Very Nice 1931-dated Enfield No.2 MkI .38 revolver

GrantR

GrantR

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Location
Medicine Hat, Alberta
I've posted on a few other boards about this one - purchased from "Goober" right here on the CanadianGunNutz Trader board - but having now received it, I can confirm that it is every bit as nice as it appears in these photos supplied by the vendor ...

Enfield3a.jpg


Enfield2a.jpg


Enfield1a.jpg


Finish is 98+% (and, having now examined it, I am quite confident that it is the original Enfield factory bluing!) and the bore is perfect .... [:D]

Marked on the bottom of the gripframe "2 SHROP" - which is undoubtedly the 2nd Bttn., The King's Shropshire Light Infantry ....

I do need to replace the lanyard ring, if anyone has one available ... or two, since I've got a .38 Webley missing its lanyard ring, also.
 
Ha I was also thinking of buying that one to go with my other 1931 enfield revolver just to have a pair :)

as for the lanyard rings, I've been looking as well and no luck so far. I know there are a few others here looking for lanyard rings.

I may have a solution (I have a metal lathe) :)
 
1934 RAF marked Enfield

Hello Guys,

That is a very nice and early Enfield Revolver you have there Grant.

I just thought I would add my revolver to this thread as well. It is a 1934 Enfield No 2 Mk 1. Itis marked RAF under the cylinder as you can see. It is in overall excellent condition with a great bore, but is has the normal high point wear to it. It also has no 'FTR' markings or any evidence of being refinished. The pre-war Enfield Factory Finishing was outstanding.

I also had a 1935 Enfield No 2 Mk 1 but I sold that one to another board member who migh add it to this thread.

Cam

Here are the Pictures:



 
Last edited:
I still can't figure the mentality of the Brit's..issuing a revolver in the pathetic .38 S&W...imagine trying to stop a Jap on a banzai charge with a .38...in Clive Law's book..."Inglis Diamond"..the Canadian 9mm HP..the British War Office stalled and dithered , whether to adopt the Inglis 9mm..our Canadian Army was issuing the Inglis and withdrawing the Smith and Wesson 38 from service...the Brit's did in the end issue the 9mm Inglis..but only to the Parachute Regiment.
 
Grant, its a very attractive find. I think you have another excuse to buy another handgun though. If you are planning on carrying a handgun at Klunks Re-inactment match in December, remember 4th Canadian Division issued the S&W.

viviancurrieow7.jpg
 
Nice revolver Grant.
I can't vouch for the following but I met an ex RCAF Spitfire pilot who served in North Africa during WW2. He said that the pilots were issued 380 revolvers either Smith & Wesson or Enfields but they liked the Enfield best because the Smiths had a tendency to split barrels just ahead of the cylinder. He explained that 380 ammo was in short supply so they fired 9mm Sten rounds by nicking the rims with pliers so they would chamber ok. He said that the pilots were allowed to target practice behind the Hangers because if you came down in the desert you could expect trouble from the tribesmen. He said that the Smiths would still shoot with the cracked barrels but if you had an Enfield there were no problems. Recollections of a Grand Old Warrior - braver than me by far.
 
Gentlemen: Thanks for the kind words!

Skippy: Yes, I will definitely shoot it! I adhere to the school of thought that firearms were made to be shot ... :D

b-wingpilot: Regarding the front sight - I have a .38 Mk IV Webley revolver which has had a very similar alteration done to its foresight, presumably to render the rear surface vertical and thus (perhaps) give a sharper sight picture for target shooting or the like -

Webley38.jpg


At least in the case of the Webley I can see that being the reason, in view of the rounded front sights they had ... but, unlike 4b1t's 1934 Enfield, the front blade on my Enfield seems to have been altered to this configuration, and I'm not sure why, since the rear face of the standard foresight blade was already vertical - or, indeed, raked slightly back ... as evident on the Enfield No. 2 MkI* in the same photo ... :confused:

xwestie: in its original configuration, the British .380 service revolver cartridge was reasonably potent, with a 200 grain lead bullet which mushroomed well and/or tended to tumble when it hit - producing acceptable knockdown power. But it was decided that this bullet design contravened the Geneva Convention, so a 178 gr. full jacketed bullet was substituted, with significant loss of effectiveness, but it was still quite a bit more lethal than present-day standard .38 S&W bullets in the 145 gr. range ... (Nevertheless, I still much prefer the .455 service revolver cartridge ... ;) )

Garand: Yeah, I know ... so I'm most likely to pack my "cherry" Canadian-marked S&W M&P revolver ... :p
swmp08a.jpg


... if I don't "play the role" and carry my Inglis High Power, that is .... :cool:
inglis05.jpg
 
The .380 revolver was an attempt to get the same stopping power as the .455 in a smaller easier to use package. With the 200gr lead bullet, they were just this side of marginal, but of course that round was declared obsolete in 1937, so they wound up fignting WW2 with a jacketed 178gr bullet.
I imagine that anyone still armed with a .455 would NOT be willing to give it up.;)

Please excuse the repetition on the .380 cartridge. I should know better to go to the end of the thread before posting.

While I think of it, post war, units would indent for the HiPower to replace the revolver. Due to the British supply nomenclature, BOTH were classed as "pistols" so the reply would come back, "but your unit already has it's full complement of pistols!" Took a while to get that sorted. a bit more. I knew a major in the British army who was trusted to carry a Hi-power on duty, call in air strikes and artillery, but had to turn his personal HiPower because he was not trustworthy to own one.

On the same note, remember the handguards that had to be duct taped to the SA-80 to keep them from falling off? They came up with one that wouldn't fall off, BUT gave it the SAME part number!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom