Unknown chambered in 38

[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.