As far as I can determine, the World War I and II edition of British 455 ammunition lists a 265-grain FMJ bullet @ 600 fps. Compared with any military version of 45 Colt or 45 ACP, this is anemic.

While 455 Webley military ammunition has a first-class reputation as self-defense against unclothed and scantily clothed primitive combatants in myriad colonial skirmishes and wars, how effective was the ammunition when self-defending against winter clad German soldiers in northwestern Europe? The Webley Mk. Vs and VIs may have been used for self-defense seldom during World War II. World War I was almost certainly a different bag of cats. Trench warfare placed a premium on close-quarters combat in defense AND attack. In the absence of sub-machineguns and, excluding the AEF, short-barreled shotguns, handguns were a valid choice. Was this ballistically challenged .45-caliber ammunition satisfactory for this sort of combat?

Anemic in the eyes of some people today but quite adequate back then. Most cartridges during that time were in the 600 to 750 fps range, which duplicated the velocities of the cap and ball revolvers before them. If there were complaints about ineffectiveness, I haven't seen them.

I remember an article in the American Rifleman magazine not long ago
that was about some weapons that were used for close range fighting
(killing) in the trenches. I don't know if this relates to your question or
not but the handguns of choice seemed to be various .32ACP semi
autos, maybe the penetration of the .32 was a factor. Recently on TV
I have seen lots of films of WW1 and one particular scene showed a
bunch of troops clowning around with their handguns and all were
semi autos.

Lead bullets were used in WWI and were designed to tumble. I'd have preferred the MK I load, same 265 grain bullet, but at some 700 FPS, not 600 FPS for the MK II.

I don't think the blunt, sometimes HP, MK III & MK IV .455 ammo was used against Germans. Probably limited to use against "native" peoples. Said to be real killers, too.

Many astute Brit officers bought Colt .45 autos, and the British bought over 10,000 Colt 1911's chambered for their Webley .455 auto round, 225 grains at 750 FPS.

In 1940, Churchill insisted that his newly formed Commando regiments have Colt .45 autos. This was before Lend-Lease, too. And he wanted his police bodyguard to carry one. He sometimes carried his own Govt. Model .45, bought in 1915, under his suit coat. (The bodyguard didn't like the weight and bulk, kept his issued Webley .32 auto.)

I think it's obvious that many sophisticated officers preferred more powerful ammo than the .455 MKII. WWII was even worse with an anemic .38 round std. Captured German 9mm's were prized, but most had to be dumped in the ocean after the war, as the men weren't allowed to take them home. Just really tight gun laws, even then.

But Robert Ruark wrote that he saw all sorts of war pistols appear from settlers' homes during the Mau-Mau Emergency in Kenya in the 1950's. Evidently, some colonies didn't divest the men of their captured or bartered-for handguns. I know that many made it back to South Africa, too.

If the bullet doesn't expand, it needs a lot less energy and potential to penetrate adequately. When you have enough weight and sectional density, it doesn't take much velocity to get enough energy to punch through. Yes, non expanding bullets are inferior for most cartridges, but the one edge they have is that they can often times work without much power, especially big dumb bullets. Power still has its advantages, but often times a heavy bullet will do fine without much speed.

Is the 230 grain standard hardball at 850 fps out of the .45 ACP a better choice? Yes. That being said, a big honkin' 265 grain bullet just doesn't need to go that fast to punch through a human being if that bullet isn't expanding. It would do poor against obstacles, but even at 600 fps such a bullet should be able to get where its supposed to go at mot angles on a person. If we are talking Hague Convention rounds, it would actually do well at close range, also considering its large size for a non expanding bullet.

Under powered, yes, inferior to a contemporary cartridge, yes, but from every bit I've ever read about its service history, like jupiter1 said, I certainly haven't come across them, and considering what the bullets used, had enough power to do what it was intended to do.

The "mankiller" round referred to above was not used in WWI due to the Hague Convention, and its equivalent in the 380/200 (200 grain lead; Enfield and Webley Mk IV revolvers) which was equivalent to the 38 Police round for the Colt, was replaced by the 178 grain Cu/Ni covered round very early in WWII. However, the 265 grain lead bullet for the 0.455 was still issued, and the recipients tended not to argue after being hit!! Dave_n

I apologize, this is off topic. How is a bullet designed to tumble? I've seen this claim for the M-16 in Vietnam, which I think has been dismissed as urban legend.

As I understand it, if the bullet is extremely out of balance, either the nose or base is heavier than the other, when the bullet encounters anything with resistance, the bullet will yaw and tumble as it is passing through a body. Imagine a football with a point on the front and a wide flat base. About any touch would make it loose its aerodynamic balance.

As for tumbling, the lack of velocity can easily turn into an advantage in some cases. Not only is the bullet of the right shape, but its also going at such a slow pace that it will destabilize on impact and against resistance. Sometimes velocity and energy helps a bullet stay stable and punch straight through objects and flesh, so depending on all the variables about spin, bullet design, ect., slowing it down will help destabilize it and make it more "tumbly" on impact.

Both British pistol loads were very slow, 38/200 and 45 Webley. Remember the Super Police .38 Special load 200 grain bullet was unusually slow as well, and handloaders will confirm the cartridge can get more velocity than what the factory loaded it with. Perhaps the slow load was a feature, not a flaw...

I didn't think there were too many semi autos available in WW 1; can you recall what they were?

During WWII, my FIL flew with a Brit in a Mosquito from Marrakesh to Casablanca.
He said that the Brit was carrying a Webley with a lanyard.
He took the Webley out of the holster and laid it on the side console.
My FIL was carrying his issued 1917.

__________________
NRA LIFE MEMBER

My opinion is that any stories about someone designing a bullet or to tumble is a myth. Why would you rifle a barrel if you wanted to shoot tumbling bullets?? I had a M-1911 in the service and the gun shot more keyholes than round holes, but had nothing to do with design. It had to do with the fact that the gun was WWII origin and the rifling was so worn that the bullet didn't spin. You are not alone in your theory, since lots of military people used to think that was done on purpose.

455 Mk II bullets were actually pointed and not RN or RNFP. The reason for the odd shaped bullet is not known, but I can tell you that with all the shooting of my 455 HE2 I have never had a key-holed bullet out to 50 yards at least. Maybe the pointed design was thought to give better penetration. The Cartridges of the World author, Frank Barnes states that the 455 Mk II round was as effective or more effective than the 45 ACP at short range.

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

I think you'll find many, many thousands of 32 ACP pistols of many makes were purchased for WWI. Easily looked up. Start by searching Ruby pistols...

No one is talking about bullets that tumble in flight (keyholing). Spitzer bullets fired from rifles yaw at some point after entering soft tissue. It was an unanticipated behavior when these bullets were first introduced. The British added aluminum point fillers in front of the lead core of .303 Mk 7 Ball to initiate yaw at the start of penetration in order to enhance effectiveness. Another example is US 5.56 ball ammunition which is designed to yaw at the early stages of penetration. Although I have not seen official British documentation, it would not surprise me if they designed a semi pointed .455 bullet in order to initiate bullet yaw.


It is known that most round nosed pistol bullets are likely to yaw and veer off course after striking soft targets. Flat nose and semi wadcutter bullets remain stable and penetrate in a straight line which enhances penetration.

The Brit .455 bullet is an odd pointed shape and heavy for caliber. I am sure it tumbles after hitting its target. To what degree I do not know. I would like to see a gel test with it.

I remember reading an article RE the replacement .38-200 from the
1920's. Police shot a bad guy and recovered bullet was said to be about the size of a quarter, even at the low velocity.

When designing hand grenades during WWI it was determined that a .40 cal shard or projectile traveling about 400 fps would produce a disabling wound. The Webley was moving better than that.

__________________
A Snider squibbed n the Jungle

Nope. In 1938, Germany complained about lead British revolver bullets. I guess they saw the war coming.

Both .38-200 and .455 bullets were ordered to be plated/jacketed. The .455 version was the MK VI. It is otherwise like the lead MK II.

I'm aware that there were several different auto pistols made before WW 1, but that doesn't tell me how many were actually used. I have not seen anything except a handful of Lugers, C1896 Broomhandles and M1911s in photos.

I have two 455 Eleys a S&W and a Colt. I'm using a modified
Ideal mold for the 322 gr Gould Hp. Mold drops a 272g slug
with a large hollow point. I'm shooting at approx 600-650fps
with Unique. The only thing other than targets that I have
shot "at", are coyotes. Out of about 20, that I shot at, I finally
managed to hit one. At about 15yds a broadside hit with a bullet
cast of 50/50 solder, with a deep 1/4" dia. HP. Didn't require a
follow up shot. It produced the biggest Wop, I ever herd, of a
bullet hit on animal. A coyote in the ribs isn't much resistance
for a bullet. I think on any ordinary human It would give good
service as a stopper. Bullets are sized to .457"

I see someone else already pointed out that there were large
numbers of Spanish made .32 autos in use back then. Often
called "Ruby" type or Eibar pistols for the region of Spain
they were from. John Browning's first successful .32 was the
model 1900 and sold in very large numbers in just a few
years. His famous model 1910 was even more successful and
was widely copied in various contries.

At the time it was referred to as the concept of 'enhanced instability' with the 174 grain Mk7 ball ammunition.

The Luger/Bochardt pistol in 7.65mm Parabellum (30 Luger) saw service with many countries starting in 1900. The German Navy adopted the 9x19mm Luger in 1902 and then the German army not too long afterwards.

Here's a good reference site:

World War 1 Pistols (1914-1918)

Thank you - this is quite interesting.

There were actually quite a lot of different semi-autos in ww1.

The 1911 pistol in .45 ACP had already been adopted by the US military 6 years before we entered WW I in 1917. The only reason revolvers were used by our troops was that Colt couldn't keep up with production demand, so both Colt and S&W produced their versions of the 1917 revolver in .45 ACP. About 300,000 revolvers were produced in comparison to about 500,000 1911's, so the semi-auto 1911 would have been the more commonly issued American handgun in WW I.

Sounds reasonable - thank you.

Not sure anyone has any idea of total numbers, but this gives some idea for Ruby pistols from Spain:

"One can only imagine the Gabilondo shop receiving news of this staggering order (10,000/month)– because at that time they had less than 10 employees (between 5 and 8, depending on which source you read). There is no conceivable way they could have produced anywhere near this quantity of firearms, but now they had a contract for them. Talk about the right kind of problem to have! In order to meet the order, Gabilondo contracted with four other gunmakers in the city of Eibar: Armeria Elgobaressa y Cia, Echealasa y Vincinai y Cia, Hijos de Angel Echeverria y Cia, and Iraola Salaverria y Cia (the “y Cia” means “and Company”). Each of these subcontractors was to produce 5000 pistols per month for Gabilondo, who would control overall QC and deliver the guns to France.By this time (August 1915) the French contract had increased to 30,000 pistols per months, and would later jump again to 50,000 per month."

Others were made by Beretta, Frommer, Steyr, Colt and FN to name a few. It's really astounding how many small autos, in particular, were produced and used. Many are still available and collectible today at reasonable prices.

I'm sure nobody has any exact numbers. My question was based on seeing very few autos in vintage pictures, but that could just be the luck of the draw.

Read an interesting article in the latest Handloader magazine about truncated cone bullets. It stated that the 9mm round was first introduced with a truncated cone 124gr fmj bullet to increase effectiveness. The truncated cone ammunition was issued right up until WW1. The Germans found it effective but changed to the semi pointed round nose FMJ bullet because of the risk of execution for possessing inhumane ammunition.

I know .455 ballistics seem Wimpy by modern standards, but I suspect they were quite adequate for the intended purpose. I have an old MKVI Webley shaved for 45 ACP. I load Hornady 230 grain .452 lead RN bullets to ~700 FPS for it. Yea, still pretty wimpy, but I'd hate to get in the way of those projectiles.

BTW, I have read that .455 Webley Cylinder throats and bores may actually a lot tighter than .455". I suspect this may be true, at least with my gun. I know I cannot push a jacketed .451" bullet through any of the cylinder throats of my .455 MKVI. I also figured accuracy with .452 bullets skidding down a .455 bore would be all over the paper at 15 yards. Not so. Couple of cylinders worth went into 4". Again, makes me think that Webley .455 cylinder throat and barrel groove diameter are tighter than .455".......ymmv

__________________
NRA Life, COTEP 640

For those who don't know, that MK VII round is .303 rifle ammo, not .455. It was adopted in 1910. It replaced the 215 grain .303 MK VI, at lower velocity.

And no one mentioned the M-1914 Mauser 7.65mm/.32 ACP pistol. It was quite popular, especially with senior officers not likely to see combat.

Look for one when the German mountain div. officer captured the British sabotage team in, The Guns of Navarone. It may have been the M-1934, which had a more curved rear to the handle. The .32 was in his hand, so I couldn't see the grip.

With out even trying to list them, there were more autos used in
1st world war than revolvers, as far as models. A lot of them were 1st generation, loaded with stripper clips. The Germans
probably used at least a dozen. Military occupations that didn't
require a rifle, but were artillery or other combat MOS, were
given the better side arms. Support troops were given secondary
issue handguns. A lot of these were 7.65 mm.

The French troops could never get enough .32 ACP semi-auto pistols in the trenches during WWI. Most of them were Spanish-made, some were from pre-war Belgium. A Browning 1900 .32 was a highly-prized item, and a favorite of the French Legion Etrangere. The standard French military revolver of that time was the 7.5mm Lebel, very similar to the .32-20. No big-bores for the French. Many German soldiers carried .32 pistols also. Apparently, the .32s were good enough for hand-to-hand distance trench warfare.

I once visited the Imperial War Museum in London. They had an amazing display of dozens of weapons used in the WWI trenches by both sides - looked like those used in the middle ages - spears, clubs (many with spikes), hammers, and axes of every size, shape, and description. Sharpened shovels were very popular trench weapons.

Personally, I doubt that the British ever actually did any sort of scientific study on stopping power for any of the revolver rounds that they carried in the 20th century. I believe that they assumed that, since it was a .455, it MUST be a good stopper. Then they switched to the .38, and simply stated that it had the equivalent stopping power. That was the official party line, and who could argue with it?

It always puzzled me that in light of their extensive combat experience during WWI, the British selected an obsolete revolver type (top break) in a 19th century caliber (.38 S&W) to replace the .455. That says a lot about how hidebound and conservative the British Army was in the post-WWII era. I think they were firmly convinced they would never fight another war and planned accordingly. This was the same British military which totally ignored and ridiculed the development of the jet aircraft engine, which they could easily have perfected well in advance of Dunkirk. Many historians believe that if the British had done nothing more than that, there would never have been a war with Germany.