Questions on a Webley

[dogmush]

I broke my own rule about surplus guns yesterday. I normally like to do my research first, and know exactly what I'm looking for and want before actually looking at and buying a surplus gun. I had gotten to the "You know, I'd kinda like a Webley Revolver" and reading the Wiki page on them yesterday when I ran across this revolver at a gunshow. The price was such ($150) that I thought I couldn't really go too far wrong and grabbed it. So now I get to be one of those guys who post on the web that I bought this thing, now does anyone know what it is?

So I turn to the smart folks of the Revolver forum; please does anyone have any info on this revolver?

The seller labeled it a "Commando" model in .38-200, but some preliminary googling has also found this style listed as "Tanker"

Obviously the finish is kinda rough.

Cylinder locks up tight in the direction of rotation, but has a little end play. (Parallel to the Bore)

The stamping marks seem kinda slipshod, and I'm hoping that that's not indicative of a Kyber Pass-esque knockoff. (I know that's a problem on SMLE's)

Is this collectible, or could I refinish it with no real harm done?

Lastly, I like to fire my guns, although a cylinder or two would be plenty for this thing, what would you check for before firing something like this, or would you just not?

I think I still want to find one in .455, too.

Pics:

Gun:


Markings on left side of Frame:


Markings on right side of frame:


Top Strap:


Cylinder:




Hinge serials:



Thanks in advance for any info you can give me.

 

[Billy Shears]

That's not a Webley. It's an Enfield no. 2, which was basically a copy of the Webley Mk. IV .38-200 (but no parts will interchange). When the British decided to change from the .455 cartridge to a .38 caliber cartridge, Webley made the Mk. IV, and submitted it, and the British government basically stole it -- they took the design to the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield Lock and had them manufacture this near copy. The firm of Webley was understandably upset at what they (justifiably) regarded as a gross betrayal of a long-standing relationship. But they got the last laugh, in a sense, as when WWII broke out, the British government couldn't manufacture enough of the Enfield no.2s and had to come back to Webley to purchase as many of the Mk. IVs as Webley could make.

It has some collector value -- not a great deal, but some (the ones with the hammer spurs, that still have single action capability, are worth more), and refinishing it would destroy that. I wouldn't.

 

[MikeJackmin]

It looks legit to me - a nicely worn, honest WWII revolver. I would not refinish it if it were mine.

The original load was basically a .38 S&W with a 200 grain bullet. Modern .38 S&W ammo works fine, but will probably shoot a little low. This is a fairly low-pressure round, the gun won't blow apart unless something is crazy wrong with it. The worst that will happen is a case rupture if the headspace is really excessive. Wear glasses when you shoot it, which is good advice in any case.

 

[MikeJackmin]

Bonus - just noticed that you gun is lacking the horrible 'safety' that is added to the more recent imports. You got a good deal on it.

 

[dnovo]

What Mike said. No real point in refinishing as these Enfields are not that valuable even in 100% condition -- and given war finish standards don't look all that much better even at 100%. Shoot it and just have some fun. Dave

 

[Liberty1776]

you got a fun gun for a real good price...

 

[Old Fuff]

The firm of Webley was understandably upset at what they (justifiably) regarded as a gross betrayal of a long-standing relationship. But they got the last laugh,

Maybe more then you know. After the war they brought a lawsuit for damages - and won. The army ended up paying a generous settlement.

 

[Old Fuff]

The Enfield is an interesting revolver for a number of reasons. They not only stole the basic pattern from Webley, but also used Smith & Wesson and Colt style lockwork. But since it's a combination of well proven features the result was a pretty good gun.

It's double-action only because of the influence of Wm. E. Fairbairn (of Fairbairn-Sykes fame) who believed that a combat revolver should be double-action only, and be pointed - not aimed - at close range.

Since the handgun was usually carried in a full-flap holster or a tanker-style shoulder rig, snagging wasn't an issue. Other then some officers and non-coms the most common users were Commandos.

It may be blued, but most were Parkerized and then given a coat of black paint. Not good looking, but very functional.

So what you got is well worth what you paid.

 

[BHP FAN]

That was a really good price. I'd expect to pay $250.00-$300.00.

 

[bannockburn]

dogmush

Great find at a great price. These wonderful top breaks are getting to be quite scarce (at least around where I live), and are commanding a much higher price than what you paid for yours. The condition and finish of your Enfield is actually quite typical of wartime revolvers built by Webley and Enfield. I have even seen some marked "War Finish" as if to explain the hurried assembly and rough condition that some of the metal parts exhibit.

 

[Jon Coppenbarger]

I have two of the webley and scott mark 4 pistols. very interesting revolvers. one is a israeli made and not sure of the date of manf. very clean and like new pistol. it has the century arms import mark but the hammer and frame has NEVER been modified with that dang safty thing. marked webley and scott england on the top strap and has a 4" barrel.

The second one is marked on the top strap webley and scott birmingham. it was made in 1941 and is also marked war finish but it has like 95% of the finish left. It has NO import marks and instead of being marked 38 as on the israeli one it is marked 38 145/200.

the hammer spur is wide and the israeli one is thin.

Very cool pistols

 

[Jim K]

To be totally correct, it is a Pistol, revolver, No. 2, Mk 1*, made in 1942 at Enfield. It is not a Webley; though it resembles the Mk IV Webley, it does not use the same lockwork and is greatly simplified and easier to maintain.

The hammer spur and single action notch were removed, supposedly at the request of tank crews who complained that the hammer caught on things when they tried to get out in a hurry. (For British - and American - tank crews of that era, getting out in a hurry was a serious consideration; the tanks weren't called "flaming coffins" for no reason.)

Incidentally, only Webleys had the "war finish" marking; the company was concerned, in the middle of a war, that some upper class customer might think the rough finish was typical. How very British! The wartime Enfields were all rough. That is the only gun where I mistook a Japanese dummy gun for the real thing; the dummy was crude, but so was the No.2.

Jim