Webley Mk.IV, VI, Enfield No.2 Mk.I Questions

Drachenblut

Drachenblut

BANNED
BANNED
BANNED
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
91   0   1
Location
Smithers, B.C.
Hello Gents!

I am looking to become a new father to an old revolver! I have always loved the Webleys!

I have a few questions to help me better understand what exactly I need to get in order to satisfy this craving!

Firstly, what are the major differences between the Webley Mk. IV and VI? I understand that metallurgy changed somewhat, and perhaps the Mk. VI is a better buy, is it also more common?

Secondly, I understand that .455 is only offered for sale by Fiocchi ammunition makers, and thus I would reload for it. How easy is it to come by the components to reload for this cartridge and is it a complex process? Where can one get the supplies (ie. are the common?)

Thirdly, is it more economical to obtain a Enfield No.2 Mk I.? (Meaning is it more common, generally less expensive, what are the differences between the Mk.VI Webley and the No.2 Mk.I?)

Fourthly, is the .38/200 caliber the same as .38 S&W? Is this caliber available or is strictly reloading? If so, which is easier/more readily reloadable, .38 or .455?

Lastly, what is the general going price of a Mk. IV, VI, and No.2?

Thanks for the info, my area of expertise is in carbines and rifles and so I do not know much about revolvers.

Yours,
Drachenblut
 
Here is some useful info.

"Mk I: The first Webley self-extracting revolver adopted for service, officially adopted 8 November 1887, with a 4-inch (100 mm) barrel and "bird's beak" style grips. Mk I* was a factory upgrade of Mk I revolvers to match the Mk II.
Mk II: Similar to the Mk I, with modifications to the hammer and grip shape, as well as a hardened steel shield for the blast-shield. Officially adopted 21 May 1895, with a 4-inch (100 mm) barrel.[17]
Mk III: Identical to Mk II, but with modifications to the cylinder cam and related parts. Officially adopted 5 October 1897, but never issued.[18]
Mk IV: The "Boer War" Model. Manufactured using much higher quality steel and case hardened parts, with the cylinder axis being a fixed part of the barrel and modifications to various other parts, including a re-designed blast-shield. Officially adopted 21 July 1899, with a 4-inch (100 mm) barrel.[19]
Mk V: Similar to the Mk IV, but with cylinders 0.12-inch (3.0 mm) wider to allow for the use of nitrocellulose propellant-based cartridges. Officially adopted 9 December 1913, with a 4-inch (100 mm) barrel, although some models produced in 1915 had 5-inch (130 mm) and 6-inch (150 mm) barrels.[20]
Mk VI: Similar to the Mk V, but with a squared-off "target" style grip (as opposed to the "bird's-beak" style found on earlier marks and models) and a 6-inch (150 mm) barrel. Officially adopted 24 May 1915,[21] and also manufactured by RSAF Enfield under the designation Pistol, Revolver, Webley, No. 1 Mk VI from 1921–1926.[22]"

quoted from Wikipedia
 
A shooting buddy of mine passed away recently and I've made arrangements with his family to purchase a few of his handguns. One that I've decided on is a Webley Mark VI in 455. Why? ;)I think everyone interested in handguns should own one at some point in time.

My knowledge of Webleys is VERY limited but I'll PM you a picture of the one I have as well as three pages of info on them plus some reload info that I've been able to scrounge up. Most of this info is parts and assembly lists/diagrams and based on the Mark IV. When I got this all I was really after is info along that line so I could disassemble and clean it up and it's helpful for that.

As you've suggested, and I agree, I 'think' the main difference between the Mark IV and Mark VI is the metallurgy. And I've been told the Mark VI is the most common.

I plan to reload for it and for brass, I've just picked up a few hundred new unprimed Hornady cases from Henry Nierychlo , a member on this website. For bullets, I have a friend locally that's into casting in a big way and I get my 'stuff' from him. The bullet I got a generous quantity of from him is a 260gr hollow base round nose that looks very much like the Lyman # 457196.

As to what they are worth, like anything else, much depends on exactly what model, condition and to some extent, where you're buying it. Here on the south end of the island and with the high concentration of people of English heritage, there are quite a few available. For the one I've picked up, a Mark VI Service, the Blue Book I have lists them from $600.oo for one @ 100% to $200.oo for one 60%.

That's just about wraps up the extent of my knowledge and info on them. I'll PMyou the info I have.
:cheers:
 
Just a personal choice, but I like the look of the Enfields.

Top is a '43 Enfield No 2 Mk I**
Bottom is a 42' Albion Motors No 2 MK I**


My advice: What ever you get, be sure it comes with the Lanyard Ring as loose ones seem to be impossible to find.

100_1293.jpg


100_1291.jpg


And no, I don't want to sell one. :p
 
Very true so far, insofar as the large-frame guns is concerned, but there was ALSO the small-frame Webley which saw a LOT of WW2 service in its Mark IV model. This is commonly encountered as a 6-shot revolver, 5-inch barrel and in .38-200 calibre, although they were also made for civilian sale with shorter barrels and in .32 and .22RF calibres. India has a copy of the Webley Mark IV, 3-inch barrel, .32 calibre, in production today as a police pistol.

There are few things more fun than taking a Webley Mark IV .22RF, a Webley Mark IV .38 and a Webley Mark VI .455 out to the range, all three at the same time, and just wasting a few boxes of shells.

Following WW1 the British government decided to change over to a .38 revolver using a 200-grain bullet of the patented, trademarked Webley `Manstopper`type. The cartridge casing itself would be the already-ancient .38 S&W, just with this new, heavy load. The combination produced about half the muzzle energy of the old .455 but the gun was much handier, cheaper to make and easier to learn to use with some degree of accuracy.

The government wanted some modifications, t their specs, of course, so Webley made the design mods required, confident of a manufacturing contract. When the final gun was ready, the Government announced that it would make its OWN guns and Webley was quickly shown the door. A lawsuit ensued, following which Webley was awarded HALF the money they had SPENT to design the government`s new gun for it. This new gun was the ENFIELD Number 2 Mark 1. Apart from a removable sideplate, it was almost a total ripoff of the Webley, just with a few parts changed and mostly cosmetic differences. It was a single-and-double action top-break 6-shot revolver and went into production about 1929. Later, it was modded to having the hammer spur ground and the trigger mech modded to give double-action fire only. This was the Number2 Mark 1*. A later mod yet removed the hammer rebound lock. It made the gun quicker and cheaper to make. It also made it dangerous to carry, so the Number 2 Mark 1** found itself being modded backwards to Number 2 Mark 1* just as quickly as the parts could be made. The vast majority (95% or better) of 38 Enfields are Number 2 Mark 1* or modded to that spec. Original Mark 1s are rare and Mark 1** which have not been modded to Mark 1* seem to be unobtainable; the Armourers did their jobs well.

The Enfield was made at Enfield in England, by Albion Motors in Scotland and in Australia. The Webleys all were built by Webley & Scott in Birmingham, England. The small-frame Webleys and any of the 38 Enfield series tend to shoot very LOW when used with modern .38 S&W ammo with the 146-grain bullet. I find that I can get them to shoot pretty much to POA with a 158SWC seated to the OAL of a Ball round and 2.1 (two-point-one) grains of Bullseye. I also get good accuracy with this load in the Smith & Wesson medium-frame revolvers made for Canada and the UK during WW2. S&W called these the Model 10-200.

I find that they are all fun, all quick and easy to master, easy to load for, very forgiving, almost indestructible and they all seem to shoot into 2 inches at 15 yards. I will not volunteer to stand in front of ANY of them.

If you have a chance to get the whole set, go ahead: you WILL have fun!

Hope this helps.
.
 
Last edited:
Try Shooter's Den in Sudbury, ON for bullets and brass. They cast lead bullets and make brass for .455Webley. I think the brass is reformed from .45Long Colt. Lee sells a die set for reloading .455Webley.

Yes, .38/200 is interchangeable with .38S&W.
 
smellie, you missed the Howard Auto Cultivators enfield revolver;)

The .38/200 round NEVER made it into WW2, being declared obsolete in 1937. replaced by a jacketed bullet. The ONLY reason the 200 gr lead bullet was developed was to try to turn the PATHETIC .38S&W cartridge into the equivalent of a .455

RCBS makes a mould for both the standard .455 hollow base bullet and also the navy target bullet

Oh, by the way, the .455 Webley "manstopper" is a HOLLOW nosed wadcutter bullet, The .380 webley bullet was NOT
 
I have 2 enfield revolvers, and I can tell you if your missing the lanyard ring you won't find one anywhere

one is a 1932 and the other a 33 one is blued and the other has been refinished at some point in time as it has what appears to be some sort of parkerized finish.

both have the hammer spur intact, but alas one is missing its lanyard ring :(
 
I have a S&W .455 revolver, and it's great but that .455 ammo is scarce and EXPENSIVE. Reloading would be the way to go if you expect to shoot it much.
 
John Sukey, of course, is right again.

They had a theory that the amount of energy required to incapacitate a man was something about 60 ft/lbs, so they designed a load that produced 160 at the muzzle, largely in the hope of coming up with something easier to train with. The guns were rifled for a 200-grain bullet with a rounded flat nose, similar to but not identical to the .455 Manstopper but hopefully with some of its effectiveness. It was just soft lead and they KNEW that any enemy would take them up for it under the Hague protocol and the Geneva accords both so, yes, they did trash it and start making the .380 Mark II and .380 Mark IIz ammo. This used a 178-grain RNFMJ slug and it would make a hole. The Germans were expected to co-operate on being struck by one by lying down and yelling for a medic. I wouldn't call the ammunition "pathetic" but more like "a brave try".

The .455 is something else, though, actually scoring ABOVE the .45ACP on the Hatcher RSP scale: 74 vs 72, largely due to the slightly-increased diameter and the 265 grains mass. It also s just AMAZINGLY classy.

Both are easy cartridges to load and a lot of fun to shoot. Just make sure you have a nice, soft backstop. Shoot them at rocks or in a rock-pit and you'll spend more time ducking lead than you will shooting it: with their very low MVs (down around 650 ft/sec), these ALL ricochet badly. Be safe.

Howard Auto Cultivators? John, what have you been up to?
.
 
The Enfield was made at Enfield in England, by Albion Motors in Scotland and in Australia. The Webleys all were built by Webley & Scott in Birmingham, England. The small-frame Webleys and any of the 38 Enfield series tend to shoot very LOW when used with modern .38 S&W ammo with the 146-grain bullet. I find that I can get them to shoot pretty much to POA with a 158SWC seated to the OAL of a Ball round and 2.1 (two-point-one) grains of Bullseye. I also get good accuracy with this load in the Smith & Wesson medium-frame revolvers made for Canada and the UK during WW2. S&W called these the Model 10-200.
Click to expand...

Yup; 2.1 grains was what I came to also.
 
HAC made, what? About 400 really poor Enfields that you couldn't really interchange parts on. Dropped as a supplier and as a result rare as hell.

Skennerton and Stamp have all the gory details on the HAC fiasco.
 
Thank you so much my fellow collectors and friends!

I will be looking for a Webley Mk. VI in .455 Webley. I am glad to see such a quick and full responce. Are there any particular dates that are rare/hard to find and which are more common? Does the Webley Mk. VI use a single/double action or double action only?
What is the trigger pull for these two modes, approx? Can it be toned down by a gunsmith/how much work would it be to reduce the trigger pull? What would be a good amount of pull (something easy that does not require a lot of strength but is still safe). Example, my friend has an 1898 Nagant revolver dated 1944 and I have extreme difficulty pulling the trigger on double action (due to an accident involving my right hand years ago) but single action is more manageable, just as a reference. What is the trigger pull on those modes for that revolver in comparison?

Thanks,
Drachenblut
 
canuck98k said:
HAC made, what? About 400 really poor Enfields that you couldn't really interchange parts on. Dropped as a supplier and as a result rare as hell.

Skennerton and Stamp have all the gory details on the HAC fiasco.
Click to expand...

Yeah, thats why thery are worth MORE then the Enfield made ones and the Albion motors ones.:D

I rmember on another forum s guy picked up a HAC and wondered if he should sell it off and get an Enfield made one;) That would have been a great opportunity for someone to screw him, but we told him the truth. I have most versions including an Albion motors, but the HAC is my holy grail:D
 
A bit more. A Mk6 is a Mk6. Desireability would be if the officers name and or regimental markings are on the revolver. Naturaly one with an unshaved cylinder would be worth more than one shaved for .45ACP and half moon clips Any of the .455 revolvers are double action and can be cocked to fire single action. DO NOT mess with the trigger pull! This is not a target pistol!
 
John is right again.

Besides, it is extremely unlikely that you will want to mess with the trigger of a Mark VI. I have had a few over the years and find them generally a joy to shoot on single-action: crisp, butter-smooth and absolutely zero creep. They are just a little heavier than a Match trigger, but that's because the last thing you want in combat is a hair-trigger: too much chance of shooting your buddy, your CO or, worst of all, your horse! But they are a wonderful trigger for a combat gun. It's just like each and every one of them had a trigger job just before you picked it up.

As to double-action, you don't have to be King Kong's little brother to use the thing, although it IS heavier than single-action. It is a bit heavy but also is very smooth. It is also controllable and very consistent.

Four-fifty-five is the way to go. Really nice thing is that you end up with a full-power combat handgun which doesn't have a lot more recoil than most .22s.

BTW, the Mark VI was manufactured for a few years AFTER the end of the Great War at Enfield! Parts interchanged but the markings were different. There were not a lot of these "Enfield Mark VI" revolvers made, so be sure to keep your eyes peeled for one. They are not as rare as an HAC Enfield, but they are certainly not common, either.

Have fun!
.
 
Drachenblut said:
Thank you so much my fellow collectors and friends!

I will be looking for a Webley Mk. VI in .455 Webley. I am glad to see such a quick and full responce. Are there any particular dates that are rare/hard to find and which are more common? Does the Webley Mk. VI use a single/double action or double action only?
What is the trigger pull for these two modes, approx? Can it be toned down by a gunsmith/how much work would it be to reduce the trigger pull? What would be a good amount of pull (something easy that does not require a lot of strength but is still safe). Example, my friend has an 1898 Nagant revolver dated 1944 and I have extreme difficulty pulling the trigger on double action (due to an accident involving my right hand years ago) but single action is more manageable, just as a reference. What is the trigger pull on those modes for that revolver in comparison?

Thanks,
Drachenblut
Click to expand...

Sent you a PM with some info and photo, did it come through?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom