Enfield No.2 Mk1, non FTR

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.

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

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.

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.

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

M1A said:

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.

Click to expand...

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...

.455_Hunter said:

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...

Click to expand...

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...)

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.

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

deadin said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Webley Mk IV .38/200

Click to expand...

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)

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!!!

deadin said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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