This revolver remains in its original .455 Webley configuration. The photograph of the cylinder serial number also demonstrates the nice surface one wants to see, proving original .455 Webley configuration. The crossed penants are a proof mark; the crown tells us it’s the property of the crown. I’m not sure the significance of the marking above the crown? A2 was the inspector at the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield Lock (“E”). What is the significance of the “X” through the cylinder serial number? Also noticeably absent is “Not English Make”. Also absent are the two facing arrows, signifying removal from service, and also absent are proofing of each individual chamber. No markings on the barrel except the barrel address. Serial number 3604.

Attached Images

	2CBF0EFD-218F-4FA4-8750-911E13C9350A.jpg (100.2 KB, 121 views)
	C347451B-7CAE-4BE5-B9EA-E1988718BEB2.jpg (100.7 KB, 117 views)
	9ABD1EE2-A0ED-4D08-B03F-8E333EF9E491.jpg (72.1 KB, 104 views)
	3E17A828-13B8-4FD2-9BF9-53D53403101A.jpg (74.5 KB, 107 views)

And more photographs.

Attached Images

	762940AE-B9B1-4F4E-A51A-CFCB93FFAB72.jpg (56.4 KB, 73 views)
	58AFF7DE-CFB7-421B-9D55-1F9F0D3AB0AB.jpg (71.5 KB, 71 views)
	4EEF1712-73AD-4CE8-A90F-143D116DED40.jpg (48.9 KB, 77 views)
	98E55A88-FD2E-4D83-A01C-FB59FD0753C3.jpg (41.2 KB, 64 views)

And a few more photographs.

Attached Images

	6AA4A1F1-F7DB-47EA-BAB5-DBD7ADC7ED1A.jpg (78.1 KB, 58 views)
	958A29B7-3197-4ABB-AED2-D49DA3E5ED32.jpg (49.3 KB, 48 views)
	8C4D0E2C-C260-4109-9543-1360013E68E8.jpg (73.7 KB, 74 views)

Very nice Smith.

The top marking is a broad arrow and indicates British military ownership. From what further research indicates. I had either forgotten that or just learned it. I guess I was confused because of the crown, indicating ownership by The Crown. But, I guess that which is owned by The Crown isn’t necessarily owned by the British military, but that owned by the British military is ultimately owned by The Crown. Am I correct?

Attached Images

75D4D8E3-BA33-4D56-BE1D-287B923C5276.jpg (71.5 KB, 18 views)

IIRC. the Crown over A2 is the inspector stamp and the E is for the Enfield facility.

__________________
Guy
SWHF #474 SWCA LM#2629

Yes, that’s the conclusion I came to as well. It was what I now know is described as a broad arrow that was perplexing.

I thought this revolver to have less markings than most.

Beautiful gun, and unaltered too!

Looks to be in very nice condition. The only thing I note that is different from the two later ones I have is the location of the acceptance stamps being high on the frame rather than on the "knuckle" where we usually see them. Were all the early ones stamped in that location? Any idea why the location would have changed with the later ones? I don't have, as I remember, the broad arrow stamps or separate cylinder proof stamps on either of mine.

Jeff
SWCA #1457

Good eye! That might be why I thought there are less markings on my revolver than others. This might not be the case but they are located in an unusual location.

I wonder if Jim (Hondo44) saw this thread, as he tracks these?

I believe the .455 TL is considered to be a MK I and the 2nd Model .455 is a MK II.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

It’s the other way around, which seems counterintuitive.

Always thought the MKIs are the TLs, the MKIIs are the 2nd Models. Maybe the confusion comes from the .455 Webley MKI, MKII and more ammo? Perhaps both the TL and the 2nd Model should be referred to as MKIIs?

Question on the grips, are they numbered to the gun? Maybe in pencil and possibly worn off if they were numbered. I can barely see the pencil writing in bright light on my 2nd model grips. Anyway, question really was shouldn't this as a TL have the stocks without the medallion as shown on page 196 of the 4th edition of the Standard Catalog?

Jeff
SWCA #1457

.455 Webley - Wikipedia

Scroll through this and be prepared to be thoroughly confused.

Yes, I looked at that, and was indeed thoroughly confused. I think I'd go with the Standard Catalog, then we can all be equally confused in the same way.

Great gun, no matter what we call it!

Jeff
SWCA #1457

What I know-
ALL the 455 Contract guns had gold medallions.
ALL the 455 Contract guns have the longer (Mk I) chamber so they could shoot any ammo in a pinch. I THINK the Brits still considered all the Contract guns to be Mk IIs even though they have long chambers. Leave it to the Brits.....
I do not think the Roman numeral II stamped on some guns means "2nd Model".
The Crossed Pennants is NOT a proofmark. It is some type of military acceptance or inspectors mark. Military owned guns were not usually proofed. The ones you see proofed were done after selling as surplus.
Brit military markings vary greatly in placement and quantity. I've seen several guns with nothing but a Crown on the butt.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

I do not know of any revolver chambered for the 455 that will only take the Mk II (shorter) case.

List of Changes 17463 5 July 1915 "Pistols, Smith & Wesson, .455, with 61/2-inch barrel-
Mark I.
Mark II."
"The Mark I Smith & Wesson pistol is that described by the Trade as the "Old Model". The Mark II, known as the "New Model", is distinguished by having the numeral II stamped on the left side of the frame"

Note that the Triple locks were not stamped Mk I, and that Mk II has nothing to do with the ammunition.

The Crossed Pennants most certainly ARE proof marks. They are not inspectors' marks; these are the Crown over inspector's number over applicable RSAF, eg Crown over A3 over E. British military firearms made in Britain were most certainly proofed at the RSAF. Hence the different marks on the 455 S&Ws made to order overseas. In WW II British inspectors were working in the US. However, WW II Lend Lease items were not marked because they remained US property. Do not confuse these military proof marks with civilian ones done after sale as surplus.

I have a Triple Lock s/n 3989 and two Mk IIs and all three have the Crossed Pennants in the same places: LHS top front of body and rear face of cylinder. The inspector's stamp is on the LHS top rear of the body on the TL and just above the LHS stock plate on the Mk IIs.

Peter

The X is merely the Crossed Pennants proof stamp. On my 455 S&Ws it is at another place on the rear of the cylinder. "Not English Make" was a later commercial proof requirement. You gun was clearly not sold as surplus and so avoided all that commercial butchery. In other words it walked out of the back door of the army!

Peter

Maybe I’m confused in that the Triple Lock IS Mk I but all commercial brass is MK II as it’s shorter and can also fire in Mk I revolvers, but if Mk I brass was available, it’s versatility is not as great, being only able to service in Mk I revolvers?

I had thought Triple Lock revolvers were Mk II and Mk I came later. I thought I remembered it as such as it was counterintuitive, the reverse of what one might expect???

455 Webley MKII - Large Pistol - Brass Cases

MK #s were always used in numerical order; i.e., the Mk I nomenclature was always first with Mk II and later marks used subsequently for later/improved models or cartridges. Although the 455 triple locks were considered the Mk I by the British, only the 2nd model, the Mk II model was stamped with the Mark #, and stamped Mk II by the British.

Mk I or II for the 455 service revolvers is different and separate from nomenclature for the 455 cartridge Mark #s. In other words the Mark #s for the guns and those for the ammo do not correspond.

Although intended for use with the 455 Mk II cartridge, as posted above, S&W agreed to chamber all the British service revolvers to chamber and shoot the longer semi-obsolete 455 Mk I cartridge for the flexibility afforded under battle field ammo supply issues.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

I revised the title of this post to Mk I and stand corrected.

Hondo44,

From a thread of yours I bumped:

“2. “455 Mark II Hand Ejector-1st Model” Triple Lock #1 thru at least #5802* (previously thought to be 5461, and several higher #s in this range shipped commercial).
* “The serial numbers in the .455 Hand Ejector series 5721 - 5802 are all .455 second series triple locks and were all shipped commercial generally to Canada dealers. Hope that this helps.” Roy After this shipment there were some of this model sold commercially all in the 5502 - 5857 range, but including a few military issues in that range as well.”

This was my source of confusion and why I thought Triple Lock revolvers were Mark II. I’m guessing this should be Mark I?

No, that's S&W's reference to the cartridge. Their revolver model names in collector terms most always begin with the Cartridge, in this case the .455 Mk II.

The "Hand Ejector 1st Model" is the description of the gun. Similar to the TL in 44 Spl: ".44 Hand Ejector 1st Model".

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

This was getting to be too much like what came first? The chicken or the egg?

And so it was easier to just refer to it as .455 Webley, and the thread title was revised as such.

I think I'm clear now on what to call each model, until the next post probably, but I don't think we've addressed my earlier question about the TLs having stocks with medallions. . . .or not. The Standard Catalog, 4th edition, shows a TL .455 on page 196 without medallions. Lee says that all of the .455s had medallions. I don't have a TL 455, not that I wouldn't like one. But should I find one for sale which stocks should it have, medallions or no medallions?

Jeff
SWCA #1457

Medallions!
The one shown in the book is incorrect.
All 455s made for the British military contract both TLs and 2nd models had them.

Regular production TLs made before the 1st half of 1910 did not have them.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

That’s an important distinction. ALL .455 Webley revolvers made for the British government had medallion stocks, but not all .455 Webley revolvers had medallion stocks. A really nice example of a Target Model Triple Lock revolver with non medallion stocks sold last month at auction for big bucks. I wanted it badly, very badly, indeed, but at least two others wanted it much more badly than I did, as the high bid was considerably greater than as high as I was willing to go.

Special Order Smith & Wesson .44 Hand Ejector First Model (Triple Lock) British Target Revolver |




Guns & Military Artifacts

Handguns & Pistols

Revolvers

| Online Auctions | Proxibid

Winning bid was $7500 and that doesn’t even include buyer’s premium. My bid was only 40% of the winning bid. What’s the definition of trounced?

What a great gun, can certainly see why you wanted it. Steep price indeed, but when will we see another one?

Jeff
SWCA #1457