Unknown chambered in 38

[HamBoneZ]

Trying to identify a gun left by my late father in law. After multiple searches I cannot find this particular pistol and will try to include all visible markings.

Also it is chambered in 38, not rebored 38 special.

Thanks to anyone who has any info on this

 

[HamBoneZ]

More pics.

 

[daddio202]

Looks to me like a Enfield no.2 topbreak. were made in 38/200 from 1932 to 1957. I am no expert by any means and as a matter of fact I have never held an Enfield in my hand but seen lots of pictures of them. Good luck and enjoy, I am sure somebody will be along with loads more information.

 

[glowe]

Welcome to the Forum. That is an Enfield No. 2 Mark I. This particular model was only made from 1941 to 1943 for the Royal Tank Regiment. They feared that the hammer spur would catch inside the tank and discharge so the spur was removed making the revolver double action only. There were about 24,000 made by Enfield and Albion Motors Ltd. Scotland (guns are marked Albion) Many also had Singer Sewing Machine Company in London.

Forgot to add that this section is only for S&Ws so the Mods will probably move your thread to a non-S&W section.

 

[gregintenn]

38 Smith and Wesson....not 38 Special.

 

[glowe]

38 Smith and Wesson....not 38 Special.

Technically - the caliber was 380 Revolver Cartridge. The 38 Short Colt was supposedly copied from this round. These guns will chamber 38 Short Colt but am not sure the 38 S&W will chamber?? They had a 124 grain LRN bullet.

Checked the Barnes book and the 38 S&W should chamber in this revolver, but the 38 S&W is slightly larger and longer.

 

[Absalom]

A few modifications to Gary's identification:

This is indeed an Enfield No. 2 Mk I**. Based on the Y prefix serial, it was manufactured at the RSAF Enfield in later 1943.

It was not manufactured specifically for the tank regiment. It is correct that the earliest Enfield versions without the hammer spur from the mid-1930s seem to have been delivered to the Royal Tank Regiment.

However, due to a general engineering change in 1938 all Enfield revolvers from then on were produced with the spurless hammer until the end of production after WW II, the Mk I** as a true DA-only gun without the innards for SA. They were produced at Enfield, Albion, and HAC in Australia, a few hundred thousand in all.

So it is incorrect to talk, as you will find occasionally, about a "bobbed hammer", nor is the nomenclature of a "tanker model", also often encountered, correct. The spurless Enfield remained in service with the British as the standard sidearm until the 1960s, although the FN HP was phased in as a replacement beginning in 1957.

The British service cartridge, officially the .380 Mk IIz 178gr (jacketed), is dimensionally identical to the .38 S&W, but many loads are up to 50% higher in pressure. So any .38 S&W load can be fired from an Enfield (or .38 Webley) without concern. The gun can take it.

 

[LVSteve]

My Google Fu is weak today. I cannot find what B.M.L.I. stands for. However, I would bet L.I. stands for Light Infantry.

 

[jimmyj]

Unknown .38

My Enfield will chamber and fire .38 S&W cartridges.

Technically - the caliber was 380 Revolver Cartridge. The 38 Short Colt was supposedly copied from this round. These guns will chamber 38 Short Colt but am not sure the 38 S&W will chamber?? They had a 124 grain LRN bullet.

Checked the Barnes book and the 38 S&W should chamber in this revolver, but the 38 S&W is slightly larger and longer.

 

[DWalt]

Some years ago I came into several boxes of South African made .380 Mk 2Z ammunition which I chronographed from a Victory BSR. My records indicate that the MV averaged around 600 ft/sec with a fairly large spread. That wouldn't be much different performance from commercial American-made .38 S&W ammunition. I do not know what the official MV specification was for the UK-made military ammunition. The British always insisted that the .380 Revolver ammunition was not the same as the .38 S&W cartridge which may be technically correct, but at least they seem to be twins dimensionally and ballistically. Even a longer time ago (I think it was around 1970), I had a few dozen rounds of .380 Mk 2Z which (not knowing any better) I fired in a S&W .38 DA top break revolver. Nothing bad happened. I think the cylinder length of the Webley and Enfield top break revolvers is too short to accommodate the .38 Special cartridge, even if rechambered, but I am not 100% sure about that as I have no Enfield top breaks.

I always wondered why the British military chose to adopt an obsolete revolver design using an anemic and antique cartridge when much better options were available. But at that time, I believe they considered a handgun to be more of a badge of office than a weapon, so its design and caliber wasn't particularly important.

The .38 Short Colt cartridge can be safely fired in any revolver chambered in .38 S&W (or .380 Revolver) despite the fact that its bullet and case are slightly smaller in diameter than those of the .38 S&W cartridge. But it's not a recommended practice to do that. The .38 Short Colt cartridge (which I think is still being made) also has some advantages for use in any .38 Special or .357 Magnum revolver and it is perfectly safe to do so.

The few times I have fired an Enfield "bobbed hammer" revolver, I have noticed how heavy the DA trigger pull was. It was likely difficult to hit a man-sized target much beyond point-blank distances. Those Tommies must have had well-developed index finger muscles.

 

[HamBoneZ]

Thank you guys for the info, I was struggling to find any information on this pistol especially since I couldn't find anything with the modified hammer.

And yes, it does chamber and fire the 38s&w cartridge and is fairly accurate if you can steady the pistol and the considerable trigger pull.

 

[.455_Hunter]

My Dad bought one for me when I was 14 in roughly 1990. It was my primary defensive weapon through high school and into college until I turned 21. I still use it for reserve home defense to this day.

 

[RGVshooter]

Looks just like a Webley Mk Iv in 38 S&W, not 38 special

 

[Texas Star]

Not difficult at all to find info. See the classic by Smith & Smith, Small Arms of the World or Geoffrey Boothroyd's, The Handgun.

The latter, Crown Publishers, 1970, is a real gold mine for basic handgun development. In it, the author, who was a friend and gun advisor to author Ian Fleming, said that the S&W M-60 was the logical Bond gun, as it was then the only stainless revolver. But Fleming died the year before it appeared.


Earlier Enfield No. 2's had much better finishes than this one. Those late guns sometimes had a hideous black paint finish.

Maybe Peter in South Africa can say more, but that's basically it. Oh: there were three grip styles.

 

[amazingflapjack]

Cylinder bores appear to be chamfered, so moon clips were most likely in use.

 

[Texas Star]

Looks just like a Webley Mk Iv in 38 S&W, not 38 special

No, it doesn't. Look much closer at both.

 

[DWalt]

"Cylinder bores appear to be chamfered, so moon clips were most likely in use."

Huh??

 

[Muley Gil]

Cylinder bores appear to be chamfered, so moon clips were most likely in use.

Don't think so, fj. They used the same .38/200 cartridge as the British Victory model. The British military didn't use moon clips in any of their standard revolvers. Now, if any 1917s made it to the British ranks, they would have used .45 ACP in half moon clips.

 

[Absalom]

....
I always wondered why the British military chose to adopt an obsolete revolver design using an anemic and antique cartridge when much better options were available. But at that time, I believe they considered a handgun to be more of a badge of office than a weapon, so its design and caliber wasn't particularly important.
....

It's important to keep in mind that the British did NOT "adopt the .38 S&W" in the 1920s, as one reads sometimes. The identical dimensions make it likely that the British and American calibers are related back where they originated. But the .38 wasn't a new thing in Britain.

British revolver makers, most prominently Webley with the .38 Mk III, had been producing .38 caliber compact versions of their full-size service designs since the late 19th century.

So the 1920s change did represent not a rather incisive switch, like the one from revolver to the 1911 auto in the US, but a much simpler down-sizing to another well-established caliber in a smaller version of the same gun. Much easier for a traditions-bound military.

 

[Absalom]

Don't think so, fj. They used the same .38/200 cartridge as the British Victory model. The British military didn't use moon clips in any of their standard revolvers. Now, if any 1917s made it to the British ranks, they would have used .45 ACP in half moon clips.

Not half-moon clips, but early speed loaders were actually used on the .455 revolvers. Peter would be the one who'd know whether these were in use on the .38 versions too.

To quote from an apparently well-informed source:

"1893, one Mr. William de Courcy Prideaux, a subject of Queen Victoria, patented a device he referred to as a 'cartridge-packet holder'. This device was a circular disc through which 12 spring-steel fingers protruded in six pairs. Each pair held one .455 caliber round for the British Webley style revolver. A later 1914 improved design added a bridge-like handle to the rear of the plate.

Prideaux's device became popular with professional army officers and discerning Webley owners in the UK as they allowed the revolver to be reloaded very fast and very efficiently in a high-stress situation (even in total darkness). As you might expect, these neat little gems saw combat with British officers who bought and brought them to the Boer war and later WWI."

(Photos from the web)

 

[Texas Star]

Cylinder bores appear to be chamfered, so moon clips were most likely in use.

No. Read the books I cited or study it on the Net.

I've read a lot about British guns and never saw a Prideaux loader in .38, either.

 

[Absalom]

One final thought about the "tanker" modification:

While the connection between the first pre-standard orders for spurless-hammer Enfields and the tank force is documented fact, any further details about the supposed risk of getting the hammer caught or entangled in the close confines of a tank etc. is conjecture. Just based on relative numbers, many more British soldiers, including tankers, were armed with spurred Webley Mk IV's (-105,000) and S&W BSR's (>half million) without known problems.

These days, the consensus is that the general switch to the spurless hammer was owed to a happy combination of an improved handgun combat doctrine combined with production cost savings. That also led to replacing the wood with the odd but oddly effective bakelite grip shape.

Based partly on the CQB experience of the late-WW I trench raids and partly on experiences as reflected in writings like those of Fairbairn/Sykes, the British were the first major military to adopt primitive forms of what would later be called instrinctive shooting or combat shooting, focused on fast DA at close distance.

 

[HOUSTON RICK]

Thank ya'll for the education.

 

[RichCapeCod]

A bit off topic, but, anyway... The Brits used a series of ctgs at the end of the 19th Century they called "Manstopper" rounds. The ctgs were made in .455 and .476 calibers, and, from memory, were initially about 250 grain, cylinder shaped rounds, with hollows at both ends of the ctg. Later, they transitioned to a 210 (about) grain round with a full wadcutter configuration in the nose of the round and a deep hollow in the base (for stability).

My recollection is, the 1898 Hague convention, on not permitting use of exposed lead projectiles in military operations, stopped their manufacture.

Rich

More info for those interested:
.455 Webley - Wikipedia

 

[Texas Star]

A bit off topic, but, anyway... The Brits used a series of ctgs at the end of the 19th Century they called "Manstopper" rounds. The ctgs were made in .455 and .476 calibers, and, from memory, were initially about 250 grain, cylinder shaped rounds, with hollows at both ends of the ctg. Later, they transitioned to a 210 (about) grain round with a full wadcutter configuration in the nose of the round and a deep hollow in the base (for stability).

My recollection is, the 1898 Hague convention, on not permitting use of exposed lead projectiles in military operations, stopped their manufacture.

Rich

More info for those interested:
.455 Webley - Wikipedia

Rich-

You are sort of half right.

I don't think the Manstopper round was made in .476. It was the MK III and MK IV .455 loads. MK III was a full wadcutter and had a deep hollow point. MK IV was a solid wadcutter. MK V was the same, but lead to antimony (?) content was different. MK VI was FMJ, for WW II.

MK I was a longer case, also called .455 Colt. MK II has the shorter case, with 265 grain lead RN bullet. MK I/.455 Colt velocity was about 750 FPS. The shorter- cased rounds were spec'd at about 625 FPS, plus or minus 25 FPS.

MK III and IV rounds were called Dum-Dums, as was some .303 rifle ammo made with expanding bullets, loaded at Dum-Dum Arsenal in India.

The Manstopper loads were at least sometimes marked on the package, Not For Use Against Europeans. So, they weren't used against Germany in WW I. The MK II lead RN was.

The reason for the more deadly ammo was that Muslim fanatics in India and the Sudan, etc. were hard to stop, and more destructive bullets were loaded for use in those regions.

 

[DWalt]

Most anything you would wish to know about British military ammunition is to be found here, including the .455 Manstoppers.
.455 inch Ball - British Military Small Arms Ammo

 

[Muley Gil]

I was aware of the early Webley speed loaders, but couldn't remember enough details (plus being too lazy to look up the details) to add the information to my post.

I have a vague memory of seeing some .455 speed loaders in a display at a Alabama Gun Collectors Association show in Birmingham many years ago.

 

[Kurusu]

One final thought about the "tanker" modification:

While the connection between the first pre-standard orders for spurless-hammer Enfields and the tank force is documented fact, any further details about the supposed risk of getting the hammer caught or entangled in the close confines of a tank etc. is conjecture. Just based on relative numbers, many more British soldiers, including tankers, were armed with spurred Webley Mk IV's (-105,000) and S&W BSR's (>half million) without known problems.

These days, the consensus is that the general switch to the spurless hammer was owed to a unhappy combination of an improved handgun combat doctrine combined with production cost savings. That also led to replacing the wood with the odd but oddly effective bakelite grip shape.

Based partly on the CQB experience of the late-WW I trench raids and partly on experiences as reflected in writings like those of Fairbairn/Sykes, the British were the first major military to adopt primitive forms of what would later be called instrinctive shooting or combat shooting, focused on fast DA at close distance.

There fixed it for you!

I like the spur on mine just fine.

Consider the Webkey MK VI a bonus.