Dry Firing Webley
- Thread starter Kmeqk
- Start date
There are weak points to the action of any gun and these should not be stressed anymore than necessary. Things stretch, wear, break, peen, fatigue and the more the action is cycled the more wear goes on the gun. The stop notches and cylinder stops will eventually become peened and cause misalignment or looseness. The hand can also become worn and make this problem worse. I know the response will be that hasn't happened yet, but it is happening a little tiny bit every time you do it. It adds up!
I could see the main spring breaking under dry firing.
I could see the main spring breaking under dry firing.
One thing that I never got a straight answer for from any qualified source out there: How can anyone be sure that these things happen ONLY under dry firing or whether or not dry firing actually has a more negative effect on the gun than firing with a live round in the chamber (in other words, under normal intended operation)?
Everyone talks about how rimfire firing pins tend to break upon dry firing and it even says so in many rimfire owners' manuals... although dry fire might not be a good idea due to pointless usage of the gun's internal components, I've seen at least two firing pins break (in modern guns) at the range while the owners were attempting to blast off a few 22LR. The guns were not dry fired in the past, were clean and under normal operating conditions at the range, yet the pins would still snap in two... how come?
All I'm saying is that this theory is untested. The peening and deformities or snapped springs that come about with time could also be due to the firearm's design and, whether you dry fire it or fire it with cartridges at the range (live fire), the same type of damage could occur after the exact same amount of use. I think the best solution is to limit the usage of older guns altogether and not only limit dry fire. The constant and untested demonizing of dry fire might lead one to believe that "normal use" will not ever cause any damages to the gun, which is obviously a flawed conclusion.
It would be really cool if someone out there would actually do a study of dry fire effects (Guns & Ammo magazine, etc), as I've never seen anything convincing. They could buy many examples of exact same guns and fire half with snap-caps type of devices while the other half with nothing but dry fire, all in a lab environment (cocked and fired by pre-programmed machines to assure consistency). After every thousand or so cycles, they would stop the test and inspect each gun for developing damages. Only then would we be able to positively say what kind of damage dry fire is actually responsible for, other than what's to be expected under normal operating conditions.
P.S. It is also important to assume that certain types of firearms can be more prone to damage than others, of course. As an example, does it really hurt a flintlock beyond normal operating "damage" when you dry fire it with no powder in the pan? Although I don't think so, I'm sure some would argue that it still does, lol...
Everyone talks about how rimfire firing pins tend to break upon dry firing and it even says so in many rimfire owners' manuals... although dry fire might not be a good idea due to pointless usage of the gun's internal components, I've seen at least two firing pins break (in modern guns) at the range while the owners were attempting to blast off a few 22LR. The guns were not dry fired in the past, were clean and under normal operating conditions at the range, yet the pins would still snap in two... how come?
All I'm saying is that this theory is untested. The peening and deformities or snapped springs that come about with time could also be due to the firearm's design and, whether you dry fire it or fire it with cartridges at the range (live fire), the same type of damage could occur after the exact same amount of use. I think the best solution is to limit the usage of older guns altogether and not only limit dry fire. The constant and untested demonizing of dry fire might lead one to believe that "normal use" will not ever cause any damages to the gun, which is obviously a flawed conclusion.
It would be really cool if someone out there would actually do a study of dry fire effects (Guns & Ammo magazine, etc), as I've never seen anything convincing. They could buy many examples of exact same guns and fire half with snap-caps type of devices while the other half with nothing but dry fire, all in a lab environment (cocked and fired by pre-programmed machines to assure consistency). After every thousand or so cycles, they would stop the test and inspect each gun for developing damages. Only then would we be able to positively say what kind of damage dry fire is actually responsible for, other than what's to be expected under normal operating conditions.
P.S. It is also important to assume that certain types of firearms can be more prone to damage than others, of course. As an example, does it really hurt a flintlock beyond normal operating "damage" when you dry fire it with no powder in the pan? Although I don't think so, I'm sure some would argue that it still does, lol...
Hardened steel hitting hardened steel causes different damage than a hammer striking a primer. Often hardened ball peen hammers will say not to strike hardened surfaces as the hammer may explode. Yet the same hammer is designed to hit mild steel all day long. I think it has to due with the frequency and vibration created causes the failure. Gun parts are usually not over hardened for that reason but the springs are hardened.
Also when you are dry firing double action you tend to click faster than if you were shooting causing the cylinder to spin faster and when it strikes the stop it will peen the metal over time. It really should be avoided without snap caps as stated. These old beauties deserve preservation.
IIRC the reason you are not supposed to dry fire rimfires is firing pin can strike the edge of the chamber and dent the metal if it doesn't have a cartridge in place.
Also when you are dry firing double action you tend to click faster than if you were shooting causing the cylinder to spin faster and when it strikes the stop it will peen the metal over time. It really should be avoided without snap caps as stated. These old beauties deserve preservation.
IIRC the reason you are not supposed to dry fire rimfires is firing pin can strike the edge of the chamber and dent the metal if it doesn't have a cartridge in place.
Thank you. Your explanations seem very plausible, especially regarding the rimfire dry firing practices and the chamber suffering possible damage.
Last edited:
As far as flintlocks go, snapping a lock with a properly installed flint, primed or unprimed, barrel charged or not, makes absolutely no difference to the amount of wear and tear on the lock. Lock function is the same. Wear and tear occur regardless. And snapping a flintlock unnecessarily is probably not a good practice. A modern lock with readily available replacement parts can be repaired without too much difficulty. Antique lock? Break something, and you have a problem. Might be possible to adapt a modern part, but it might be necessary to make a replacement by hand. And this could be very challenging. One of my guns has a sophisticated "waterproof" lock as found only on high grade guns. Making a replacement for many of the parts in the lock would be an ordeal.
Don't ever snap a flintlock without a flint in it, or possibly with a fitted piece of hardwood substituted for the flint. Whether the frizzen is open or closed, there is a real risk of damage.
Don't ever snap a flintlock without a flint in it, or possibly with a fitted piece of hardwood substituted for the flint. Whether the frizzen is open or closed, there is a real risk of damage.
I have never seen any physical evidence that dry firing a webley will cause any premature wear. IMO dry firing will cause as much wear as firing it will.
Logically, the next question is - why do you want to wear out your antique webley faster by dry firing it? They aren't making any more of them, you know? Parts are hard to get, if they are available at all.
Logically, the next question is - why do you want to wear out your antique webley faster by dry firing it? They aren't making any more of them, you know? Parts are hard to get, if they are available at all.
Last edited:
To develop muscle memory?
Maybe it's his only SHTF scenario short gun and he just wants to be prepared... and doesn't have a range membership yet to punch holes in paper.
To develop muscle memory?
Maybe it's his only SHTF scenario short gun and he just wants to be prepared... and doesn't have a range membership yet to punch holes in paper.
Muscle memory won't do you much good when your gun is broke.... or maybe it will? If SHTF maybe he could wave his finger at the bad guys and tell them "nobody move - I remember how to shoot". Might work!
Personally I would rather haver a working gun. That's just me though.
I don't think there's anything terribly wrong with a bit of dry firing most guns, but i wouldn't recommend spending hours snapping your old antique to build up muscle memory. The little bit of dry firing that the OP did is negligible and won't hurt anything.
As I said earlier, many of these antiques are already worn, parts are hard to get. I personally would rather wear them out by shooting them than by dry firing but i respect any man's right to do as he likes with his own property.
Jethunter, premature wear is the LAST thing you worry about when dryfiring a Webley. YOU havn`t seen any premature wear.
Neither have I.
What I saw instead was a snapped-off hammer-nose on a Mark VI (30 years newer than the OP`s gun) which had been dry-fired only a couple of dozen times since it came into my possession.
I was very fortunate in knowing a guy who could fix ANYTHING and wanted to try his hand on a Webley. The gun had to be stripped completely, hammer removed, shattered surface smoothed, hammer tempered to reduce hardness at the break, broken hammer-nose counterbored and a pin silver-soldered in, the hammer drilled and the pin silver-soldered in there, then the whole gun reassembled. Three hours labour..... which was free, but could have been at shop rate, which is anywhere up to about $70 an hour these days.
Snap caps for sure.
Got the T-shirt.
.
Neither have I.
What I saw instead was a snapped-off hammer-nose on a Mark VI (30 years newer than the OP`s gun) which had been dry-fired only a couple of dozen times since it came into my possession.
I was very fortunate in knowing a guy who could fix ANYTHING and wanted to try his hand on a Webley. The gun had to be stripped completely, hammer removed, shattered surface smoothed, hammer tempered to reduce hardness at the break, broken hammer-nose counterbored and a pin silver-soldered in, the hammer drilled and the pin silver-soldered in there, then the whole gun reassembled. Three hours labour..... which was free, but could have been at shop rate, which is anywhere up to about $70 an hour these days.
Snap caps for sure.
Got the T-shirt.
.
I haven't broke a webly yet. I have owned a dozen or so, mostly MKI and MKII, but a MKIII and a MKV as well. I never broke any of them dry firing, because I don't like dry firing.
The very best you can hope for from dry firing is to cause no harm, and even if you cause no harm you are still wearing the action for no good reason. Modern firearms are easy to repair but an antique is harder to get fixed. I will dry fire to test the action but i do not like dry firing any firearm just for the hell of it. Some people need to learn the hard way.
My advice to the OP was that dry firing these old guns is not the smartest thing in the world to do, as you proved on your MKVI.
There is a pic in this thread:
http://www.milsurpafterhours.com/bb/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6253&start=30
Pretty rare, perhaps as rare as the Prideaux speedloader or the bayonet designed for the Webley! I've been thinking of making a dry-fire protector for my Mk. VI but snap caps would be less hassle.
Stuart
I think the longer, thinner integral firing pins of the MKI and earlier WG models would be even less resistant to damage from dry-firing. I had a 1889 WG that must have been dry-fired, resulting in the pin hitting the edges of the hole through the breech face. This caused a raised ridge to form around the hole and eventually the pin cracked.
Also, I wonder if the standard .455 Webley snap caps are too little protection for some of the .476 guns with larger cylinder-to-breechface gaps, ie. those that have enough headspace to accept .45 Colt or Schofield cartridges.
Also, I wonder if the standard .455 Webley snap caps are too little protection for some of the .476 guns with larger cylinder-to-breechface gaps, ie. those that have enough headspace to accept .45 Colt or Schofield cartridges.
Last edited:
