Enfield No2* DA

that would be the tanker version of the enfield revolver in .38 S&W

you would need a new hammer, good luck

the No2's were built without the hammer spurs to prevent them fron snagging on stuff when mounting and dismounting armour. So if you replace the hammer with one (if you can actually find one) that has the spur then it would be wrong.

Got pictures, where in alberta are you if your near me I have a 1932 enfield revolver that has the spurred hammer tha you could look at, send me a PM


This revolver was developed at the Royal Small Arms Factory in Enfield in 1926 - 1927. The design is based on scaled down Webley Mark 6 "break-top" frame, with cylinder chambered for 6 .38/200 rounds. The hammer/trigger group was redesigned, with manual hammer safety lock added, and with separate cylinder lock. This revolver was adopted for British Military service in 1932 as Enfield revolver, .38 caliber, No.2 Mark 1. After 1938, almost all No.2 Mk1s were converted into No.2 Mark 1* configuration.

Enfield No.2 Mark 1* were developed in the late 1930s for British Tank Corps, and are distinguished from early Mark 1 by spurless, Double Action Only hammers, lighter mainsprings, and re-shaped grip side plates. The spurless DAO hammers were required by Tank Corps command to avoid snagging the hammers on tank internals.

Enfield No.2 Mark 1** appeared in the 1942 as a simplified, wartime design. These guns were similar to No.2 Mark 1*, but withouth the hammer stop. After the 1945, all those revolvers were recalled and converted into No.2 Mark 1* configuration.
Click to expand...

http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg92-e.htm
 
Last edited:
As well, i recall that the single action notch was removed (what ever that means) I think would entail a few more internal parts to ensure the spur hammer didn't simply fal after your thumbed it back
 
The tanker's neat as it is and collectable, I wouldn't bastardize such a specimen personally as the value would be destroyed as well... If you're after a SA/DA I'd buy a newer one, can be found much cheaper, stronger, and generally better. Enfields are neat for what they are, I say leave 'em that way personally. ;)
 
while the hammer spur would not catch on anything if it is bobbed, you might take a look at the holsters the revolver was carried in. Not much chance of it snagging on anything. I think the D.A. mod was simply a wartime expedient to simplify production.
In any case. switching to the .380 cartridge was a bad idea put forth by people who would never have to use the revolver in anger.

It was marginal with the 200gr bullet and pathetic with the FMJ 174gr one. which replaced it in 1937.
 
John Sukey said:
In any case. switching to the .380 cartridge was a bad idea put forth by people who would never have to use the revolver in anger.

It was marginal with the 200gr bullet and pathetic with the FMJ 174gr one. which replaced it in 1937.
Click to expand...


yes its not much of a cartridge, but for a left hand gun it works well. :D


I will continue to try to dicourage you from trying to mess up a perfectly good collectable pistol by putting a spured hammer on it.

You have a collectable piece keep it that way.


Or you cluld sell it to me :) cheap
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom