Hi:
I have a duplicate of your revolver with the same markings. Mine appears to have been spray painted flat black many years ago. IIRC the surplus weapons imported in the 1950s did not have a importer's stamp.
Mine had the front sight filed down in its past. I have attempted for years to find an original front sight blade and screw with negative results.
It does appear to be a No. 2 MkI* Enfield. No idea what the S.P.T. 41 stamping on the cylinder means, except 41 may mean the manufacturing date. If I found it under similar circumstances, I would probably report it to the police.
There were several manufacturers of the Enfield Mk1* revolver other than Enfield, but Enfield made the vast majority of them. Some were made by Albion Motors in Scotland. Later, Webley & Scott made some under their own name, and those are easily distinguished from those made by Enfield. Some company in Australia made a very few of them later in the war.
The twin to this revolver is on GB. The maker's mark should be on the right side of the gun just above and behind the rear of the trigger guard. Perhaps the mark has been filled in by paint or ground off during refurb.
As for getting them open, the stirrup latch spring can be very strong and you are also working against the hammer spring. As these are DAO you can't lock the hammer back to make the job easier.
The twin to this revolver is on GB. The maker's mark should be on the right side of the gun just above and behind the rear of the trigger guard. Perhaps the mark has been filled in by paint or ground off during refurb.
As for getting them open, the stirrup latch spring can be very strong and you are also working against the hammer spring. As these are DAO you can't lock the hammer back to make the job easier.
Webley did not make any of these. They did supply many of their similar MK IV.38's during WW II.
Enfield did make Webley MK VI .455's following WW I, when they took over production, depriving Webley of the govt. contract to make their own gun. This did not sit well with Webley, and they were also bitter when Enfield adopted their No. 2 revolver in lieu of the Webley MK IV .38.
I've owned both Webley and Enfield-made MK VI's and quality was identical Only the markings distinguished the guns. I think all Enfield MK VI .455's were made between 1921-1926, maybe 1927. The .38 was adopted in 1927.
Last edited by Texas Star; 08-01-2017 at 01:24 AM.
The usual Enfield marking looks like a "D" with an extra line on the left midway up. (Think combining "E" with a "D".)
No.2 Mk.1** .38 (.380/200) revolver. Barrel is 1944 dated. Can't tell a whole lot more from the photos above. Should be serial numbers on frame, barrel and cylinder.
I think it's a No2Mk1**,,a very short production version of the No2 Mk1*. It left out the hammer block for ease of production but that was quickly found not to be a good move.
The side plate pic when enlarged I believe shows the two ** from the original stamping yet and part of the Enfield marking. The rest probably gone from a refinish at some point.
Post war proofs for civilian sale.
The marking on the cylinder is the 'steel batch number' used to trace production of the revolvers for possible problems once in use.
Just what I see of course.
added .. The Mk1** was a true DA only,,where as the Mk1* could be fired SA dispite it's bobbed hammer if the shooter was careful enough to raise the hammer a bit by trigger pull and then pull it the rest of the way back with the thumb.
(Many of the Mk1* (bobbed hammer) have been retro fitted with a spur hammer from a Mk1. Some done by Brit and Commonwealth armourers. These latter examples will have the '*' barred out to signify the change back to a Mk1 design)
Last edited by 2152hq; 08-01-2017 at 10:32 AM.
Reason: added
The twin to this revolver is on GB. The maker's mark should be on the right side of the gun just above and behind the rear of the trigger guard. Perhaps the mark has been filled in by paint or ground off during refurb.
As for getting them open, the stirrup latch spring can be very strong and you are also working against the hammer spring. As these are DAO you can't lock the hammer back to make the job easier.
I almost bought one of these revolvers, but was troubled by the missing maker's mark. Info on Google stated that if this mark had been ground off, that the gun had been de-milled and was no longer to be in service use.
added .. The Mk1** was a true DA only,,where as the Mk1* could be fired SA dispite it's bobbed hammer if the shooter was careful enough to raise the hammer a bit by trigger pull and then pull it the rest of the way back with the thumb.
(Many of the Mk1* (bobbed hammer) have been retro fitted with a spur hammer from a Mk1. Some done by Brit and Commonwealth armourers. These latter examples will have the '*' barred out to signify the change back to a Mk1 design)
Could that be true only for Mk1 revolvers updated to Mk1* standard? I have a 1940 dated Mk1* (Mk1* production 1938-1944 I believe) and I shall check if that is possible when I get home.
Webley did not make any of these. They did supply many of their similar MK IV.38's during WW II.
Enfield did make Webley MK VI .455's following WW I, when they took over production, depriving Webley of the govt. contract to make their own gun. This did not sit well with Webley, and they were also bitter when Enfield adopted their No. 2 revolver in lieu of the Webley MK IV .38.
I've owned both Webley and Enfield-made MK VI's and quality was identical Only the markings distinguished the guns. I think all Enfield MK VI .455's were made between 1921-1926, maybe 1927. The .38 was adopted in 1927.
Much of the UK government stomping on Webley's sensitivities was down to the company being unable to ramp up production during WWI. This inability has been attributed by some to Webley's reluctance to "compromise quality". They seemed unable or unwilling to find shortcuts in production.
When they produced the MkIV during WWII, they were stamped "War Finish" to make it clear that the weapon had left the factory in a condition that did not meet the approval of the management. IMHO, when you desperately need arms for the defence of your nation, the last thing you need is a bunch of stuffed shirts tut-tutting over the finish.
My FIL once flew in a RAF Mosquito from Marrakesh to Casablanca .
He said that the Brit was carrying a 'Webley' hooked to a lanyard.
The Brit Pilot took it out of the holster and laid it on a side console.
My FIL? Still carrying his issued 1917.
The last Enfields with the actual Enfield emblem on the right side of the frame and the year of production stamped were made in 1942 (like pic 1); after that the stampings were simplified and no longer contained "Enfield" (pics 2 + 3).
A lot of folks, especially sellers on auction sites and other less knowledgeable people, still talk about the supposed "Tanker" version with the "bobbed" hammer. No such thing. While it appears to have been documented that the initial idea did come out of the Royal Tank Corps as early as 1936, the change to the spurless hammer in 1938 was a general type-wide engineering change and standard for all Enfields produced at Enfield, Albion, and HAC in Australia from then on. The reasons are assumed to have been both production simplification and handgun use doctrine.
It does appears as rather poetic justice in historic hindsight that HM Government, after basically cheating Webley out of the revolver contract with the adoption of the barely different enough Enfield, had to eat crow and come crawling back to Webley & Scott in 1940 to buy at least 105.000 Mark IV's when Enfield was unable to cope with war demand. Of course, the British still ended up with more .38 Smith & Wessons in their arsenal that .38 Enfields and Webleys combined.
OK, my 1940 Mk1* is NOT capable of SA fire. It is a true DAO.
You are right,,and it should be DA only.
I mis-spoke and was wrong to say the Mk1* could be fired SA as well as DA.
A true Mk1* (built that way and with a Mk1* mfg'd hammer ) will only fire DA. The true Mk1* hammer does not have a SA notch machined into it.
The Mk1* revolvers that will fire SA as well as DA are those that are original Mk1 revolvers that were converted to Mk1* by simply removing the hammer spur on the original hammer & the SA notch was left in place.
There are records of the Enfield Arsenal doing 'conversion & repair' to a few 1000 of the Mk1 revolvers in 1939.
But what and how much work was done is not listed. The assumption is conv to Mk1* of course. But were the SA notches all removed on the hammers as well as the spurs (combs as they are called). Mainsprings should have been replaced to the new style in a true conversion also.
The Mk1* also has it's own mainspring by that designation. Somewhat lighter and ID's by a single center punch mark on one side of the short leg of the spring (can't recall which side).
This same lighter mainspring was also used in the Mk1**
The hammer, trigger and mainspring from a Mk1 will fully interchange in a Mk1* and viseversa. They both use the hammer block bar set in a milled slot in the side of the frame.
The hammer & trigger from a Mk1 or Mk1* will fit into a Mk1** also, but you have to leave the hammer safety bar out of the action.
True Mk1** hammer and trigger componets were marked '1**'.
Confusing for sure when you figure these guns were gone over by armorers and then by civilian owners after being surplused with easily available parts being changed out.
Then there's the Australian 'Howard Auto Cultivator Co.' made Enfield in Mk1* and ** versions. Very rare .
Maybe I'll find one thrown on my front lawn some time!
"Then there's the Australian 'Howard Auto Cultivator Co.' made Enfield in Mk1* and ** versions. Very rare ."
Yes, just a few hundred were made, and it's believed that most of those were later destroyed. I have never seen how many were made by Albion (and later Singer), but not nearly as many as were made at Enfield.
One theory as to why the British adopted the .38 S&W rather than the .38 Special as their service cartridge back in the post-WWI period was that they were already set up to manufacture the top-break revolver design, and it could not be easily modified to handle a longer .38 cartridge. It never made sense to me why the British would want to go with an obsolescent and ballistically inferior cartridge like the .38 S&W instead of the superior .38 S&W Special.
...... It never made sense to me why the British would want to go with an obsolescent and ballistically inferior cartridge like the .38 S&W instead of the superior .38 S&W Special.
I think it was mostly a matter of practicality and continuity. The .38 was well-established in the Empire as a civilian police caliber (particularly by way of the .38 Webley Mk III "snubby") since at least the 1890s, and upgrading that caliber with the original 200-grain lead bullet which was standard at the time of adoption in the late 1920s just made sense.
Besides, worrying about any significance in the ballistic differences between that load and the regular RNL .38 Spl most common then is a peculiar American affliction frequently not shared by people actually using the guns in combat; the Israeli military ordered a large batch of .38 Webley Mk IV's as late as 1969.
It needs a replacement extractor star (broken finger). I have found that the parts from the Enfield aren't interchangable. (Not even with "fitting".) I understand that even the extractors from another Webley may not work....
(Anybody need a extractor or a cylinder complete with its extractor for an Enfield??)
The U. S. Army also once looked at the .38 S&W as a service revolver cartridge back in 1890 (along with the S&W Safety Hammerless revolver). But they chose the Colt New Army & Navy revolver chambered for the slightly more powerful (+100 ft/sec MV) .38 Long Colt cartridge. That didn't work out too well in the Philippines when used against the Moros.
You have a .38 Webley Mk IV. Adding the .38 can help avoid misunderstandings as sometime people get confused due to the Mk I to Mk VI (1887 to 1915) sequence of .455 Webleys. Below a picture of a .455 Mk IV for comparison.
The s/n 138154 places your Webley in early/mid-1944. No reason why Webley spare parts shouldn't work. The workmanship on wartime Webleys was significantly better than on Enfields, and my war finish Mk IV (except for the finish) is in fit and function the same quality as my post-war commercial specimen in polished blue.
Enfield WWII .38 cal Revolver experts
)
Linear Mode
