Webley + Scott MK IV mystery

[washago]

Hello,

I recently purchased a Webley & Scott MK IV from a local gun shop. Since it will be many months before I actually take it home (I'm in Ontario), I took some photos of it to check out the markings and look up the serial number.

The "mystery" I'm alluding to in the title is the serial number itself. It is preceded by the letter B like many later MK IV's but it only has 4 digits in the number. Every other MK IV I've looked at on the web has at least a 5 or even a 6 digit serial number, not including the prefix A or B.

This same serial number is also on the cylinder.

A chart for Webley serial numbers on the web does not show any 4 digit numbers.

Has anyone seen another Webley like this or might know why the digit deficiency? The store salesman said that the revolver had been refurbished. Would they have somehow changed the serial number?

I would post photos but I'm a Newbie and cannot as yet.

 

[Milspectacles]

The B prefix for medium-framed MK IV's in .38 S&W started with S/N: B1 in 1957. Lower serial guns are around, but as you have noticed the available guns tend to be much later on in production.

 

[washago]

The B prefix for medium-framed MK IV's in .38 S&W started with S/N: B1 in 1957. Lower serial guns are around, but as you have noticed the available guns tend to be much later on in production.

Thanks very much for your reply and this clarifying info. I took a closer look at that online chart and now see that I missed that the start number with both the A-prefix and the B-prefix is "1".

It also shows that the total production from 1957 to 1965 was 28600 guns. So my Webley S/N B73XX may have a manufacture date of 1958 or 1959.

On this gun, the "Flying Bullet" trademark on the right side near the hinge has "WEBLEY" stamped below it rather than the "W&S" I've seen on other Webleys online.

It seems in pretty good condition although the hammer and trigger show some rust. I wonder what they might have done to "refurbish" it as the gun store claims it was?

Again, thanks for clearing this up!