If you can't find information on the various Enfield revolvers, either you are trying in the wrong place or not hard enough. There even have been several long and informative threads on them right here, but you have to use the SEARCH function.
That said, which Enfield revolver are you interested in? There ARE several different ones.
The original Enfield revolver was a break-open heavy .476 in which the cylinder moved forward, away from the fired empties, when the revolver was broken fore reload. It was the standrd pistol of the British Army back at the time of the Zulu Wars and saw considerable service all over the British Empire, then a quarter of the world. Many were used HERE by the Department of Militia and Defence and they were the original service revolver of the North West Mounted Police. They were somewhat fragile and today they are RARE and EXPENSIVE.
There was an Enfield Mark VI revolver manufactured in the 1920s which was 100% interchangeable with the Webley Mark VI in .455 calibre. It was an illegal, unlicensed COPY of the Webley, made by the Government at a time when they could steal from the Merchants of Death (the popular press's bogeyman of the 1920s) and get away with it in public opinion. Today these are rare and very nearly unknown to collectors (because they are perfect copies of a well-known pistol) although there actually are a few around.
THEN there was ANOTHER Enfield revover, this the one that most people think of, a top-break chambered in .380/200 (the old .38 S&W casing with a 200- or later 178-grain bullet). The actual design work on this gun was done mostly by Webley & Scott at the REQUEST of the Government. The Test gun passed with flying colours , the Government ADOPTED it..... and Webley & Scott awaited their contract.... which never arrived. Finally, they were told politely to go p*ss off, the Gummint was making this one, thanks for doing our design work for us, suckers, and that was the end of it. Webley & Scott sued in Court, but the Courts are owned by the Gummint: they wewre awarded HALF the actual cash-money costs which they could PROVE, nothing for technical expertise and zro for the contract which they didn't get..... which had been promised. They were TICKED.
Needless to say, the finished gun shows its parentage, looking very like a small-frame Webley Mark IV with a removable sideplate, which is exactly what it is. This was the Number 2 Pistol.
Originally it was the Number 2 Mark 1 and was a quality job, single- and double-action WITH a hammer spur for cocking. MOST of these were converted to Number 2 Mark 1* before War Two even started. They are more than a bit scarce today but still may be found occasionally. I have owned 2 over the years, one of which was a 1931 with RAF markings.
Number 2 Mark 1* was the same gun but double-action only and with the hammer-spur bobbed. These are the vast majority of production. They are erroneously called the "Tanker" or "Commando" model but in fact were general issue for truckers, pilots, airmen, tank crews....... and Infantrymen who needed a pistol.
And there was the Number 2 Mark 1**, a somewhat dangerous wartime expedient which lacked a BLOCK on the hammer rebound; it could fire if it was dropped. These were called back in as quickly and possible and modded backwards to Mark 1* specs but they still have the Mark 1** marked on them. When they were surplused, every gun was examined and modded as necessary. Unmodded Mark 1** guns are very scarce. Personally, I have seen ONE; it was in the Pattern Room. OTOH, I do have one which has been modded and still is marked as Mark 1**.
Generally, they were built with 5-inch barrels and thus avoid the PROHIB designation in our Not-Very-Free Country.
Manufacture mostly was at Enfield and you can see the quality go downhill if you have a relatively-complete set of the guns. There are at least 3 variants in the grips and finish ranges from supeb on the pre-War guns to crude on the late-1942s, improving perhaps a bit on the 1943s. They were also made by Albion Motor Products and this variant is scarce but still can be fond. There was a THIRD manufacturer in Australia which made a VERY small number, possibly under 100, and the gun was copied by the Viet Minh in Saigon before they renamed themselves the Viet Cong: ONE specimen is known for certain.
The design was time-consuming to produce and time was at a premium early in War Two in England. HUGE amounts of "warlike stores" had been surplussed, given away and just, plain destroyed in the 1920s and early-to-mid 1930s, even as late as 1937. When War Two started in 1939, the British Army was not starting from its 1918 position; thanks to POLITICIANS who thought that if Britain destroyed its weapons, that nice Mister Hitler would do likewise. Hitler was a lot smarter than that. The British Army's position as regards equipment n 1939 was more like that of 1909. In 1940, thankfully Monty pulled off a minor miracle (his Division was supposed to be a sacrifice to allow the rest of the Army to escape) and the Canadians still had guns: they were the bulk of the forces available to repulse Sea Lion if it had come as expected in late 1940. Webley & Scott finally were given a contract to make pistols in War 2 but did not make the Enfield because hey had never tooled for its production..... owing to Government duplicity. So W&S made their own design, the Mark IV, and they made every one the Government wanted and they made them as FAST as the Government wanted them.... and they stamped every one of them WAR FINISH....... just so nobody would think that Webley & Scott turned out work THAT BADLY FINISHED on a regular basis!
Ahhhh: REVENGE!
And they even got paid for the things!
Your War 2 Enfield collection will have in it 3 .380/200 Enfields, one by ALBION, one by that Aussie manufacturer if you can find one, a Mark VI .455 from the 1920s..... and a Webley Mark IV .38..... which is both the father and the son of the Enfield Revolver.
You are now educated. And my fingers hurt.
LOTS MORE information in THIS forum, gallons of photos, reams of information, but you have to use the SEARCH.
