Webley No 5 New army: Reliable??

M

Maxi5566

Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   1
Location
Montreal, Quebec
Hi,

I really like how it looks and the diversity of caliber it can chamber (including 45LC). I know SA revolver are more reliable (less moving parts) than SA/DA, but how is the Webley No 5 New Army? How does it compare to Colt 1878?
 
Hi, thanks for the reply!

From what I read, it was made to be able to be able to chamber 45lc:
tumblr_n35rphrBun1s57vgxo1_1280.jpg

e37d4abb5ecb19aa94a2242985d0b724.jpg

But i am not an expert, I just did some research on the web
 

Attachments

  • e37d4abb5ecb19aa94a2242985d0b724.jpg
    e37d4abb5ecb19aa94a2242985d0b724.jpg
    39.8 KB · Views: 178
Merely an observation, but the US Army also used the 45 Schofield cartridge. But you do have an awfully good retort there. A nice bit of obscure trivia that you bring to the Table... thanks.
I stand politely corrected and acknowledge the fact.
 
"Webley Solid Frame Revolvers" Black et al lists the No5 in combo .450 and 45 LC. Had a double step rim recess in cylinder to fit different rim diameter and thickness of two different ctgs.
 
You may be correct. I also read that it could be for the 45 schofield (which is milder than .45 colt/more similar to a 455 webley).

But one of the author (Joel Black) of a reference book on Webley seems to be positive it is indeed 45 Long colt:

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/britishmilitariaforums/my-new-webley-no-5-new-model-army-express-476-455--t13224.html

« The .45 long designation on the No 5 New Army Express was for .45 Colt. A full case of black powder behind a 230gr. bullet is a higher velocity load than a typical cowboy action load. »
Click to expand...

This forum has a lot of information on wether it is chambered for .45lc or not:
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/britishmilitariaforums/webley-no-5-new-army-express-t11011.html

Quotes from the link above:

Question:
Are we sure that the ".45 US Cavalry" isn't the 45 Schofield, which is milder than 45 Colt? The Army adopted the Schofield in limited numbers. The Colt would fire the ammo for either but the Schofield would not fire the longer Colt ammo. The ammo non-compatibility & the weaker design doomed the Schofield from Military service. Just a thought, because Schofield woul dbasically be a watered down 45 Colt.
Click to expand...
Reply from Joel Black:
Here is a partial page from the A&N CSL records. There should be no doubt about the cartridge since they specifically were competing with the Colt 1878. The catalog cut is from a Webley catalog a few years later. You can see they were now offering the New Model RIC in 45 Colt and 44/40 just as they did with the No. 5 New Army Express.
Click to expand...
AEColtstyle.jpg
 

Attachments

  • AEColtstyle.jpg
    AEColtstyle.jpg
    61.3 KB · Views: 170
Last edited:
tokguy said:
Pretty sure that is an error, 45LC is a bit long and powerful for a Webley.
Could be wrong, not a Webley fella.
Stay safe
Click to expand...

Yes there were a number of # 5 Webleys that were stamped with both .455 & .45 LC.
The firing pin was very long to reach the primmer of the .455.
 
The one I've seen is marked.

.476, .450, and .455 are not compatible with .45 Colt.

In a Colt,( if the cylinder is wide in diameter enough), the British cartridges can be fired, they just tend to back out primers.

Early Brit cartridge chambered Colt cylinder chambers are not bored in line with the bore.

The Brit cartridge rim thickness create a headspace issue unless the chambers are counterbored to accept.45 Colt.

In a .476 chamber, .45 colt will not rotate through the firing position, but will fit the chamber.

Perhaps if the gun has excessive end shake.
 
Last edited:
Lee Enfield said:
The one I've seen is marked.

.476, .450, and .455 are not compatible with .45 Colt.

In a Colt,( if the cylinder is wide in diameter enough), the British cartridges can be fired, they just tend to back out primers.

Early Brit cartridge chambered Colt cylinder chambers are not bored in line with the bore.

The Brit cartridge rim thickness create a headspace issue unless the chambers are counterbored to accept.45 Colt.

In a .476 chamber, .45 colt will not rotate through the firing position, but will fit the chamber.

Perhaps if the gun has excessive end shake.
Click to expand...

I've poorly cut Colt New Service in 45 LC that is like that... just a trifle proud in the cylinder. Enough to tie it up now and again. Webley's are pretty stout... I suppose they would handle a 45 LC in a solid frame model.
Flagged for interest. At the end of the day...we need a cylinder length to prove / disprove the theory.
 
Not withstanding the use of 45LC cartridges, the reliability of the Webley design was vigorously tested by the British and found to be good enough for service across the globe for 50+ years. You won't find another revolver design with that record.
Was the Colt 1878 adopted by any military service? Maybe but I can't think of any offhand.
 
vagrantviking said:
Not withstanding the use of 45LC cartridges, the reliability of the Webley design was vigorously tested by the British and found to be good enough for service across the globe for 50+ years. You won't find another revolver design with that record.
Was the Colt 1878 adopted by any military service? Maybe but I can't think of any offhand.
Click to expand...


Canada adopted the 1878 in 1884 and purchased more in 1899-1901.

The US purchased 1878s in 1901 - commonly called the Alaskan or Phillipine Model.
 
vagrantviking said:
Not withstanding the use of 45LC cartridges, the reliability of the Webley design was vigorously tested by the British and found to be good enough for service across the globe for 50+ years. You won't find another revolver design with that record.
Was the Colt 1878 adopted by any military service? Maybe but I can't think of any offhand.
Click to expand...

Yes, Canadian Militia 1885, Britain 1879 for Zulu war and US and A of America c1900 for Phillippines misunderstanding.
As I explained in above post the cylinder rim recess was cut to two different widths and depths to take 450 45 LC.
 
vagrantviking said:
Not withstanding the use of 45LC cartridges, the reliability of the Webley design was vigorously tested by the British and found to be good enough for service across the globe for 50+ years. You won't find another revolver design with that record.
Was the Colt 1878 adopted by any military service? Maybe but I can't think of any offhand.
Click to expand...

In truth, the British Armed forces did flog a proven design past it's best before date... Lee Enfield being a classic example.
I like Lee Enfields myself... consider it the pick of the bunch as far as a 'Battle Rifle'.
But they flogged it way too long.
Not blaggarding the Webley... but it was / is a 18th century design.
I still consider it superior to the 1878 Colt Frontier.
But break open... everyone else was moved onto stronger more robust designs..donning the flame proof suit now.
 
Lee Enfield said:
Canada adopted the 1878 in 1884 and purchased more in 1899-1901.

The US purchased 1878s in 1901 - commonly called the Alaskan or Phillipine Model.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. I thought the next revolvers to be adopted were the swing out cylinder models. Thanks!

It is a bit incredible that the Webley lasted so long after WWI and even after WWII. Some countries were testing even adopting their second or third generation semiautomatic sidearm by then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom