Troubled by a Webley MKVI

[dutchbarge]

I would greatly appreciate the opinions of Forum members regarding several concerns I have with a Webley MKVI I recently purchased. My first concern is with the serial numbers. The numbers match on the cylinder, barrel and frame, however the size and font of the serial numbers on the cylinder and barrel differ from those on the frame. It also appears as if the 'hand' of the artisan(s) applying the numbers varies from skilled to apprentice. If you look carefully at the serial number on the barrel you will see that an upside down 3 has been used for an 8, as presumeably the artisan did not have an 8 stamp. Please see the following photos: The first two are general orientation photos of the revolver, the next three are of the serial numbers.

[dutchbarge]

My second concern is that the revolver may have been refinished as there appear to be several stampings that are somewhat effaced. Indeed the Webley mark and 1915 date appear somewhat effaced. I have not been able to find a re-proof stamp which would indicate refinishing. The fact that the pistol is marked 1915 below the Webley mark and the revolver wasn't accepted until 1918 (stamped '18 on the barrel) raises the question of why the arm wasn't accepted in 1915 (or 1916). Could a later barrel have been matched to a 1915 frame and stamped to match the frame's serial number and the entire revolver refinished at an arsenal refurbishment? Please see the following photos:

[dutchbarge]

My third concern is that there are no stampings anywhere on the revolver to denote calibre. The original cylinder proofs seem to have been overstamped to facilitate sale by a commercial firm and ENGLAND has been stamped on the barrel I presume to comply with USA import requirements but shouldn't the arm have been stamped with calibre and proofed pressure? Please see the following photographs. Thank you in advance for your help. Cheers, Bill

[shippingsteel]

I am surprised that there have been no replies on this topic to date, as I am particularly interested to hear some thoughts from the specialists.

Perhaps if I bring it to the top someone knowledgeable may see it, and be prepared to comment. Personally I can understand your concerns.

Just looking at the original inspection and proof markings, the revolver does appear to have been polished back and refinished at some point.

The original inspection mark at the top alongside the M is extremely faint, while what looks to be the latter mark on top of it, is struck deeper.

It appears to have a BSA inspection mark with an unusual looking italic B. I don't remember having seen one with such an odd looking shape.?

Cheers, S>S

[dutchbarge]

Thank you for your reply. From the suprisingly scant online information I have been able to find on Webley serial numbers, my revolver's serial number pre-dates the supposedly earliest MK VI serial number. Examining the cylinder and barrel it does not appear that any earlier serial numbers have been effaced as the curve and angles of the metal surrounding the numerals has not been altered. So unless someone found non-numbered barrel and cylinder, stamped them and fitted them to the frame, the parts appear to be of an original set. Upon further detailed inspection with a more powerful magnifying glass, I find that the font of the numerals is infact very similiar in all three locations excepting that whoever performed the stamping seemed to 'slur' the die on the rounded surfaces of the cylinder and barrel. What I mistook for a reversed 3 used as an 8 on the barrel is actually an incomplete stamping of an 8 which came out looking like a backwards 3. Hopefully a few Webley fetishists will join in our discussion. Cheers, Bill

[Lancashire Fusilier]

From the suprisingly scant online information I have been able to find on Webley serial numbers, my revolver's serial number pre-dates the supposedly earliest MK VI serial number.

Bill,

I have several Webleys in my firearm Collection, including 2 Mk.VIs, and looking at the wartime stampings on your revolver, I do not see anything that would give me cause for concern, all that is noticeably different on your Mk.VI to the usual array of stampings found on the British Webley Mk.VI Service Revolver, is the inclusion of the stamping ' ENGLAND ' which was subsequently added to show the country of origin for importation into the U.S.A.

It is not correct that your Mk.VI's serial number 168438 " predates the supposedly earliest Mk.VI serial number ", as in the usually reliable Bruce and Reinhart Webley reference book, page 206, they show the lowest recorded serial number on a 1915 Webley MK.VI as being 153000. In fact, the lowest known serial number on a Webley Mk. VI was 135007 on an early commercial model produced before the War Office acceptance of the Mk.VI in 1915.

Also, throughout WW1, it would not have been unusual for Mk.VI revolver parts to have been replaced as necessary, so the barrel on your revolver may not be the original barrel, and the replaced barrel may have then been serial numbered to match the rest of the revolver, which may account for the difference in the style of the stampings.

With the dire need for firearms, and with urgent repair/refurbishment work being undertaken by Armourers at the Front, you will see variations in the markings, and your MK.VI looks to be a sound WW1 Webley Mk.VI Service Revolver with probably a replaced barrel.

Regards,

LF

[auchonvillerssomme]

I haven't had many through my hands but the marking has always been fairly consistent so excuse my ignorance, my only question is, would a replacement barrel be commonly marked as NP (nitro proofed) in this way and might it indicate the date of the barrel change?

Mick

[TonyE]

Like Lancashire Fusilier, this looks like a perfectly good Mark VI to me that has been repaired/refinished in military service in 1918, probably at the BSA Sparkbrook factory.

The "italic B" was originally the inspection mark of RSAF Sparkbrook, and when this facility was closed and the works purchased by BSA in 1906 they continued to use the same inspection stamp. The plain "B" was used by their Small Heath works.

The civilian proofing would have been done when the pistol was sold from service so does not help with the date of the repairs, which I assume was 1918 from the date on the top strap.

Regards

TonyE

[4thGordons]

I have just one example but like TonyE and Lancs Fus. I do not see anything amiss here but I would not claim any expertise with revolvers, I would be happy to add this to double my collection! The markings and finish do no cause me any concern. The only thing that is slightly odd is the England stamping made up of individual letters. As best I can recall, all of the "England" stamps on my imported firearms appear to have been made with a single stamp as opposed to made up of individual letters. Having said that, mine are on rifles (where there is probably more room and which were probably imported in large batches whereas it is possible a revolver like this was imported individually.)

Chris

[shippingsteel]

So would the trigger guard have been replaced during the refurbishment.? I note that it also has that BSA inspection mark with that extra long 'flag' on the B.

Cheers, S>S

[Lancashire Fusilier]

To keep a revolver serviceable, any part that was damaged or worn and could be replaced, would have been replaced, including a trigger guard.

LF

[shippingsteel]

Been having a look on the web for some photos to compare the markings with, and found these which may add a little.

Firstly another '18 issue with the same proof and inspection marking from a BSA inspector, Bill's has picked up an extra inspection mark.

And the trigger guard and makers patent on a later dated example. Note the crispness of the stamping and the vagaries of the italic letter B.

Not trying to prove anything here, just trying to establish what can be learnt from markings. Seems BSA was heavily involved in accepting Webleys.

And from the crispness of the markings the revolver in question has no doubt been refinished at some stage, but when is much harder to determine.

Cheers, S>S

[dutchbarge]

Thanks, everyone, for your most excellent help. I suspected that the barrel and cylinder had been replaced. However, rather than being disappointed that you seem to have confirmed this possibility, I am thrilled to have a bonafide example of a revolver that actually saw service in the Great War. As stout as the MK VI is, I am forced to wonder what necessitated replacement of barrel, cylinder and possibly trigger guard. As the frame is not pitted I'd rule out corrosion and, other than if used as a training pistol, that it had been 'shot out'. Perhaps the pistol was discharged with a barrel full of mud. That would certainly do it. Might even impact the cylinder as well. It may be that the revolver was damaged by shrapnel or shell fragments. We'll never know. Cheers, Bill

[Khaki]

Still giving this thought, I wonder what happened to revolvers that failed to pass final inspection for, lets say an imperfection in the barrel, perhaps as with revolvers requiring refurbishment, parts serial numbering was not critical, here for example the firearm identity is based on the frame serial number, no other, I am just talking without reference to anything so I may be way off base.

khaki