The "other" Brit-made six-gun I love, the .380 MK IV Webley!

Once I got into collecting/studying/writing on the Enfield No. 2 MK I* Revolvers I was also carried away by the arm that was used as a model for the .380 Enfield, the Webley MK IV. I was at a gun show back in the early 90's and purchased my first Webley, a .380-200 MK IV Model. This five-incher was a "War Finish" Webley, minus the refinements of a commercial model, with a carried much, shot precious little, background. Serial number 84109 indicated a Webley, not early and not late in the production date. I developed a familiar warmth issue that soon developed into a raging fire in the interest factor concerning Brit WW2 handguns. The story of the Webley MK IV is recorded in various sources, including the Enfield Revolver bible by Stamps/Skennerton. Stuff like this, is super-interesting to a Webley/Enfield buff, like myself and then coming to this wonderful forum and finding Webley/Enfield friends was over-powering and rekindled my fever once again!

The Mk IV Webley has much craftsmanship in its manufacture, even the War Model. The trigger-action that is "hand-honed" and "hand-fitted" by the Webley Factory craftsmen. I am the proud owner of two MK IV Webleys and have ambitions, strong ambitions, for a .455 Web ASAP to compliment the two .380's. I will post photos later today, hopefully. I do have a couple of "tales of the Webley" to share later, for any interested forum members. Thank you for the "honor" of being amongst you fine people!

David

Be very very careful shooting those War Finish MkIVs. I had one that was not only shot little, but not even carried. It went out of time within the first 100 rounds. A friend of mine down the line was shooting the gun and it shaved so much lead that I was struck from about 15 feet away.

Fortunately it only hit my lip, traveled from the center of my bottom lip down to about my gum line and over about 4 teeth. When the swelling finally went down enough I was able to confirm that it was indeed lead in there.

It was fun for all the guys at the range with med kits, because there was lots of blood. Of course there's a great joke too about the day Chris shot me.

It really reinforced the need for glasses, and made me incredibly wary of the War Finish Webleys. When we examined the gun afterwards it just looks as if the steel is not very hard, and even after a hundred rounds the wear was pronounced over how it had looked when I bought it.

SixgunStrumpet said:

Be very very careful shooting those War Finish MkIVs. I had one that was not only shot little, but not even carried. It went out of time within the first 100 rounds. A friend of mine down the line was shooting the gun and it shaved so much lead that I was struck from about 15 feet away.

Fortunately it only hit my lip, traveled from the center of my bottom lip down to about my gum line and over about 4 teeth. When the swelling finally went down enough I was able to confirm that it was indeed lead in there.

It was fun for all the guys at the range with med kits, because there was lots of blood. Of course there's a great joke too about the day Chris shot me.

It really reinforced the need for glasses, and made me incredibly wary of the War Finish Webleys. When we examined the gun afterwards it just looks as if the steel is not very hard, and even after a hundred rounds the wear was pronounced over how it had looked when I bought it.

Click to expand...

Most interesting! I wonder if you got one without heat treatment or a replacement part not made by Webley.

Texas Star said:

Most interesting! I wonder if you got one without heat treatment or a replacement part not made by Webley.

Click to expand...

That was the speculation we had. One of the parts had to be replaced after only a few rounds. The cylinders stop sheered right off.

The parts were all original though, there was zero doubt about that. The gun appeared to be brand new save for a little holster wear.

The non-war finish Webleys I have played with are fine guns, but that particular War Finish gun really scared me good.

Always wear wrap around shooting glasses!

This is my Webley MK IV .380-200 WW2 veteran. My Enfield/Webley Revolvers are history teachers and favorites of my modest firearms collection. There has always, for me, been that "something" about Enfield and Webley Revolvers that draws me in, fascinates, and captures my imagination. My friend, Bryan, of this fine forum, mirrors my thoughts and ideas concerning Brit firearms and Brit-literature. Also, my friend Les, is a older brother who is like-minded and has taught me much from his posts. And Mr. Texas, another much learned friend, that is especially helpful with historical matters, who provides that "solid" and "helpful" advice that keeps my posts on the straight and narrow. I hope the Webley fans enjoy the post and photos.

David

PS. Put in a photo of my Number 4 Enfield for my friend M1A. You don't reckon that old cop would take his Webley to work, do you?????????

The slim, trim profile of a 5-inch .380 Webley MK IV, stoked with six-rounds of .38-200 reloads, with 12-rounds as spare, and this makes for good traveling insurance for me. This "classic" WW2 British Arm, as well as some good reading material on the same, makes for a great vacation trip to Panama City Beach Florida. While reclined on the bed in the motel room, picture window wide open to the beautiful emerald green waters and equally beautiful white sandy beach of PCB, and I'm as close to Heaven as I can get here on earth! I have done that many times over the pass 30+years, with different firearm classics that I could never carry on duty. The Enfield or Webley Revolver provides much inspiration for writing down at this location, many times in the middle of winter with very few tourist around. These type guns are a senior mans favorite toys in his twilight years. There is a Commemorative Commando Enfield Revolver & Knife set that has my blood-pressure up every time I see a photo of such. Price is a far, far stretch for me, but hoping some of you may clue me in on this. The who, what, where, and when of this set and the story behind it. Thanks for the posting some of you have done.

David

Nice No.4 Dabney. The carpet background is one of my choices too. Along with the pool table.
I may have to strip my shiny No.4, and do some tung oil.
I have taken the No.4 Mk2 down to S. FL at a range in the everglades. Folks like to see and shoot it. An easy shooter. The A3O3 is popular as well.

David:

I have been busy with school winding down, and finals week finishing up, and graduation this weekend, and have gotten behind on following my friends posts!!! I missed this until just now. Well, as you know, I only have the two Webleys, a MK VI, which would be almost mint, if it had not been shaved, and a MK IV, which is of, I believe, post war manufacture.

I'll take the liberty of reposting this picture again:



I understand that this particular MK IV may be from the 1960s, and manufactured for the Israelis. In addition to the British marks, it has a very faint Star of David on the right hand side of the barrel, near the cylinder, with what appears to be a Hebrew letter inside of the star. It is also fitted with a rebounding hammer type safety, and has been modified, presumably by the Israelis. Not just the late revolvers, but some earlier war time production ones have this modification, which is evident by a usually bright metal screw that protrudes from the left hand side of the frame just above the trigger. I only have this one photo with me, and the gun is at home, so I will have to get you a photo later.

Keep your eyes open for this modification, manifested by the bright screw on the left side of the frame. Notice if the Israeli proof is present. This is an interesting variation of the Webley MK IV, and I will try to find more information about it.

Best Regards, Les

les.b said:

David:

I have been busy with school winding down, and finals week finishing up, and graduation this weekend, and have gotten behind on following my friends posts!!! I missed this until just now. Well, as you know, I only have the two Webleys, a MK VI, which would be almost mint, if it had not been shaved, and a MK IV, which is of, I believe, post war manufacture.

Click to expand...

Les-

It's of postwar make. Usually, the better finish will be obvious, unless it's a pre-war gun, of course.
Your Israeli one seems to have a dull gray military finish, maybe not original or ordered by Israel. The hammer is also flat-sided. I think that was an economy measure, as production wound down.

Alas, many have had to be fitted with a crossbolt safety, to qualify for US importation under the GCA '68. Is this on the right side of your gun?

And those for the Singapore police were required to be fitted with a safety by Webley. That gave them a different appearance. The grip looks to be set further back.

Most .38 Webleys seen here are the War Finish version, imported in considerable quantity before GCA '68.

Do you have enough of that military .38 ammo to fire a shot or two into a 2X4 and report on penetration? I presume that you don't have access to proper gel tests? The target can be anything that lets us get a feel for the gun's power... or lack of that.

Texas:

Here is a photo that I found on the Internet, not of my Webley, but just like it, although the screw has been darkened. No there is no cross bolt safety, I have seen these on other recent import Webleys, but my understanding is that these safeties were retrofitted by the Israelis to all of the MK IVs that they imported. I understand that some of them were left over WWII production, but those like mine were manufactured in the 1960s, and sold to the Israelis around the time of the 1968 war. The Israelis modified both the old and new revolvers with this safety feature, which is passive, no crossbolt to activate, just a rebounding hammer, that will not go forward unless the trigger is pulled to the rear. The screw to look for is just above the trigger and is usually bright, but has been blackened here.



Yes, I have about a hundred rounds of the military ammunition that I could play around with. I have resisted shooting any of it, as I am not sure if it is corrosive or not. But in the interests of science, I wouldn't mind shooting some in some 2x4s.... You are right, I don't have any ballistic gelatin. That sounds like a cool project now that I'm out of school. I'll take the same cleaning precautions that I use on my mint Yugoslav Mauser or Russian rifles when shooting questionable ammunition.

Best Regards, Les

The British military ammo will be corrosive. And they use a huge primer that has an inordinate amount of potassiun sulfate which makes the corrosion start almost while you look at it. I've hear that the corrosion in rifles goes down the barrel about two inches behind the bullet, but I don't really believe that. At any rate, clean your revolver thoroughly with hot water after shooting British corrosive stuff.

les-

Besides a shot or two into wood, you could shoot a watermelon, and maybe a jug of juice or water. I've read an article by a man who has shot a number of animals that bullets behave a lot in water like they do in flesh. Of course, those FMJ bullets won't expand. But if they tumble, that would be interesting.

I THINK modern South African ammo is non-corrosive. If our members there see this, I hope they'll comment on that. I suspect that some hunting rifle ammo sold there under the Musgrave name may have been made by Hirtenberger in Austria. This is just a guess, made after I examined some boxes sent to me by a man there whom I knew in the 1980's. He is now deceased. BTW, the US State Dept. told me that he'd have to send empty boxes, as even fired brass cases were forbidden for import due to the UN embargo. South Africa was not supposed to export arms as well as not being able to import them. I think that's why the excellent Musgrave rifles displayed here at the SHOT show were not allowed to come into the USA. Of course, that ban was lifted after Mandela became President, furthering PC goals internationally. That's all one can say here about that without getting political.

If you do fire off a few rounds of that old .38 ammo, I'll be fascinated to hear how it performs. Ditto if anyone has some US military .38 Special ammo from WWII. I think it was loaded to normal velocity, unlike the later M-41 load.

Texas, David, M1A, Cyrano, Bryan, and anyone else who may be interested in this project:

Well, I'm still at my cabin, so I don't have all of my tools, but here are the results of the decidedly semi-scientific project that was proposed by Texas. Using a couple (three, but I didn't need that many) of scraps of 2x4, I fired three rounds of .380 2Z ammunition, apparently not British manufacture (marked FN * 380 2Z so maybe Belgian) into the wood. I decided to use the Enfield, as it had the 5" barrel. Here is a picture of the ammunition, posed next to "Churchill's Generals"... (One of the best, in fact).



These bullets penetrated the first 2x4 and lodged almost all the way through the second, and in one case, almost came through the second 2x4, sticking out the farther side, where it could be pulled loose relatively easily. Here is a photo of that test viewed from the face of the 2x4s:



Here is a side view. The bullet would be passing from right to left. You can see how one of the bullets has began to emerge from the second piece of wood, but not enough to completely penetrate both pieces. I believe that the only reason that it got that far is that the previous two shots had loosened some of the far side of the wood, reducing the resistance.



Here is a view of the back of the two pieces of lumber. See how the point of the jacketed bullet is not even scratched or dented in its passage through the wood. (Yes, I know that these are pretty scruffy looking pieces of wood, but the are not rotted or weakened...left over from a project and rescued from the burn pile.):



While I was at it, I thought it might be interesting to fire another three rounds of fresh, modern factory .38 S&W ammunition to compare. I have a new box of Serbian "Prvi Partizan", or as we better know it "PPU" (head stamped with the equivalent Cyrillic letters "ППУ") with a purported 145 gr RNL bullet. Interesting results. These bullets in two instances, did not make it through the first 2x4, and in the third shot, was found to have dented the second piece of wood, but not entered it, and fell to the ground between the two (the dented piece is on the right):



Finally, here are the two spent rounds, along with two unfired rounds for comparison. Note the relatively pristine condition of the spent jacketed round. When I get back to my home shop, I will have a nice specimen to put the micrometer on.

Edit 6:21 PM, May 17, 2016: I was able to put the micrometer to the relatively undamaged jacketed bullet: the groove diameter, even though they are an odd number, because the are so wide in relation to the lands, was easily measured. I took measurements around the diameter of the spent bullet, and they average .357". They run from .356" to .359". This is good for me, as my favorite handloads for the .38 S&W uses the same .358" diameter 158 grain cast and sized lead semi wadcutter bullet that I use for my .38 Special and .357 Magnum handloads, and should perform admirably out of this diameter bore. I also weighed the two recovered rounds, and the jacketed bullet weighs 176.7 grains after being recovered, out of an advertised 178 grain before firing. This could easily have been within the tolerance of manufacture. The recovered RNL weighs 143.7 out of an advertised 145 grains. I forgot to state above that the rounds were fired from 10 feet.

In the meantime, a couple of observations: the military round on an admittedly brief test, penetrated an average of twice as deeply as the RNL commercial round. Neither penetrated very much. Consider that a finished 2x4 is really 1 1/2" thick, then the RNL penetrated about 1 1/2", maybe, and the military round penetrated 3", maybe.



P. S. Cyrano, before I even started this post, I used plenty of really hot soapy water and scrubbed out the barrel, chambers and any areas that might have been exposed to any possible corrosive residue. Then I dried the bore and chambers as best I could, and left the revolver on a radiator for awhile to evaporate any remaining moisture, then ran an oily patch through the bore and chambers and wiped the whole thing down with an oily rag. Takes longer to tell than to do. These rounds, although marked 380 2Z, appear to be of relatively modern manufacture, and may not be corrosive. But considering that even though the outside looks well handled, the bore and chambers of this revolver are bright and shiny, I am not going to take any chances.

Best Regards, Les

Nicely done Les.
I doubt a great coat worn by an adversary would stop a .38 S&W.

Thread drift warning:
Did you pass your classes or are you to be held back. Again!

Thanks M1A, BTW, I added an edit paragraph near the end of the above post, since I have now had a chance to measure and weigh the jacketed bullet.

Yes, I passed.... At least I passed most of my students!! Well, as I often tell my students: I have never given a grade in my teaching career. You earn the grade, I merely record it. So they either passed themselves, or failed to pass themselves!!!

Best Regards, Les

Fascinating!! I sure wouldn't want to stand in front of it. Civilian-type bullets, possibly cast lead, would expand a little and would certainly smart a lot.

I think the FN ammo had non-corrosive primers. Years ago I had a hundred or so rounds of FN stamped 7.63mm for the Mauser pistol. It wasn't corrosive.

Cyrano said:

Fascinating!! I sure wouldn't want to stand in front of it. Civilian-type bullets, possibly cast lead, would expand a little and would certainly smart a lot.

I think the FN ammo had non-corrosive primers. Years ago I had a hundred or so rounds of FN stamped 7.63mm for the Mauser pistol. It wasn't corrosive.

Click to expand...

I agree. Many years ago, AIM, I think, had FN .32 ACP for sale at a ridiculous price. Came in little 25 round plastic boxes with white tape sealing them. Berdan primed, and advertised as noncorrosive. I bought 2,000 rounds for my PPK, Colt 1903, a couple of Czech guns, a CZ 50, and a CZ 70, and I never had any problems. I still have just a thousand left. Wish I had bought much more!! Anyway, I didn't think it would hurt to err on the side of caution.

Best Regards, Les

I too am a Webley MkIV .380 revolver fan. I have a consecutive pair that are part of the 650 sold to New Scotland Yard in 1956.



There is a fellow in the UK who has the Webley factory sales records. For a fee he will send you a copy of the sales copy of your revolver. That is how I found out about the history of mine.

Wow, rufrdr those are beautiful. What a find!!! You will be the envy of everyone on this thread, and the Enfield thread that are running alongside of ot. Those look pristine.

Best Regards, Les

les-

Thanks! That was revealing. I've read that penetration of one board of soft pine is thought to be capable of serious injury to a human. But most powerful pistol bullets penetrate quite a few such boards, maybe 7-10. That used to be how they measured the power of pistols, instead of using chronographs. I don't recall the thickness of the boards. Maybe someone else will know. I think the boards were 7/8th's inch.

If you have a chance later, fire some more common cartridges through those old boards. I bet a .45 ACP or US military .38 Special from WWII would penetrate further than the Enfield bullet did. A .357 Magnum JHP might blow the first board in two.

BTW, check the ammo forum on this board. A member tried the Buffalo Bore heavy Plus P .38 ammo in a couple of guns, a four-inch barreled M-10 and a 6.5 inch M-27. It is pretty hot for a .38 and should be ideal for those here who like the old .38-44 guns. I think it'd be good in K-frame .357's, too, where you want a good combat load that won't wear the gun as much as Plus P Plus or full .357 loads.