Great War Webley Revolvers (Mks VI, V & VI)

[MikB]

You mean to intentionally commit suicide with as a last resort, Mik? The reason I ask is that I know nothing about guns and I only know the name Iver Johnson through another of the company's products - motorycles. Occasionally, when reading about the bikes, one reads a reference to the revolvers. I understood that some Iver Johnson revolvers were called "suicide pistols" or "suicide specials" not because they were particularly popular or suited for this purpose, but because they were so poorly-made they were liable to blow up and injure the shooter.

Tom

Edit: True or not, the bad engineering accusations certainly didn't apply to the company's motorcycles, which were beautifully-made machines.

The risk of dying of appalling wounds in No Mans Land over a period of hours or days without anyone coming to recover or treat you was real and horrifying - IIRC the fear is described in Sassoon's 'Memoirs of an Infantry Officer'. Some wanted a pistol primarily to be able to avoid such a prospect.

There were poorly-made revolvers in plenty at that period, and many of them were patterned after the better-quality market leaders. But Iver Johnson's were not amongst these. A long time ago I examined one in some detail, and although old and somewhat worn it still shut tight and locked up accurately, the concealed-hammer design was snag-free and ideal for a pocket pistol, and the double-action was smooth and positive. The term 'suicide special' as a comment on quality really belonged to much poorer pieces than these. Your comments on their bikes seem to me to be entirely consistent.

Regards,

MikB

[MikB]

I once had a conversion kit that allowed the use of .22 rimfire

in a Webley, not very accurate though, as the bullet nose was deformed as it left the cylinder,

trapped several bullets in a drum of water, they were all deformed at the same place

on the tip of the bullet.

Retlaw.

I remember Parker-Hale advertising these kits in the 1960s, though by then I think they were mainly offering conversion from .38. Are you saying the tip protruded from the cylinder, and was sheared as it rotated?

Was the rifling engraved evenly all the way round? One of the issues with .22 revolvers is that (say) 5 thou misalignment is far more significant in such a small calibre than it would be in .455, and achieving similar shooting accuracy demands greater manufacturing precision.

Regards,

MikB

[Retlaw]

I remember Parker-Hale advertising these kits in the 1960s, though by then I think they were mainly offering conversion from .38. Are you saying the tip protruded from the cylinder, and was sheared as it rotated?

Was the rifling engraved evenly all the way round? One of the issues with .22 revolvers is that (say) 5 thou misalignment is far more significant in such a small calibre than it would be in .455, and achieving similar shooting accuracy demands greater manufacturing precision.

Regards,

MikB

No it was not caused by any thing like that, it was caused by the angle the bullet met the throat of the rifling. The cartridges entered the bore at an angle, because the hammer had to strike the rim of the cartridges. That caused a skid mark on the bullet ogive as it aligned itself with the bore.

The complete kit comprised of a barrel with sleeves for either .38 or .455, knurled nut to lock it in place, and a shortned cylinder chambered for .22 rimfire, would accept shorts, long, long rifle, but not the .22 langfurbuchen.

Retlaw

[MikB]

No it was not caused by any thing like that, it was caused by the angle the bullet met the throat of the rifling. The cartridges entered the bore at an angle, because the hammer had to strike the rim of the cartridges. That caused a skid mark on the bullet ogive as it aligned itself with the bore.

The complete kit comprised of a barrel with sleeves for either .38 or .455, knurled nut to lock it in place, and a shortned cylinder chambered for .22 rimfire, would accept shorts, long, long rifle, but not the .22 langfurbuchen.

Retlaw

That's a pretty gruesome way of doing it - though I guess, without modifying the gun, they had no way to orient a parallel but offset adaptor within the chamber - or, for that matter the subcalibre tube within the parent barrel. Might have worked better in a longer chamber, but as it is it's no surprise the kits didn't find wide acceptance.

"Lang fuer Buechsen" simply means "Long for Rifles" in German - the round is 22 LR. There must have been some other variation to prevent it fitting.

Regards,

MikB

[Retlaw]

That's a pretty gruesome way of doing it - though I guess, without modifying the gun, they had no way to orient a parallel but offset adaptor within the chamber - or, for that matter the subcalibre tube within the parent barrel. Might have worked better in a longer chamber, but as it is it's no surprise the kits didn't find wide acceptance.

"Lang fuer Buechsen" simply means "Long for Rifles" in German - the round is 22 LR. There must have been some other variation to prevent it fitting.

Regards,

MikB

Yep, I know what it is, I used to collect cartridges, but you should also know that they are about 3/16" longer than standard .22 long rifle used in this country, the bullet tip on the extra long was exposed,

Retlaw

[TonyE]

.... Some of these revolvers may have survived long enough to be converted from the original percussion to cartridge, but there would have been few if any seeing WW1 service......

Regards,

MikB

Not directly connected to your post about the Adams revolvers Mik, but certainly some of the .450 Adams manufactured as breechloaders in the 1880s were still serving with the Royal Irish Constabulary, some units of the Indian Army and possibly some UK Territorial units at the beginning of the war. The drawn case .450 Adams cartridge shown on the right of my lower picture in Post #62 was only introduced in 1909.

Regards

TonyE

[Dan Brock]

Astounded you may be, but check post #4 by Centurion which mentions the Webley Fosbery.

..and it is not the only semi-automatic revolver, Mauser made on also.

Regards

Tonye

Easily astounded, that's me.

[Stoppage Drill]

Also, The Enfield Mark I* double action only pistol was .38 inch calibre and was quite seperate from the large frame .455 inch pistols under discussion. Off topic, but they were extensively used in WW2 and the reason for the switch from the Mark I with a hammer spur to the double action only Mark I* and a spurless hammer was twofold. It greatly simplified production and also there had been complaints from crews of armoured vehicles that the trigger spur snagged on clothing within the confines of a tank. The AFV crews carried their pistols in a special low slung thigh holster, different to the normal infantry pattern.

Regards

TonyE

With respect, this "tank crew" reason for the removal of the hammer spur from the Enfield No2 is fallacious, though it is very widely believed. One often sees No2 MkI* referred to as the "Tankies Pistol." Ugh !

The reason was a decision by the Small Arms Committee to prevent single action revolver shooting, which ran counter to British Army training doctrine in the mid 1930's right up until the final farewell to revolvers in about 1970. Once the hammer nose was manufactured with no full cock bent, to make the revolver true dao (MkI*), why keep the spur ? Name me any other DAO revolver with a hammer spur ?

The RAC first pattern holster you mention was far more of a hindrance, as that long webbing strap would loop with body movement and catch, which is why it was shortened, and also why the closed top 37 Pattern holster was much preferred, and was almost universal amongst AFV crews by the end of WW2. It could be conveniently lowered by slinging it below a pistol ammo/compass pouch, low enough to enable a right side carry and draw.

The butt of the revolver sticking out of the RAC open holster, and the cleaning rod, would be much more likely to snag. The simplification of production really came in with the MkI**, which was pretty rapidly abandoned.

[TonyE]

Yes, the idea of a "Tankie" pistol is another of those horrible Americanisms dreamed up by surplus dealers, along with the fake "Jungle Carbines" and the "Tanker Garand"!

I must agree that I have seen that the AFV story may have no basis in fact, so perhaps it was the inconvenience of the low slung AFV holster that was the root of the stories. Being more interested in searching for ammunition information I have not seen the SAC minutes with respect to double action shooting. What is slightly odd then is why the Mark I was approved in the first place. It was approved in 1932, although manufacture started slightly earlier, so when was the decision taken that single action was not needed?

I don't think the Mark I* was approved until 1937 (?) and the I** until 1943.

Regards

TonyE

[Khaki]

Does anyone know anything about the possibility of Webleys being removed from the inventory of warships to supplement army needs? I have recently seen Mk1* and Mk3 revolvers (.455) with "N" stampings on the backstrap of the pistol grip and a very large arrow on the top strap. The Mk1* had a frame (redate) of 1914.

khaki

[TonyE]

The markings you describe , especially the large Broad Arrow filed into the top strap of Webleys are very typical Royal Navy marks. With regard to pistols being withdrawn from warships to supplement army supplies, in fact it was the other way round and the RN pressed the Ministry to divert pistols from the army to the Admiralty.

There is some interesting correspondence in the Ministry of Munitions files at the NA about this. This in an internal Ministry memo:

“The Admiralty are now pressing for transference of 2,500 revolvers from the War Office deliveries, 500 at once and the remainder at 250 per week. These deliveries would considerably deplete the already poor deliveries being made towards War Office requirements.

I therefore propose to offer the Admiralty in place of these a supply of 6” .38 Smith & Wesson special revolvers of which they have 3695 in stock, they could make further deliveries of 1,000 per month and if night shifts were worked they could practically double these deliveries.

We have not a sample of this pistol at the Ministry but I am making every endeavour to obtain such a sample for submission to the Admiralty.

These revolvers being in America three weeks at least would have to be added to the time given for delivery. I am informed by cable that a sufficient quantity of ammunition could be supplied with these revolvers, but I have cabled asking for definite figures.

It would be to the mutual advantage of the Admiralty and ourselves if this arrangement could be come to and the entire deliveries of Webley & Scott made over to us.”

This proposal was put to Mr. W. Graham Greene of the Admiralty on 21st January 1916 where it met with a very swift rebuff in a letter to the Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions:

“Sir,

With reference to your letter of 21st instant No.C.M.57/D.M.R.S. relative to the supply of revolvers I am commanded by My Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to acquaint you for the information of the Ministry of Munitions that the suggestion that the Admiralty should accept Smith & Wesson .38” pistols in lieu of the service pattern Webley pistols cannot be entertained.

In the meantime the stock of pistols is practically exhausted and supplies are urgently required for issue to ships etc and to units serving with the Expeditionary Forces.

I am therefore to request the concurrence of the Ministry of Munitions to the transference of 500 Webley revolvers to the Naval Service at once to meet these requirements and that a further supply of 2000 may be allocated in weekly deliveries to be arranged later which will meet requirements for the next three months. Admiralty orders with Messrs. Webley & Scott amount to approximately 8000 placed between January and August 1915.

I am, Sir,

Your obedient servant,

W. Graham Greene.”

Despite these rather acrimonious exchanges of correspondence, the Royal Navy never received their full order of either Webley Self Loading pistols or revolvers, but perhaps the Ministry felt obliged to do something, as delivery of the self-loading pistol did commence again in February 1916. Between then and the final delivery in August 1917 the Royal Navy received a further 1,487 .455” self-loading pistols together with some Mark VI revolvers.

It is not known how many of the .38 S & W pistols the Royal Navy were obliged to take due to the shortage of Webleys, but if they were, the quantities were not large.

Regards

TonyE

[Stoppage Drill]

so when was the decision taken that single action was not needed?

Regards

TonyE

I need a little time to answer this, and will reply in due course, unless the common will is that a discussion about the .380 Enfield is out of place on a Great War forum.

What on earth was a "Tankers Garand " ?

[reese williams]

While I cannot comment on whether or not there were ever any Webleys converted to 45ACP in Britian, I can comment on the conversions done in America. In the years right after WWII there was a flood of surplus military guns into the US. I have seen a sales flyer from J.C. Pennys (one of Americas top department store chains in the 50-70s) advertising 455 Webleys for $9.95 and Lee-Enfields for $14.95

I have been shooting Webleys since the 1960s. While I wasnt involved in the conversions done during the 50s some of the older members in my gun club were. One of them was a machinist whose brother was a gunsmith. He told me they would buy Webley MkVIs in cases of 10, convert them, sell them and do another case. In the 50s .455 ammo was virtually unobtainable in the U.S. To convert 45 long colt brass to .455 brass you have to thin the rim from the front side. You can only do that if you have access to a lathe. The idea of 45ACP rounds in a half moon clip or 45 Auto Rim had been around since just after WWI. The Colt and Smith and Wesson Model 1917s had exposed American shooters to the concept. It was quick and easy to machine the rear face of the Webley cylinder and extractor star to increase the gap between cylinder and recoil shield enough that 45ACP in half moon clips could be used. Military surplus ammo was cheap and available. I remember buying WWII and later surplus 45ACP, .303, 7.62X54R, 8mm Mauser and 30-06 for a penny a round well into the mid 70s.

This thread caused me to dig into the safe and ammo locker and verify a couple of the statements that have been made.

This is the cylinder to recoil shield gap on a converted Mk VI.

This is the cylinder to recoil shield gap on an unconverted Mk IV

Rear face of the cylinder on converted Mk VI. Notice the obvious machining marks and how the extractor star has been thinned enough that the locater pin on the star is visible. Most of my other converted cylinder show a bit better finish, this was just the first pistol I grabbed.

[reese williams]

Here is the rear face of the unconverted Mk IV. Notice the broad arrow and inspection stamp.

This is a 45ACP round in the unconverted cylinder. It drops so far into the chamber that there is no possibility of firing it like this.

This is how far an unconverted cylinder will close when loaded with 45ACP rounds in a half moon clip. It might be possible to force the cylinder completely closed but it would certainly be bound and would not rotate.

[reese williams]

This is the converted cylinder closed on a load of 45ACP in half moon clips.

This is the converted cylinder loaded with Fiocchi .455 Mk II rounds. On some converted Webleys there is enough firing pin protrusion the .455 rounds will fire.

A "tanker garand" was a marketing ploy. A garand was shortened and sold as a rare or experimental model. The same thing was done a few years ago to Lee-Enfields. They were both completely bogus rifles with absolutely no military provenance.

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Reese,

Great set of photographs.

LF

[MikB]

Thanks very much Reese - some of us have been wondering about suspect statements made about what was and wasn't doable with the unmodified and modified variants, and your photos have made matters demonstrably clearer. Excellent piece of work - thank you.

Regards,

MikB

[truthergw]

Thanks for the set of photos. Never having handled one of these pistols, it was hard to follow the discussion at times.

[Radlad]

Reece, may I add my thanks as well, you have illustrated the changes admirably.

Re your comment about thinning the rims of .45LC

I have been somewhat of an amateur engineer for many years and often used to modify cartridge cases to work in weapons where the ammunition is hard to get ( Thinning .45lc, making , .45 Webley auto from .45 AR and .38ACP from .38Sp as examples) . .455 revolver cases cases have an unusually thin rim and in my experience, can be fairly forgiving in ammunition and when rounds were hard to get, it was not unusual to drill out the base of berdan primed ex military brass to accept an American shotgun primer. I have also seen a police recovered MKVI pistol that was loaded single shot with a 2".410 shotgun case pushed through the cylinder and into the barrel throat so as the old saying goes , 'Where there's a will, there's a way'.

I have handled, fitted and fired the .22 conversion many times, my father bought a MkVI from Parker hale in the 1950's and this came boxed with the kit included. The cylinder was indeed chambered at an angle to bring the striker into line with the inner rim of the case and it damaged the bullets in exactly the same way as already discribed.

Perhaps the most unusual conversion I have seen was a single shot .22RF unit that I have never seen discribed or illustrated in any way. I took some photo's at the time but the pictures and negatives are long gone. It had a block that replaced the cylinder as a straight swop with the barrel going inside the .455 barrel and protruding at the front where it was threaded for a knurled , tapered face nut to retain it. There were target sights fitted that came up round the topstrap and the ejector system mated with the webley's perfectly. Unfortunately it was too pitted with rust to read the makers name or proof marks but there were some definately on it. Perhaps TonyE could shed some light on this.

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Radlad,

Could this be your 22. Rimfire Long conversion, with the block fitted in place of the cylinder ? described as a :

" Wilkinson Webley Model 1911 ( calibre .450/455 ) fitted with a Webley Adapter chambered for a calibre .22 Rimfire Long cartridge.

Aiming tubes for this type were designed for use in any Webley extracting revolver of either .450 or .455 calibre, and were very easy to install. After the cylinder had been removed, the tube was simply inserted into the barrel. Note additional rearsight incorporated with the unit. "

( Bruce & Reinhart's " Webley Revolvers " pages 226/227.)

LF

[Radlad]

Radlad,

Could this be your 22. Rimfire Long conversion, with the block fitted in place of the cylinder ? described as a :

" Wilkinson Webley Model 1911 ( calibre .450/455 ) fitted with a Webley Adapter chambered for a calibre .22 Rimfire Long cartridge.

Aiming tubes for this type were designed for use in any Webley extracting revolver of either .450 or .455 calibre, and were very easy to install. After the cylinder had been removed, the tube was simply inserted into the barrel. Note additional rearsight incorporated with the unit. "

( Bruce & Reinhart's " Webley Revolvers " pages 226/227.)

LF

That's it or very close. The one I saw had a knurled nut screwed on the barrel at the muzzle but it's exactly the same principle. Cheers for that reference, It's puzzled me for years

[Khaki]

Hi Reese,

Very informative response, nice to have a New Zealand marked mk6, not too common I would think.

khaki

[Spedini]

How much play is acceptable between barrel catch/frame on a Webley revolver.One of my Webley`s is a little "floppy" that way.Is there any way to cure it.

Regards

Peter

[TonyE]

All Webleys appear "floppy" because they do not lock up until the hammer has fallen with the trigger fully to the rear..

Cock the pistol and manually lower the hammer whilst keeping the trigger fully pulled. When the hammer is down, keep the trigger pulled and try the cylinder now. All being well you will find it has locked up.

Regards

TonyE

[MikB]

How much play is acceptable between barrel catch/frame on a Webley revolver.One of my Webley`s is a little "floppy" that way.Is there any way to cure it.

Regards

Peter

If you mean you can rock the muzzle up and down when the catch is shut, that seems to be to be unusual wear, or it might suggest a mismatched stirrup catch. I don't know if you could silver-solder some shim to the underside of the stirrup without letting down the steel?

Probably better to try to find another stirrup with less clearance between screw axis and underside of crosspiece.

Regards,

MikB