Finish Webley and Scott. I LOVE them things.They simply reek of history.

March 4, 2010, 01:05 PM
+1 on the Webley, there just ain't nothing like 'em. I have a post war Webley MK. IV fits my hand like it was made for it.
I get tired of all the modern plastic handguns, the Webley just speaks to me, Love that gun

March 4, 2010, 02:05 PM
My first handgun purchase was an Enfield #2 Mk 1*.

The first "shooter's secret" I learned is that .38 S&W is NOT the same as .38 S&W Special. Learned that the next day when I went to buy ammo.

I still have the gun, but rarely shoot it. I found it's performance at the range to be underwhelming, at best. If I reloaded I'd make up some loads closer to the original .380/200 specs, but the commercial .38 S&W stuff is mediocre at best.

March 4, 2010, 02:07 PM
Btw, how common are the wood gris on these?

Mine have the Bakelite grips and I thought those were pretty much the standard.

March 4, 2010, 04:16 PM
Take a pencil eracer and cut to fit in the primmer pocket, glue it in and you have a snap cap of the cal. you need. Works great and cheap.

March 4, 2010, 05:04 PM
How much difference in shooting the Webley and Scott as compared to the Enfields? Never handled a Webley and Scott and once saw the opinion proffered that it was among the finest revolvers in the world. Hard to imagine that after shooting an Enfield (I like them for their history and military utility, but finest revolver in the world stuff?:what:).

March 4, 2010, 07:35 PM
Great information everybody.

DrakeGmbH, I hear that the later grips were designed for better double-action fire. Do they make a significant difference? Will they fit the earlier guns, or is there an actual difference in the frames? Do they use different screws?

I'm just curious, because I'm thinking of taking Daphne out for some falling plate action.

March 4, 2010, 07:44 PM
Great Gun!

My father bought me a 1939 Enfield No. 2 MkI* when I was 14. It served as my general carry piece through my junior year in college, and went on countless hikes and camping trips, plus the occasional trip to Denver. I still use it as a CCW and HD gun to this day, loaded with recent production Fiocchi 178 gr. Mil Spec ball.

Recently, I picked-up a .38 Webley MK IV to keep it company...

March 4, 2010, 07:50 PM
The Enfield and the Webley and Scott are very similar,so much so Webley sued the British Government...from Wiki:
The Webley Mk IV .38/200 Service Revolver
Webley Mk IV .38/200 Service Revolver

Type Service Revolver
Place of origin United Kingdom
Service history
In service 1932–1963
Used by United Kingdom & Colonies, British Commonwealth,
Wars Second World War, Korean War, British colonial conflicts, numerous others
Production history
Designer Webley & Scott
Designed 1932
Manufacturer Webley & Scott
Produced 1932–1978
Number built approx 500,000
Weight 2.4 lb (1.1 kg), unloaded
Length 10.25in. (266 mm)


Cartridge .380" Revolver Mk IIz
Calibre .38/200
Action Double Action revolver
Rate of fire 20–30 rounds/minute
Muzzle velocity 620 ft/s (190 m/s)
Effective range 50 yd
Maximum range 300 yd
Feed system 6-round cylinder
Sights fixed front post and rear notch
At the end of the First World War, the British military decided that the .455 calibre gun and cartridge was too large for modern military use, and decided (after numerous tests and extensive trials) that a pistol in .38 calibre , firing a 200-grain (13 g) bullet, would be just as effective as the .455 for stopping an enemy.[23]

An Enfield No. 2 Mk I revolver—clearly based on the Webley revolver, if not an outright copy.Webley & Scott immediately tendered the .38/200 calibre Webley Mk IV revolver, which as well as being nearly identical in appearance to the .455 calibre Mk VI revolver (albeit scaled down for the smaller cartridge), was based on their .38 calibre Webley Mk III pistol, designed for the police and civilian markets.[24] Much to their surprise, the British Government took the design to the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield Lock, which came up with a revolver that was externally very similar looking to the .38/200 calibre Webley Mk IV , but was internally different enough that no parts from the Webley could be used in the Enfield and vice-versa. The Enfield-designed pistol was quickly accepted under the designation Revolver, No. 2 Mk I, and was adopted in 1932,[25] followed in 1938 by the Mk I* (spurless hammer, double action only),[26] and finally the Mk I** (simplified for wartime production) in 1942.[27]

Webley & Scott sued the British Government over the incident, claiming 2250 as "costs involved in the research and design" of the revolver. This was contested by RSAF Enfield, which quite firmly stated that the Enfield No. 2 Mk I was designed by Captain Boys (the Assistant Superintendent of Design, later of Boys Anti-Tank Rifle fame) with assistance from Webley & Scott, and not the other way around. Accordingly, their claim was denied. By way of compensation, the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors eventually awarded Webley & Scott 1250 for their work.[28]

RSAF Enfield proved unable to manufacture enough No. 2 revolvers to meet the military's wartime demands, and as a result Webley's Mk IV was also adopted as a standard sidearm for the British Army.

March 4, 2010, 09:58 PM
Daphne is a beautiful girl. Treat her well.

March 5, 2010, 12:30 AM
.455 Hunter,

You got a link for a seller of that Fionchi mil-spec ammo?

March 5, 2010, 01:01 AM
You got a link for a seller of that Fiocchi mil-spec ammo?

I picked-up 200 rounds from Graf and Sons about 18 months ago. MidwayUSA listed it for awhile, but it was always "Coming Soon". My understanding is that the Fiocchi ammo was an overrun from a contract for India. If remember right, it chronographs between 625-650 fps out of the Enfield.

If you enjoyed reading about "Enfield #2 questions" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!