Ok. I know a .45 acp does about 850fps.+- for a 230 gr FMJ and is considered a very good man stopper.

The Webly with it's 265 gr lead sugar loaf bullet at about 650 fps is also considered a very good man stopper. The weight difference is not so great as to make the Webly so outstanding, so is it the shape of the bullet that gives it its oomph? With that odd shaped bullet, does it tumble on impact? Also, about how far in ordnance jello will it penetrate and how does it behave while penetrating?

My data shows that factory loads of 455 Mark II using a 265 gr. bullet with a muzzle velocity of about 600 fps, results in about 220 ft. lbs. of energy. The 45 ACP, 230 gr. on the other hand, is 855fps and 405 ft. lbs. of energy.

I have not heard that 455 was a great man-stopper and doubt that it would do that well compared to the 45 ACP considering that 45 ACP ia almost double the muzzle energy. The experts out there warn that old 455 revolvers should not be loaded with full power 45 ACP, as their design and metals were not sufficient for the heavier load, so 45 ACP must have much more power than 455. 45 ACP published loads state 15,000-21,000 psi, while 455 max is around 12,000 psi.

A prior discussion on 455 in this Forum - .455 vs. .45 ACP

The .455 was usually used at close range, made a big hole and often tumbled, as did MK VII .303 ammo, which had a hollow space under the nose filled with a lighter material, designed to destablize the bullet and cause tumbling in animal tissue. The .455 was also intended to not exit, depositing all of its energy in the body of the target.

Some years ago, a British writer in, "Gun Digest" cited a case in WW I where a British officer with a Webley with four-inch barrel shot some 40 German troops in close order. Most died. I think they were escaping prisoners, and range was close.

There were also full wadcutters (one a lead HP design) of Manstopper bullets loaded in .455. They were said to be very effective in India, where fanatics often displayed unusual resistance to bullets, as did the Moros in our Phillipine battles.

Most military handgun use that is successful takes place at very close range. A German coming over the top of a British trench in WW I might be hit at from five to ten feet distance. A savage wielding a rusty sword in India or the Sudan only has to be stopped before he gets in slashing range.

Nonetheless, many British officers who were knowledgeable about handguns used .44-40, .45 Colt, or .45 auto pistols. Churchill took a Colt .45 auto to France and Lt. Col. Vincent Fosbery, VC, wrote in the 1880's that the .44-40 was the best handgun "stopper" that he saw used n the wars along the Indian frontier. I do not know if he saw the .45 Colt in use.

A lot of what people believe about stopping power is because of what they were told. I just browsed a British book about military firearms in a shop the other day that was written in the mid-20's and mostly followed the British Army line when discussing their weapons. It sang the praises of the .455, claiming that it caused great shock because of its slow velocity, and "literally knocks a man off his feet". The book offered no data to support that. It also pointed out that research had developed a new cartridge that would offer that same stopping power in a weapon without the heavy recoil of the .455. We now know of course, that this was the .38 S&W (not Special), which in the Enfield revolver would largely replace the Webley in the next war.

I find this a very interesting thread. I have a British Webley Mark I top break .455 that was made about 1940. I have some ammo which came in cardboard boxes ov 12 rounds each made in August of '43 and October of '44. Stamped on the boxes is ".455 DCMkVl2" I have no idea what these markings signify but would love to know.

Also I'm not clear on the ammo being discussed. Are we talking about modern ammo or the stuff made back when? I have been given to understand that the powder they used back then was very "dirty" and that ammo has been greatly improved in modern times. And when we talk talk about tumbling are we talking about modern ammo?

As far as effectiveness as a manstopper there are 3 things that determine this; muzzle velocity, bullet mass and bullet design. I'm guessing that there are an infinite number of variations on this.

Attached Images

webley.JPG (146.2 KB, 51 views)

Jack-

Your MK I .455 was made about 1890, not in 1940! It may have been fitted with a new cylinder around the time of WW I, to make it safer with smokeless powder. Production revolvers incorporated the new cylinder with the MK V in 1913. Older guns that got new cylinders were stamped with additional asterisks (*) to denote the alteration. Most seem to have gone to the Royal Navy.

If your gun has a crude Broad Arrow mark scratched into the top strap, this is a Navy mark. The Army seems not to have added that bigger mark. Is your gun nickled? It shouldn't be, unless it was sold commercially, maybe to an officer. Officers provided their own sidearms until about 1920.

Your ammo is probably loaded by Dominion Cartridge (CIL) in Canada and is the MK VI version, with FMJ bullet, required by WW II because the Germans protested against lead bullets. This diplomatic issue arose in in 1938, and the MK II lead .38 ammo was also affected, the bullet weight being dropped to 178 grains and the bullets metal jacketed. The MK VI .455 load is just the lead MK II load with a jacket. It was the normal .455 round used in WW II. The MK VIZ means that the powder used is not Cordite, but normal flake powder. (Cordite was made in slender sticks!)

MK III .455 is a lead wadcutter HP round, and MK IV was a solid wadcutter. These were seldom used against "civilized" enemy troops. Issue was primarily in India. The MK II lead RN was the usual service round until the late 1930s.

I forgot what MK V ammo was; I think the bullet alloy just varied from MK. II, maybe with more antimony or something. Someone else may recall. I think the bullet shape was the same as for the normal MK II.

MK I or MK II case length ammo can be fired in any .455 Webley, Colt, or S&W .455. The case was shortened sometime in the 1890's, as they felt that the shorter case burned the new smokeless powder more efficiently. That was no doubt due to the small powder charge, giving that low velocity. I would certainly have tried to obtain .455 Colt ammo loaded in Canada or the USA, had I been an officer then.

Indeed, British military "Stores" (supply depots) stocked both .44-40 and .45 Colt ammo for those officers needing it. I presume they paid for it, but am not sure. The .30 Mauser was also fairly popular around 1900. Churchill was by no means the only officer who carried one. Of course, the Boers also used some Mauser pistols in the war of 1899-1902. In 1915, Churchill bought a Colt Govt. Model .45 auto. (NOT a .455 chambering.)

This .455 revolver ammo was all loaded with the shorter MK II ctg. case after the mid-1890's. The longer, older .455 MK I, also called .455 Colt, was loaded to about 700 FPS, rather than the 620 FPS of the MK II.

As long as the bullet profile is the same (and I think it is), you should get the same tumbling effect from modern Fiocchi or Hornady ammo as from the old service .455 rounds. I have read that Fiocchi ammo kicks more and may be loaded a little hotter than the old ammo. But it should be safe in any .455 made for smoklesss ammo. I would not fire modern ammo in any service Webley made before the MK V of 1913. This applies to the WG and other fine commercial Webleys made before that date, other than perhaps to the Wilkinson-Webley model of 1911. That does include your MK I, made originally for black powder.

BTW, the cylinder diameter is the only real difference between the MK IV and the MK V Webley models. The MK VI arrived in 1915, with a square butt. It usually has a six-inch barrel. But any of the Webley service models may have a six-inch barrel, or a four-inch one. Target models intended for use at the famous Bisley range had 7.5-inch barrels and I've never seen one that didn't also have a square butt. Bisley was the UK equivalent to our Camp Perry range.

I don't know that British smokeless ammo was loaded any "dirtier" than US ammo then, unless you mean black powder, which is indeed dirty. But Unique is pretty dirty. And it dates from that early smokeless era. I've never seen old Cordite ammo fired, so can't say how much smoke and residue it produced.

If your old MK I is marked "1940", it may have been rescued from an arsenal or museum and forced into emergency service after so much ordnance was lost at Dunkirk, and the British were desperate for revolvers. I think there's a good chance that it's been re-cylindered. If it was re-issued in 1940, it was probably to a Home Guard unit. Active duty troops would have had priority for MK VI .455's and the later .38 revolvers. Of course, it was at this time that S&W and Colt began sending enormous quantities of .38-200 revolvers to the UK and Commonwealth countries. These supplemented Webley and Enfield .38's, which couldn't be made fast enough to meet all expanded needs in a major war.

Texas Star, I want to thank you for taking the time to post this extremely interesting information. I am fascinated. The friend that gave me this gun had it nickle plated years ago. Later he found out the seriousness of his mistake.

Looking carefully at the top strap I don't see any markings of any kind but could it have been obscured when it was nickle plated?

Just behind 5 of the 6 flutes in the cylinder there is a mark. It doesn't look much like an asterisk but I guess that could have been the way it was done back then. If so why wasn't it done on all 6 flutes? Could this have been lettering of some kind?

Looking at the right side, on the frame just in front of the cylinder on the frame just under the barrel there are two very small stamps or marks and the letters NP with a dot after the P.

One of the above mentioned marks also appears on the right side on the lower part of the frame just above the front of the trigger guard, I don't see anything else on the right side.

On the left side, on the edge of the top strap there are 3 very small images stamped but I cannot tell what they are supposed to be. Just below that the word ENGLAND is stamped, not precisely parallel with the barrel. On the lower frame between the front end of the cylinder and the top front of the trigger guard are the words Webley Mark1 Patents. On the lower back end of the frame just in front of the grip is CN1 which appears vertically and to the right of that 9.08 On the very back end of the frame, Just above the grip there are two groups of characters. An arrow pointing toward the muzzle and WD. Just to the right of that there is WBS. All these are VERY small and somewhat obscured by the plating but this is what they look like. On the top of the trigger where it goes up inside the frame there is a mark that looks like an arrow. It does not look "broad", just 3 marks that appear to be an arrow.

The serial # is 22890.

These are all the markings I can find. I had to get my wife to help me with some of them. her eyes are 10 years younger than mine.

Please let me know if any if this info sheds any light on the history of the gun.

Many thanks!
Jack