Due to another thread here, I decided to add an Enfield to keep my Webley comfortable.
Enfield No.2 Mk1, .38 S&W with a 5" barrel. No bobbed hammer.

Attached Images

	Enfield No. 2 Mk1.jpg (81.5 KB, 54 views)
	Enfield No. 2 Mk1.jpg 2.jpg (83.0 KB, 50 views)
	Enfield No. 2 Mk1.jpg 3.jpg (71.0 KB, 47 views)
	Enfield No. 2 Mk1.jpg 4.jpg (98.3 KB, 51 views)
	Enfield No. 2 Mk1.jpg 11.jpg (69.7 KB, 44 views)

__________________
"from my cold dead hands" C.H.

Great find. You don't see them very often. Here's my 1936 dated example, the only one I've actually seen and handled.

Attached Images

L1010640.jpg (69.1 KB, 107 views)

I like yours too, Cyrano. With a holster yet.
What size bullet dia. do you use? My Webley Mark III slugs at .357 so I use .358 for reloads. .361 didn't work.
I've been looking for a non tanker for some time. I am happy to get one.

__________________
"from my cold dead hands" C.H.

What a treat to find! As good as I'd expect on the British forum on Gunboards.com

Note that your grips are grooved and those on Cyrano's gun are checkered. I've no idea when that changed, certainly prewar. I've seen quite a few pics of both types.

There are no "tanker" Enfields. That was just a term used in US ads to sell guns. Some dealers thought it was more dramatic to call them "commando" models. Neither is true. It is true that the hammer spurs came off due to complaints by tankers that spurs hung up on things in tanks, causing the spurs to be deleted as more of these guns were probably used in tanks than by other troops. But once the change was made, it was standard for that gun, across the whole range of service personnel armed with Enfield .38's. RAF, military police, Navy subs, etc. or infantry troops, that's the norm from that time in 1938. Parts on hand were seemingly used up and some got the selective DA trigger years after the change occurred. But officially, they were supposed to covert to the hammerless spur. War being what it is, some were never converted. Some were probably transferred to other nations that never converted many.

There WERE tanker holsters, open top ones like Cyrano's and an earlier model with a longer drop strap. The better answer to the hammer snag issue would be to make holsters that let the gun sit lower and avoid snags. Or, just to use the normal Pattern 37 flapped holster! Some bureaucrat seems to have decided to sacrifice the spurs instead. Troops were trained to fire all six shots DA at a single enemy, anyway. And most had just 12 rounds of ammo! I read one account by an officer at El Alamein, who went into the attack with just nine rounds of ammo for his .38! He put down an Italian with a shot in the back. Both were wounded and the Italian died in great misery as both waited for help at an aid station.

I think US soldiers on the whole got far better treatment from doctors in war zones. The officer who wrote, "Brazen Chariots" about his tank war in North Africa was also badly wounded and got iffy care for some time after being seriously wounded. Before a German shell hit his M-3 Stuart tank (called a Honey by the British), he suffered from inadequate care for an infected foot. The doc seemed not to be able to cure it but he refused evacuation due to the need to stay on duty during an offensive. This was one of the factors that caused his commander to refer him for his DSO. The rest was in his overall boldness in battle, clearly heroic.
Maj. Robert Crisp received the Military Cross as well as his Distinguished Service Order.

That said, I read a book by an officer who was wounded in the face and his surgeon was the famed Max Factor! This soldier used a US-made Thompson to kill at least one German, spraying a bush behind which the Jerry was hiding. The author was named Raleigh Trevelyan if you want his book. I don't recall the title or if he mentioned the make of his revolver. I haven't seen the book since I was in HS many years past. But even as a teen, I knew the name of Max Factor.

Crisp did describe how he fired his .38 from the turret hatch as his driver charged through German lines. I guess his unit got added ammo, or he took it from casualties. I know that commando and paratroop units and spec. ops troops/agents also got extra ammo for practice.

I hope this added info was of interest.

Of course, tankers got other makes of revolver in many cases. A US paratrooper who talked with a British tank column making tea in Normandy noted that most had S&W .38's. No S&W's or Webleys lost their hammer spurs, so the issue couldn't have been too bad.

Again, NICE! gun. Thanks for posting. Cyrano, too.
Post on Gunboards, and you'll get some admiration there, too. The British military collectors are mainly there. Look right under their Lee-Enfield forum.

Thanks Tex.
I am on Gunboards and Enfield Rifles and will post there, but I wanted to come here first since all the fun with the thread Dabney started.
I was aware of the "tanker" moniker, but figured it was the best way to note the hammer spur. I will refrain from using it in the future. The Brits are pretty fussy about what they call their firearms. You can't just say Enfield rifle. It's Enfield Rifle No.4 Mk2.
Thanks for the info. I accumulate it and put it in the big binder in the armory. The historical anecdotes are great too.

__________________
"from my cold dead hands" C.H.

M1A and Cyrano;

Great looking Enfield No. 2 (both of you) Revolvers! Your Brit No. 2's look superb! Its so good to see a double and single action No. 2 like both of you have. Most No. 2's were FTR'd and converted to DAO, but yours escaped. Great addition for an Enfield No. 2 collector. Thanks so much for showing, both of you!

David

It's hard to measure the bore diameter of Enfields as they have seven groove rifling. So you're measuring across the bullet from a land on one side to a groove on the other side. There are apparently some complicated ways of measuring the bore, but I don't know what they are. The Webley Mk VI revolvers have seven groove rifling and I believe the other Webleys do too. The Brits liked an odd number of grooves: their SMLE Mk IIIs and Mk IVs have five groove, left hand twist, rifling. Their Pattern 14 did also, and when we adopted a modified rifle as our M 1917 Enfield, it had five groove, left hand twist rifling too. Later, when the M 1917s were reworked, we gave them 4 groove, right hand twist rifling.

Th original British service load for the 38/200 was a 200 gr round nosed lead bullet. No idea why they did this, as anyone being captured with lead, expanding bullets, would be shot. They soon went to a jacketed bullet, the same configuration, which weighed around 175 gr. I don't know if the sights required modification.

I shoot the Lyman 358429 bullet. It weighs about 170 grs and is a Keith SWC design. It shoots to the point of aim. I shoot it unsized, and I get good accuracy. Powder charge is 2.4 grs of Winchester 231. I wouldn't shoot this load in US top break revolvers like Iver Johnson or H&R.

After lusting for a proper hammered Enfield since my middle teens, I finally picked-up a 1936 production example stamped "RAF" on the frame. Did it fly in cockpit of a Spitfire or Hurricane during the Battle of Britian? How about with Bomber Command in a Lancaster? Makes your imagination run wild...

Sure may, or it may have been carried by the RAF Regiment guarding bases, or been in some MP's holster, or assigned to a paymaster. You just never know.

I read one Lancaster crewman's comment that bomber crews didn't carry sidearms. But in a book by a Lancaster pilot, he mentions a handgun that one of his associates drew on some late night pranksters in the barracks. Did some obtain sidearms, others not? One wonders. Maybe officers had them and the grouchy guy who said they didn't have them was enlisted? Varied by unit? Anyone know?

Mosquito crews had them. No reason why Beaufighters wouldn't, and RAF Coastal Command certainly had sidearms on their planes, in case they had to pluck a German out of the Channel. (Seaplanes) About 1941, all of the RAF Colt .455 autos from WWI were called in and issued to Coastal Command. That had the advantage of getting them and their obsolescent ammo into one command.

One photo of RAF pilots I've seen showed six-inch barreled S&W's, with the butts sticking way out of the flapped Pattern 37 holsters. But I feel that's coincidence. They also used some Enfields, shorter S&W's, Webleys, like other British forces did. It's just a matter of finding pics, and unless the handle shows, like in tanker holsters, you can't tell which revolver is there.

RAF belts and holsters were gray; Army had sort of olive. The few Royal Navy ones I've seen were white. Look on a sailor at the end of the James Bond movie, Dr. No. A man on the rescue boat wore one. I think they were probably real Navy crew.

It's interesting which pics you can find in war books. Have you seen the one of Lord Lovat, just back from Dieppe? Look carefully at his holster. I think I see a spare magazine pouch sewn on for a .45 auto. He also sometimes carried a sporting rifle.

I don't have an Enfield (yet!) and currently have to be happy with my Webley No.4 MK2, War Finish....

They may look similar but, trust me, the parts aren't interchangeable. Mine has a broken "finger" on the extractor and I figured that finding a replacement would be a snap.
(Anybody need a (1st attempt) spare extractor star for their Enfield? Or, (2nd attempt) a complete cylinder and star for their Enfield? (I've been told that even among Enfields the parts aren't necessarily "drop in".)
Luckily the missing finger doesn't seem to affect function..

As for the hammer spur, it is my understanding that the British Army taught "instinctive" shooting for handguns. (Pull from the holster and fire double action from the hip. (Close range only.) We would call it "hip" or "point" shooting. They decided that the spur was of no use and could be a hindrance for this type of shooting, so the spur went away.. (I'm surprised that the sights survived. I guess for the occasional "long range" shot...)

__________________
Dean
SWCA #680 SWHF #446

Cyrano
As I understand it the Brits measure the lands and the U.S. measure to the grooves.
In my Mark III I use W231 2.4gr and 158gr SWC, .358 dia by Missouri Bullet. I also worked up a load with Titegroup at 2.0gr.
I do not cast, but saw your Lyman is for .358 dia. So, if not sized what do you get?

deadin
I was looking at the Webley Mark IV to partner with the Mark III. Though I wanted an Enfield, I was not a fan of the bobbed hammer. Then the No.2 Mk1 appeared, hammer spur intact.
I shoot SA & DA equally well, but I like the SA option. Probably a hold over from the Cowboy Action days. Plus, I do like the look of a hammer spur on any pistol.

__________________
"from my cold dead hands" C.H.

Is the 38/200 Webley a No.4 MK2 or a Mk4 No.2?
I always get it mixed up.

__________________
Dean
SWCA #680 SWHF #446

Webley Mk IV .38/200
I think it was based on the Mark III, but with a larger bullet, ostensibly to compete with the much larger Webley Mark VI in .455.

__________________
"from my cold dead hands" C.H.

Thanks!
I think what has always confused me is back in my Webley collecting days days I had a Mark IV, but it was in .455...... (Boer War model)

__________________
Dean
SWCA #680 SWHF #446

M1A: thanks for directing me over here!!! That's the one that I was following!!! I was waiting til near the end to bid, then decided not to!!! Glad I didn't bid against you. I was watching it from when it was in the $350 range. Ha!!! I really am glad I didn't bid against you, that would have been too much, and both of us spurred on by that thread of David's (dabney)... I'm really glad you got it. Congratulations!!!

For you folks who have not been following the other thread, dabney started a thread called "A Brit-made six gun that I love, the Enfield No 2 MK I*" and M1A and I both got excited about the same gun on Gunbroker. I'm glad we were not bidding against each other, it would have been David's fault!!!

__________________
SWCA 3084, SWHF 495, PGCA 3064

If this isn't a joke, you're confusing the No. 2 series of .38's with the No. 4 MK II rifle!

Some refer to a MK IV rifle. There is one, but it's a .22 trainer. I don't know why Americans have so much trouble with this, but it seems very common.


The .38 revolvers were in the No. 2 REVOLVER series. Has nothing to do with previous numbering series or with rifles. The S&W was classed as a No. 2 but maker name added. I think they may have had more S&W's in WWII than Enfields. Not sure.

Modded Enfields were noted with one or more asterisks (*) to tell what had been done. Avoid No. 2MKI or II **. They removed the entire cocking notch on the hammer internally, and they can fire if dropped on the hammer. I think this mod was soon discontinued and guns re-hammered to MK I or II * level.

The MK IV.455 is numbered in the military series of official .455's. It has nothing to do with the COMMERCAL series of .32 and .38 revolvers.

The MK IV .455 appeared in 1899, just in time for the Second Boer War. The MK IV .38 was a 1927 item, Webley's version of what Enfield Arsenal had rejected. They put it on the market then, for commercial sales. It was an updated, slightly improved version of the previous MK III .38, with a larger grip frame and a few other differences. There was also a smaller pocket version, as with MK III.

In WWII, shortages of revolvers forced the govt. to buy Webleys. And Colt and S&W revolvers. I think Webley was still mad and maybe made those guns with rougher finishes than they might have otherwise. Just a guess. Anyway, they marked the rough ones as War Finish, and made them faster than normal. Commercial Webleys were normally nicely blued or nickeled.

Spare parts: I suggest buying mainsprings and stirrup lock springs and firing pins. You may never need them, but if you do, they're good to have on hand. I had to replace a mainspring and a hammer nose/firing pin on a MK VI. A gunsmith actually welded the firing pin to repair it. But I was a teen then and was probably doing too much dry firing. Most of these .455's are now over 100 years old and the steel may be getting brittle.

I had watched it all week, but always wait till near the end. It was you and I and someone else. We all showed up at the end. Your bid was what I expected it would go for.
The revolver is in good shape and I've only seen one other.
Thanks for the kind response. I certainly would have been pleased if you had prevailed.
David is devilish. Now I can't feed my wife for a couple of weeks.

__________________
"from my cold dead hands" C.H.

[QUOTE=Texas Star;139078170]If this isn't a joke, you're confusing the No. 2 series of .38's with the No. 4 MK II rifle!


Tex
Enfield Rifle No.4 Mk2

__________________
"from my cold dead hands" C.H.

DeadIn-

Let us know how it shoots and where with the ammo you find. It's probably sighted for 200 grain bullets.

M1A and Cyrano, every time I look at the fine photos of your two great looking single & double action No. 2's, I get green with envy! I hope you realize how "fortunate" both of you are, owning Enfields, that escaped the trip back to RSAF for "conversion" to DAO. Both Enfields appear superb with no visible wear at all. What a capture of fine British Firearms, that help stand against the mighty German Army of WWII. Thanks again for showing and congratulations on your purchase.

David

The groove diameter is the one of interest, because the bullet has to fill up the grooves. Thus a 30 caliber bullet is .308" in diameter because there are .004 inch grooves on either side of the bore. With an odd number of grooves you can't meausre from one side of the bullet to the other, because you're meauring to a land on one side, not a groove. I don't think I'm explaining this very well.

I use my Lyman bullet unsized, and at one ime I measured the diameter as cast but have forgotten it. I guess .358"-360".

Dabney: Maybe the photo doesn't show it, but my Enfield has quite a bit of blue wear and there's a large chip out of the right hand grip. I've tried to find another grip, but they are impossible to locate.

I was looking for a book on the No.2 and found ".380 Enfield No.2 Mk1" by Ian Skennerton at Abe's books. Prices ran up to $200.00. Looked at Amazon and ordered one for $30.00. Probably a late reprint.

__________________
"from my cold dead hands" C.H.

M1, Congratulations on your book selection in ordering the Stamps/Skennerton book on the .380 Enfield No. 2 Revolver. That is the "bible" for Enfield Revolver fans. Carries much data/photos/diagrams on the Enfield also with some personal observations by the authors. Great, great book for the Enfield fans!

David

This particular subject came up in an earlier post. So I figured since it's outside time, a different Enfield would be of interest.
Not to mess up the great threads we have going, I posted a new one.

http://smith-wessonforum.com/firearm...-no-4-mk2.html

__________________
"from my cold dead hands" C.H.

My pics disappeared from post #1 so I put them back as thumbnails.

__________________
"from my cold dead hands" C.H.

Interesting post by Mr. Peter Laidler, a retired UK armorer.
Military Surplus Collectors Forums

We have a saying in Englandicon, brought about when the Sten gun was introduced, that you can only kill a man so dead! The little .38 Enfield had what might be politely called '....a ****-poor start in life'. But it did well as an all rounder. I carried a Mk1 as my personal weapon for 2 years (oh yes I did Xxxx-X) up until I came back to England in 1970

The Mk1* version was introduced primarily for the tankies because after the introduction of the Mk1, they'd said that they only ever used the single action 'straight through pull' method of shooting in any case and the 'cock-and-shoot' feature of the Mk1 was wasted. There were sufficient Mk1's in the system for those in need of a double action pistol so to cheapen and speed production, the Mk1* was introduced. The Mk1* was NOT introduced because '....the hammer got caught on the insides of the tanks'. That is a myth of the highest horse manure! That notion was never mentioned. It was simply because the tankies were taught to shoot straight through.

There was always a lot of discussion about what to call each pistol type. The Army called the Mk1 type the DOUBLE action because it had two/double actions. The cock and shoot and the straight through pull. The Mk1* and 1** were described as SINGLE action because you could only shoot it ONE way....., a single action, straight through pull.

A Warminster we have the last pre-production .38" No2 prototype pistol produced by Webley and the first production pistol.

And if you hear anyone tell you that a bloke wearing a greatcoat at 25 yards will stop the bullets or that other gem, that a wet towel or blanket will stop them, tell 'em that they're wrong!

__________________
"from my cold dead hands" C.H.

You need to elaborate on that. The late David W. Arnold, a gun editor and a former senior police official in Rhodesia told me personally that he'd fired a .38-200 at a British Army greatcoat, and the range wasn't anywhere near 25 yards. The coat did stop the bullet.

By military standards, the cartridge is indeed anemic.

And if the hammer spurs weren't getting complaints, I doubt there'd be any call to remove them. Also, the troops should have been taught to shoot single-action, too. The bureaucrats just didn't want to do much revolver training. The cartridge was adopted in the first place because it gave mild recoil, giving less disturbance to poorly trained troops.

I think it speaks volumes that Churchill wanted the Colt .45 automatic for his newly formed Commando units and carried one, himself, and tried to get his bodyguard to wear one.

Tex
Elaborate? Me? I am new at this subject. I rely on folks like you for my education. I just found his remarks of interest.
Mr. Laidler is a respected expert in this field. However, that does not mean it's all gospel. Just his experience with those whose lives depend on their tools.
Anemic, certainly, but the .38 S&W has been dropping folks for some time, and if I am wearing a great coat I still don't want to play catch one.
Personally I carry a series 70 1911. I would not consider the Enfield or Webley for carry. They are historic fun though.
BTW I ordered a blue RAF lanyard for the No.2 Mk1. If I get a Spitfire I'll be set.

__________________
"from my cold dead hands" C.H.

Texas, I would offer this observation with regards to the British .380-200 round, the original with a 200-grain chunk of soft lead. That round, at muzzle distance, most combat ranges, would have been most effective in war time conditions, including law enforcement applications. You have a big bullet, traveling at a moderate velocity (650-feet or so per second) impacting on "any" standard german great coat of WW2, at 10-feet or less; the show is over!

Now the later .380-180 full metal jacket round, of 180-gr. size, would not have been as effective for sure. I would never contest "any" observation made by David Arnold for sure. But that round he was speaking of may not have been properly loaded. At 10-feet, the surplus stuff that came into the country a few years ago, went "slap through" a 2"X4" piece of lumber I used for testing the strength. Soft clothing, layered or not, I don't believe, would defeat a properly loaded .380-180 round. Just an observation on my part from personal, informal testing done by myself. I was really, really into this stuff a few years back. Now don't think for a second that I would choose an Enfield over a 1911 A-1 for combat purposes, but many professional British soldiers felt strongly concerning their Enfields. There were "some" that favored other hardware, but many did not! Just a little input Texas, on this interesting subject matter, of which I've profited much from "your" interesting posts!

David

Try to get a nice MK VIII or MK IX. I hear they're the nicest to fly and have the internal air filter, so you don't need a Vokes filter if operating in sandy or dusty conditions. You probably know the MK IX actually entered service first, the more advanced MK VIII still being in development when the FW-190 forced the Brits to modify the MK V to get better performance. MKVIII eventually served mainly in Italy and in Burma.

I have a book on Spitfires and other books that cover it well. The late Capt. Eric Brown, RN, flew about all Allied and Axis fighters after WWII, as a test pilot. He had some combat experience as a Spitfire pilot, too, despite being Royal Navy, not RAF. He said that he felt the MK XIV Spit was the ultimate fighter in an aerial duel. But the Griffon engine was almost too powerful for the airframe and the MK XII and later were not as nice to fly well as the earlier marks with Merlin engines.

Seriously, don't you wish that you COULD fly a Spitfire?

Don't get me going Tex. You guys have done enough damage. Besides I don't know how to fly stick.
I am listening to Artie Shaw doing "Begin the Beguine", and am "In the Mood".

__________________
"from my cold dead hands" C.H.

David-

That FMJ bullet has more bore friction, despite being lighter than the lead bullet. I think some lots of ammo were underloaded.

This could account for the instances where RAF shooting teams actually had the danged bullet stall IN THE BARRELS. I read about that in British gun magazines published before the awful 1997 law. I hope it wasn't common. It seemed to happen mostly in S&W guns. I think Webleys and Enfields have slightly looser bores.


Was Peter Laidler saying that he favored a .38 Enfield as his personal arm over the 9mm Browning? Odd...

Now, this: my youngest brother owned a six-inch barreled .38-200 S&W. He loaded it with US made 145-146 grain ammo. One night when alone, he thought he'd snap it a few times. The dimwit forgot to check the cylinder. BANG! He put a bullet into a copy of Haven & Belden's, History of the Colt Revolver, lying on a shelf in my room. The bullet hit the book as it lay flat and it penetrated about an inch, maybe less, into the paper.

The varlet hid the book in his car trunk and didn't admit what happened for several months, during which I wondered greatly what had become of my book.

Finally, he confessed & showed me the book, by then ruined by moisture. I had to buy a new book, and it was hard to find.

But that poor penetration stayed with me, and I wasn't impressed.

I respected David W. Arnold. I still have some carved African animals that he sent me, on a bookcase. He may have got a bad lot of ammo, combined with a tight revolver bore. But if he said the bullet didn't totally pierce that coat, I believe him.

I was therefore VERY interested to read David Abney's account of shooting through that board. Evidently, at least some of the time, the .38 S&W works better than it does other times.

BTW, if you can find a copy of the late David W. Arnold's, Shoot a Handgun, it's the best such book I've ever seen, and I gave it a very favorable review in a magazine where I wrote for 30 years. Many photos and superb line drawings by his talented wife, Patricia. It was initially printed in his native South Africa, but after he came here to edit for Petersen Publications, there was a US edition.

I mention his middle initial because there has been a different David Arnold who wrote gun articles. He's probably a nice guy, but I've never met him and don't know anything about him. I think this DA is an American. I believe he's still living. David W. Arnold is deceased.

Tex. I just finished watching "Memories of a WWII Hero: Captain Brown" on Netflix. Hero is the correct word for him.

__________________
"from my cold dead hands" C.H.

About Eric Brown? I want to see that. It may be a feature that my son told me about a couple of weeks ago, but I haven't had time to watch yet.

In his remarkable book, "Duels in the Sky", he recounted a fight with a very talented German in an FW-190. Brown was in a MK IX Spitfire, over France. It was a very close thing, but neither pilot could score on the other. Brown had the advantage in the horizontal, with the Spit' s tight turn. The FW excelled in the vertical, but nether could beat the other.

After maybe 10 minutes, they conceded the battle and broke off. I wonder how they did that. Seems that one would break off first and the other pursue. Later in the war, most of the better German pilots were dead. This was in 1942, I think, and some were still very deadly. It's a good thing that that one met an equally skilled Allied pilot.

If you can find Brown's book, buy it. His comparisons of various aircraft and how they'd fare against one another is probably unique. He was likely the only man able to try so many.

I will look for the book by Capt. Brown. The Netflix program is a must see.
I think you would like "The Few" by Alex Kershaw. It is about American pilots in England. His book "Avenue of Spies" is on my list.

__________________
"from my cold dead hands" C.H.

Novels? I'll look for them.

Non fiction. Factual history.

__________________
"from my cold dead hands" C.H.

You guys know that you're costing me a fortune!!! I just stopped at the mailbox and picked up "Stalin's Generals", and "Hitler's Generals", to go with "Churchill's Generals", which Bryan had recommended. You all know about "The Handgun", recommended by Texas, and the Enfield book by David. Not to mention an Enfield!!! Hey, I'm just kidding.

By the way, Amazon Prime is great. I got hardback versions of those three generals books, free two day shipping, no tax, and they ran around $5.00 each. They called them very good used, but they still have the dust jackets, hardbacks, and don't look like they have ever been read. No marks, not ex- library.... And out of print. Very nice books. I like to get good quality books, because I read them over, keep them for reference, and just plain like having them around. Two of my passions: books and guns.

I get Netflix, so will look for the Capt. brown movie. One more day at school, then three months off to read, watch some good stuff on streaming tv... And cut grass.

P. S.: Well, M1A, I found it and that was a great documentary. Texas, seeing your interest in aviation, this is the Captain Brown of the movie.



M1A is right: it's a must see.


Best Regards, Les

__________________
SWCA 3084, SWHF 495, PGCA 3064

If you like Spitfires, perhaps the best book on them is 'Spitfire' by Jeffrey Quill. His personal account is amazing and his information on the development of the Spitfire and the details of the various models is historic.

Les-

Thanks. Brown has to be the only one in Naval uniform. The decorations translate as Commander of the Order of the British Empire, Distinguished Service Cross, Air Force Cross. I think. RN= Royal Navy , not Registered Nurse, ha!

I'm gonna find that film. It sounds super.

Texas: yep, that's him. Not a spoiler, but he started his career with one of these, called, I think a "Gladiator":



And finished his career in one of these, I believe called a "Bucaneer". In between, he flew something like 487 different aircraft, a record which may still be unbroken:



Thanks again, M1A, for the heads up.

Best Regards, Les

__________________
SWCA 3084, SWHF 495, PGCA 3064

And he flew Phantoms.

BTW, the Gloster Gladiator was still in service with the RAF in the Med. theater in 1940-41, until Hurricanes arrived. The top Allied ace, apart from a Russian, was the RAF's Marmaduke St. John Pattle. He was South African, but in the RAF, not the SAAF.

Most of his kills, over 50, were scored against Italians, from a Gladiator. After he got a Hurricane, he was even more deadly.

Alas, he was killed while covering the British withdrawal from Greece and his squadron records were lost. But he certainly got over 50, maybe 60 or more. He was said to have given credit for some kills to other pilots if both were firing at the same plane.

In the hands of a good pilot, the Gladiator was a capable fighter, although obsolescent when the war began.

Just watching "The Maltese Falcon" for the umpteenth time. Did some stop action. Miles was not shot with the Webley Fosbery. The hammer did not cock after firing and the cylinder had normal fluting.
Now the revolver shone to Sam was a Webley Fosbery, but Sam called it an 8 shot .45 caliber. The .455 was a six shot, but the .38 ACP was eight.
I never thought to look so closely until our various threads.
I suppose I'm the last to know.

__________________
"from my cold dead hands" C.H.

Well, I remember watching the movie umpteen times also, but it has been awhile now. I'm still on "Dark City", but I just got back from commencement, so I have three months to while away enjoying little pleasures like watching old movies with you guys! I have The Maltese Falcon on DVD, but I'll see if I can find it on Amazon prime or Netflix.

__________________
SWCA 3084, SWHF 495, PGCA 3064

I've never seen, The Maltese Falcon. Is it actually pretty good? Is it the one where Bogart played Sam Spade? Which gun did he carry? Presumably not a Webley-Fosbery.

I somehow knew I'd get a sarcastic remark from Texas.

__________________
"from my cold dead hands" C.H.

That's not sarcastic. I'm really asking. I've never seen it or read the book, just heard a bit about them.

I don't think I've ever seen all of, "Casablanca", either. Hugh Hefner would be horrified. That's his favorite movie, much shown at his Mansion.

I'm seldom sarcastic, certainly especially so on this board with all of the cautionary Rules.

I'll try to find the film on YouTube. I guess if you guys keep watching it, it must be good. I'll look for the Webley -Fosbery. And I think I can read about it on Wikipedia.

In that case Tex, I apologize. I thought you were being funny, and took no offense. My response was all in good spirit.
BTW, Sam Spade doesn't like firearms. The Webley Fosbery is in the first ten minutes of the movie.

__________________
"from my cold dead hands" C.H.

Hey, guys, check out the guys at the National Firearms Museum (NRA) and a look at the Webley Fosbery, and a comment on the movie "The Maltese Falcon":


Here's a very short clip with the actual shooting of Miles Archer, Sam Spade's partner:


This ought to whet your appetite for the movie, Texas, I stopped by my other place today, and brought up the DVDs of both Maltese Falcon, and The Big Sleep. I can't find them free, or on Amazon prime or Netflix.

Best Regards, Les

__________________
SWCA 3084, SWHF 495, PGCA 3064