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

[TonyE]

Good advice Mik, I should have read the original query with more care!

Nothing like answering a question that was not asked!

Cheers

TonyE

[MikB]

Good advice Mik, I should have read the original query with more care!

Nothing like answering a question that was not asked!

Cheers

TonyE

Well, there might be other solutions, but they're pretty invasive - like filling the original screwholes in the stirrup and redrilling and tapping at the correct distance from the bottom face of the bridge piece.

I once knew a welder who could've done the filling, and I could probably drill the new holes and tap the threaded one, though it might not be easy to replicate the original thread, so a new screw might need turning up. I could see it taking the thick end of a day to do a job like that, at least for me - though there are likely folk who could do it much quicker.

Other methods that might be easier would include drilling 2 tiny holes - say 1mm or 1/16" - in the tail of top strap where the stirrup bridges it, turning up and drive-fitting a couple of headed silver-steel pins, filing the heads until the latching is right and then bluing them to make them inconspicuous. But I'd guess that drilling either top strap or stirrup bridge might put the arm out of proof, and it's still a damn cute job needed.

Please be aware these are only general thoughts about how to approach the job.

If Fidde has, or knows someone with, any spare stirrups, that's probably the preferable way to go.

Regards,

MikB

[Radlad]

Well, there might be other solutions, but they're pretty invasive - like filling the original screwholes in the stirrup and redrilling and tapping at the correct distance from the bottom face of the bridge piece.

I once knew a welder who could've done the filling, and I could probably drill the new holes and tap the threaded one, though it might not be easy to replicate the original thread, so a new screw might need turning up. I could see it taking the thick end of a day to do a job like that, at least for me - though there are likely folk who could do it much quicker.

Other methods that might be easier would include drilling 2 tiny holes - say 1mm or 1/16" - in the tail of top strap where the stirrup bridges it, turning up and drive-fitting a couple of headed silver-steel pins, filing the heads until the latching is right and then bluing them to make them inconspicuous. But I'd guess that drilling either top strap or stirrup bridge might put the arm out of proof, and it's still a damn cute job needed.

Please be aware these are only general thoughts about how to approach the job.

If Fidde has, or knows someone with, any spare stirrups, that's probably the preferable way to go.

Regards,

MikB

Not happy about your possible cures Mik! I presume the slop is only a few thou at the latch so a bit of shim steel soft soldered to the barrel extension would provide a functional but not pretty closure with the advantage of not effecting the heat treatment.

A new stirrup would definately be the best way to go, they were all hand fitted anyway so a tight second hand one could probably be made to lock up correctly, although I have seen sloppy ones that were due to a weak stirrup spring and the actions locked up tight when the hammer was fully home. Personally, provided the pistol didn't rattle too much, I'd be happy to use it even though accuracy might be a little erratic.

I've made a couple of new latches in the past but each one took a couple of days handwork to make and I wouldn't have thought it economic to do , I know I wouldn't attempt it now. A good gunsmith or toolmaker should be able to achieve it, but I dread to think of the cost. There is a butchers cure involving a hammer and file which I once saw a professional gunsmith carry out, but that is best left alone. One has to remember that these pistols were used and maintained all over the world, often where no spares or machinery was available.

[MikB]

Not happy about your possible cures Mik! I presume the slop is only a few thou at the latch so a bit of shim steel soft soldered to the barrel extension would provide a functional but not pretty closure with the advantage of not effecting the heat treatment.

Hey, neither am I! Depends whether the user's intentions include shooting.

I don't know whether any type of soldering would avoid letting down the steel as you'd exceed 250 C in doing so - but I'd think it would be better to risk the stirrup than the top strap, especially as there might be a chance of getting a replacement.

I don't think we really disagree - I was just suggesting possible approaches, and I did comment on the drawbacks.

Regards,

MikB

[Radlad]

I don't know whether any type of soldering would avoid letting down the steel as you'd exceed 250 C in doing so

Regards,

MikB

250deg c is high in terms of soft soldering, Most jobs can be done much lower than that temp. Soft soldering is often used on barrels (To attach sights, swivels etc) and other pressure parts and there is no need to compromise the original heat treatment.

[MikB]

250deg c is high in terms of soft soldering, Most jobs can be done much lower than that temp. Soft soldering is often used on barrels (To attach sights, swivels etc) and other pressure parts and there is no need to compromise the original heat treatment.

Yes, I checked and you're right - you could do it in a domestic oven. I think that makes a bit of shim soldered under the stirrup bridge a practical and inconspicuous repair.

Regards,

MikB

[robins2]

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

[robins2]

having a lot of trouble with these posts?? any way earlier in thread mention was made of .22 conversion, photos of the one I have, do not know vintage of weapon, perhaps some one can advise (I think probably WW11)

regards Bob R.

[robins2]

having a lot of trouble with these posts?? any way earlier in thread mention was made of .22 conversion, photos of the one I have, do not know vintage of weapon, perhaps some one can advise (I think probably WW11)

regards Bob R.

[robins2]

[robins2]

[robins2]

[robins2]

[Lancashire Fusilier]

robins2,

Bruce/Reinhart's " Webley Revolvers ", page 232 states :-

" At the end of the First World War, Captain W.E. Robinson ..... suggested to A.G. Parker Ltd. ( later Parker-Hale ) that they experiment with ways of adapting the standard Mk.VI .455 service revolver to shoot calibre .22 Long Rifle Rimfire cartridges."

The resulting .22 conversion system was patented by Alfred Hale on 17th January, 1923, and was retailed by Webley as late as February 1968.

So your revolver conversion dates from after January 1923, onwards.

Attached is a photograph of a Mk.VI service revolver with the .22 conversion.

Regards,

LF

[Radlad]

That rimfire conversion kit is exactly the same as the one bought by my father in the 1950's. Parker Hale supplied a MKVI in .455, the rimfire conversion and a full cleaning kit in a fitted box. I think they also supplied a similar conversion for the MKIV in .38 S&W.

[Spedini]

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

Thanks MikB That`s exactly what l meant.There is some play between the barrel catch and frame probably due to extensive use.My other Webley`s are tight though.

[The Virginian]

******PLEASE READ AN IMPORTANT SAFETY NOTICE FOR WEBLEY REVOLVER OWNERS CUT FOR .45 ACP/.45 AUTO-RIM*****
Here is a warning that Grant Rombough put together that I think is critical to have pinned to this page....****Warning for Webley Mark V and Mark VI Owners for guns with shaved cylinders****This caution is directed at owners of .455 Webley revolvers - or any other revolver originally chambered in .455 for that matter - that have been converted in some manner to chamber and fire .45 ACP cartridges in moon clips (or .45 Auto Rim cartridges without moon clips)

You will likely have been told (or have read) that it is fine to shoot "factory" or "GI Spec" .45 ACP (or .45 Auto Rim) cartridges in your altered .455 revolver, and you may well already have put many such rounds through your revolver without mishap.

Please be aware that in the view of many who are familiar with these revolvers IT IS NOT SAFE TO FIRE SUCH ROUNDS.

Please consider these facts -

1. The operating pressure for the Mark VI Webley revolver (the last, and strongest, of the .455 Webley service revolvers) was a maximum of 13200PSI (i.e. six 'long tons' of 2200 lbs).

2. The standard operating pressure generated by milspec and full factory loads of .45 ACP ball ammunition is 19,000PSI.

3. The pressure of .45 ACP milspec and standard factory loads exceeds the proof load for the Mark VI Webley revolver.

4. The dimensions of the chamber throats on Webley service revolvers are a bit variable, but generally are smaller than bore diameter for some reason - but this system worked well with the original hollowbase bullet design, which was quite soft (20/1 lead/tin) and non-jacketed. These soft bullets swage down passing through the chamber throat (.... my own view is that this was intentional, to get the most out of the relatively small powder charge, and thus maximize the velocity produced ....) but then the base expands nicely to engage the rifling in the bore. However, the general consensus is that jacketed bullets (such as those loaded in most GI-spec .45ACP ammo) can work to dramatically increase the already excessive chamber pressure generated by such rounds.

5. Furthermore, the earlier models of .455 Webley service revolver were not as strong as the Mark VI. Indeed, the Mark I, Mark II and Mark III revolvers were in fact designed for black powder loads.

Although it cannot be denied that many .455 Webley revolvers have survived being subjected for a long time to standard .45 ACP ammunition, that is equivalent to having been fed a steady diet of proof loads. Simply put, it is a testament to the sturdiness of Webley service revolvers, but can hardly be considered either safe or advisable! It is best to handload these shaved Webleys with lead bullets in the .452-455" size range ad 230-270 grains in weight in either .45 ACP or .45 Auto-Rim cases downloaded to 620-710 fps. This is the only way to safely enjoy shooting a shaved Webley.

Here is what can happen if you do use .45 ACP GI ball in a shaved or cut Webley. Handloading is the only safe way to shoot these guns with lead bullets, softer is better and so is hollow base, in either .45 ACP or .45 Auto-Rim cases downloaded to .455 pressures, with velocity around 620-710 fps. Lead bullets in the 250-270 grain range do best for the Webley's sight regulation, but some have had great success with cast bullets in the 200-230 grain range. Be safe and go easy on these "Empire Building" old warhorses...

[kerry]

Did Webleys issued in early 1915 have safety catches fitted - or were they only in post-War models like the Mk VI?

[Pete_C]

53 minutes ago, kerry said:

Did Webleys issued in early 1915 have safety catches fitted - or were they only in post-War models like the Mk VI?

The Webley Mk V introduced in 1913 did not have a safety catch, nor did its replacement, the Mk VI which was introduced in 1915.

Pete

[kerry]

Ah, thank you for your clarification. Appreciated.🙏