Antique Webley Mark 4 in 455

KotKotofeich

KotKotofeich

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
76   0   0
Location
Ottawa Valley
I have a bit of a strange one...

It is believed that Mark 4 were first manufactured in 1899... but I'm being shown one with Webley and Son markings and the winged hollow based bullet stamp which wasn't applied after 1897?

Has anyone seen something like this before? There are no antique entries in the FRT so this may be interesting...
 
Last edited:
It sounds like what is called the "Boer War Webley" in .455 and is not the later Mk. 4 in .38 S&W. There's a good article them at:
h ttps://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2020/09/09/the-455-webley-mkiv-the-boer-war-model/
I have my grandfather's from WW1 but have no idea how he acquired it. It's a lovely old pistol and still shoots well. Unfortunately, it appears to have been made in 1902 so doesn't qualify as an antique.
 
Yes, correct, I should have mentioned it's in 455. So far, the general rule of thumb is mk3 are antique (provided they have the correct webley & son markings) and mk4 are prohib... but I'm now wondering about that...
 
I'm not entirely sure how accurate the "no hollow-based trademark after 1897" claim really is. As I understand it, the 1897 merger was more of what we would consider today a "joint venture", where the 3 companies were united under a single name (Webley & Scott Revolver and Arms Co. Ltd), however remained independent operations until around WWI.

To challenge this, I have a WP (Webley Pocket) Hammer revolver in .320 which is marked P. Webley & Son London & Birmingham and also is marked with the hollow-based winged bullet. Additionally, the gun is marked with Crown/BP proofs - which I believe were not in use until 1904?

It is generally agreed upon that the Webley WP was introduced in 1900/1901, while it is also "generally agreed upon" that the winged hollow-base trademark was not used past 1897 - but clearly both cannot be true, so which is it then? Seeing as some people have relied solely on this trademark for antique verifications, this may open a bit of a can of worms...

Shooting Centre said:
Is it possible that the frame and barrel assembly were pieced together? i.e a barrel from a Mk IV on the frame of a MK III
Click to expand...

I had considered this as well, uppers were 100% interchangeable between the MK4 through MK6, and somewhat prior to that, it is possible the barrel assembly was swapped if you are basing the MKIV assessment just off of the markings
 
Barrel also has Webley & Son rollmark... also weren't the serials continuous through all the mk 1 to 6? So it could be IDd by serial as a mk 3 or 4...

Milspectacles said:
To challenge this, I have a WP (Webley Pocket) Hammer revolver in .320 which is marked P. Webley & Son London & Birmingham and also is marked with the hollow-based winged bullet. Additionally, the gun is marked with Crown/BP proofs - which I believe were not in use until 1904?
Click to expand...

Weren't these sometimes applied at refurbishment? I see them on mk1** and I assumed they were done during the ** upgrade.
 
Last edited:
KotKotofeich said:
Barrel also has Webley & Son rollmark... also weren't the serials continuous through all the mk 1 to 6? So it could be IDd by serial as a mk 3 or 4...



Weren't these sometimes applied at refurbishment? I see them on mk1** and I assumed they were done during the ** upgrade.
Click to expand...

Sure, that is most likely how they got on the MKI** revolvers, seeing as they were re-proofed when they went through the alteration process. In the case of the WP revolvers, they were all commercial sales - and every single one I've seen was proofed. Some had the old Birmingham view marks but most have the definitive Crown/BP, I don't know under what circumstances they would have all been sent back on a "recall" just to get newer proofs.

This still doesn't change the fact that the WP model is not known to have been available until 1900/1901. Unless they were somehow secretly available before being published in the Army & Navy Co-op catalogues, or we have a S&W top break situation here where they produced a whole bunch at an earlier date and completed them over time(possibly this is our answer?).

I will link an example of another revolver here which is marked Webley & Scott Ltd Birmingham and still shows the Winged hollow-based bullet on the frame: https://www.glocktalk.com/threads/webley-scott-wp-320-hammerless.1741714/

For the record, I'd love to be proven wrong on this one - I am just very skeptical of this.
 
Aside: Dammit! Now I need a WP revolver.

Do we know what the serial ranges for mk 3 and for mk 4 were?

On one hand I want to submit this to the CFP to be lettered, on the other we have been relying on the W&S hollow base logo as an 'antique proof' that I don't want to wreck it...
 
Many Webley and Sons manufactured frames sporting the winged hollow based cartridge, were not actually assembled into complete firearms until much later. The frames would have been made before 1898 yet many were not assembled as guns for sale until as late as 1930. This explains why some post 1897 are traced to being sold or assembled after 1897. Such firearms are indeed still antiques as the frames were made before 1998. Of course this is only so if not in one of the forebode calibers.

Cheers
Moe
 
Moe said:
Many Webley and Sons manufactured frames sporting the winged hollow based cartridge, were not actually assembled into complete firearms until much later. The frames would have been made before 1898 yet many were not assembled as guns for sale until as late as 1930. This explains why some post 1897 are traced to being sold or assembled after 1897. Such firearms are indeed still antiques as the frames were made before 1998. Of course this is only so if not in one of the forebode calibers.

Cheers
Moe
Click to expand...

Right - I understand this is the case with the Webley M&P series as well as most of their solid frame revolvers. But again, I'd like to see a conclusive source on this before poking at the CFP. As yet another example, I just went out and took a look at my Webley 1905 Whiting transitional pistol. I think the pictures speak for themselves that this is an area to tread cautiously.

mhBgiz6l.jpg

jJaVilIl.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom