Webley

CZ93X62

Official forum enigma
Sighting equipment on older firearms can leave a lot to be desired. Of my 5 wheelguns chambered in the humble 38 S&W, only two of them have decent sights--the Colt Police Positive and the S&W M&P. Both of these arms are accurate as can be when fed ammo that fits their dimensional quirks and bullet weight specs.

I came into 38 S&W reloading somewhat late in the game, c. 2003. I muddled through using the 9mm Makarov die set at first, and that process produced good ammunition. I found the RCBS Cowboy Die Set for 38 S&W a few years later, and it is useful for reloading the clone Lyman #358477 (NOE mould) sized at .359" and .361". For the .363" bullets, the Makarov die set gets the call, with the 38 S&W roll-crimp seater die adding the finishing touch.

I do a similar regimen when loading the Nagant 1895 revolver rounds, using 30 U.S. Carbine and 32/20 WCF dies in combination to load those weird cartridges successfully. That revolver can be surprisingly accurate given ammo it likes.
 

Charles Graff

Moderator Emeritus
Just checked my email and the Jan-Feb 2022 Fouling Shot was there. Ed Harris and Larry Gibson in separate articles do a deep dive into the 38 Special cartridge. Good stuff.
 

Outpost75

Active Member
The Webley & Scott Mark IV .380 Revolver - reprinted from The Fouling Shot by permission.

By the 1930s the British Army was mostly a conscript force, its career officer and NCO cadre having been decimated during the Great War. Tommy Atkins no longer had the luxury of time to develop competence in firing the battle proven, but heavy .455 revolver. A lighter “pistol” (the Brits call all handguns “pistols”) of smaller caliber was sought. Webley & Scott was already producing the Metropolitan Police Mark III, a 26 oz., top-break, simultaneous ejecting police revolver, in .380 Rimmed (.38 S&W), basically a scaled-down version of its Mk VI .455, submitting samples to the British Army for testing on July 19th, 1921.

The Army suggested changes to better adapt the civilian police revolver for military use. The modified Webley Mark IV was submitted for testing in January, 1922, and received favorable reports from the Small Arms School at Woolwich. The smaller .38 revolver was well liked for its lighter weight and reduced bulk, shorter barrel and mild recoil. A .38 revolver was deemed easier to train inexperienced, hastily-trained troops to adequacy. The Army concluded it was better to hit with a .38 than to miss with a .455, but asked that a cartridge loaded with “a heavier projectile of sufficient stopping power” be developed.

Anticipating a need for rapid production of replacement revolvers, the British government Small Arms Committee directed RSAF Enfield in August, 1922, to arrange with alacrity to begin volume manufacture of a new revolver, making minor design changes to Webley’s design to simply manufacture and speed production. In the meantime the sample Webley & Scott Mk. IV revolvers were sent to the Small Arms School in March, 1924 and underwent trials from September 4th to 11th, 1924. These guns, one with a 6 inch barrel and one with a 5 inch barrel achieved 1 inch groups at 10 yards and proportional 2 inch groups at 20 yards. In Britain’s post WW1 financial austerity, the government chose not to pay Webley for its design. Webley sued for development costs, and some years later received a token settlement, whilst the British Government severed its long relationship with the company. As fate would have it, RSAF Enfield wasn’t able to produce its No.2 Enfield revolver, a blatant Webley “knockoff”, in sufficient quantity, and the Webley & Scott firm received contracts from the British Government in 1942 to produce about 120,000 Mark IV revolvers which were issued to British and Commonwealth forces during the war.

The Small Arm, .380 Revolver Cartridge, as the Brits call it, has an interesting history. Because the 1.3 inch length cylinder precluded using a longer cartridge (such as the .38 Special), Kynoch was approached to produce test ammunition loaded with blunt, 200-grain lead bullets propelled by 2.8 grains of "Neonite" nitro-cellulose flake powder, using a case which was identical to the commercial .38 S&W. The design objective was to ensure that bullets tumbled predictably after having lost their gyroscopic stability during initial soft-target penetration, thus improving their lethality. Despite low initial velocity, retained velocity was 570 feet per second at 50 yards, which was deemed adequate. The 200-grain cartridge was adopted as the .380/200 Mark 1 in 1929. Specifications were 625 fps +/– 25 fps from a 5-inch barrel.

In the meantime, Western Cartridge Company in the US followed Kynoch’s developments with great interest because a heavy-bullet .38 S&W cartridge providing an “improved knockdown blow” was being requested by police to dispatch heavily armed criminals. So, in 1929 Western introduced its .38 Super Police, a direct copy of the new British service round, loaded with a 200-grain, blunt, soft lead, hemispherical-nosed bullet loaded with 2.5 grains of Hercules Infallible (similar to modern Unique) producing 610 fps and 166 ft.-lbs., capable of penetrating four 7/8” pine boards.

380Mk2zPkg.jpgWebleyMk4-38.jpg

pix270802887.jpg

In 1937, the British Army lead-bullet MkI cartridge was replaced by the 178-grain FMJ Mk2 cartridge, to comply with the 1899 Hague Declaration. Remaining MkI cartridges were expended for marksmanship training and civilian law enforcement purposes. The .380 Mk.IIz cartridge with 178-grain FMJ bullet is still loaded by FN, Fiocchi and the India Ordnance Factories. Postwar commercial production Webley Mk. IV revolvers remained in service with police in Britain, Jordan, Israel, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Australia well into the 1980's, and may still be found in Iraq, Pakistan, India and Afghanistan.

US commercial .38 S&W ammunition with 146-grain lead round-nosed bullet is appropriate. Point of impact relative to point of aim may vary, depending upon which ammunition was used to target the revolver at the factory, and which detachable front sight blade is installed. With proper ammunition the Webley Mark IV is surprisingly accurate. Out test example, made in the 1950s, produces hand-held, golf ball sized 12-shot groups at 7 yards in firing the various ammos through the chronograph. Whilst revolvers guns made for the British commercial market had high polished blue and interchangeable, pinned in front sight blades, this postwar export example has typical military matte black oxide finish, lanyard loop, solid front sight machined integral with the barrel, and bears Israeli acceptance stamps. Its sights are correct for elevation with 146-grain Fiocchi ammunition or handloads with 148-grain swaged HBWC bullets seated to 1.15" OAL with 2.5 grains of Bullseye. The Mark IV .38 is a pleasant, accurate and satisfying shooter and great classic revolver.

380Brit.jpgtargeting.jpg
 

Charles Graff

Moderator Emeritus
I have an early 50's Webley Mark IV that is former Singapore police issue. It is a well made, well finished, accurate and fun pistol to shoot. I picked it up from a fellow about 15 years ago for $150.00.
 

richhodg66

Well-Known Member
Little Iver Johnson .32 I got for 75 bucks out the door a few years ago. Only shot it on one range trip and it did spit a little lead, didn't really look into it, now maybe I should.IverJonson1_zps17de55bf.jpgIverJohnson3_zps3fc784b5.jpg
 

Bret4207

At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
There is a book called "Pistols and Revolvers- A Text book" or something like that. I think Al also has the book. Written in the mid 50's/early 60's I think. The author covers a lot of ground with the 38 S+W. Great book. I'll try to nail down the title and author.
 

Outpost75

Active Member
There is a book called "Pistols and Revolvers- A Text book" or something like that. I think Al also has the book. Written in the mid 50's/early 60's I think. The author covers a lot of ground with the 38 S+W. Great book. I'll try to nail down the title and author.
The Textbook of Pistols and Revolvers, by Julian S. Hatcher, Stackpole (1935).
 

RicinYakima

High Steppes of Eastern Washington
General Hatcher knew his stuff! Annapolis class of 1904 (?) (but got sea sick on ships) got a commission to the Army and ended his career as head of Ordnance in WW2. Plus the only US citizen to win the Bisley pistol championship with a .22 H&R pistol.
 

hporter

Active Member
Thank you for that link. It doesn't take much to trigger a bookworm like me to hit the buy button. But there is one left at that store.

I bought Henry Stebbins "Rifle, A Modern Encyclopedia" back in the 1970's, and I still re-read it just about every year. I am surprised that I hadn't bought the Pistols volume yet.
 

Charles Graff

Moderator Emeritus
Nope, "Pistols, A Modern Encyclopedia" by Henry Stebbins. Wonderful book, much more readable and interesting than Hatchers tome. Guy had a real talent for writing in a friendly, kind of humorous style. I would imagine it's long out of print. Still to be found though-

Stebbins book "How to Select and Use Your Big Game Rifle" was published in 1952. I bought a copy in a Washington DC book store in 1957 for $1.00 on the sale table. It is a well written treasure trove of American rifle lore. I have read it many times and a few years ago bought a back up copy. It had and still has a big influence on my thinking on the subject or rifles.
 

Bret4207

At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
Another under appreciated writer is Francis E Sell. He was more of a hunter/writer and a wildcatter. Not quite the easy going humor of Mr Stebbins, but still some good stuff for those who've never been into collecting the older books or only stuck to the classics like O'Connor, Askins, Hatcher, Whelen, etc. And pretty much anything by Charles Landis is going to be good, technical, but good. His "Hunting with the 22" is a classic as far as I'm concerned, up there with "Whitetail", "New England Grouse Shooting" and "Guns and Gunning". There are some really tremendous books out there that have about been forgotten.
 

CZ93X62

Official forum enigma
I don't own any of Julian Hatcher's books presently. I had possession of Hatcher's Notebook for a couple years, but its owner retired and left Kalifornistan, and I returned it to him. Gen. Hatcher definitely knew his business.

Over the years I have whacked a number of jackrabbits with all manner of weird firearms, to include both of my 38/200 revolvers. Most of these field-level examinations show that the NEI #169A castings exit as if they have tumbled. There may be some validity to the concept that the slow-moving heavy-for-caliber bullet does cartwheel in tissue, at least in my experience. In 357 Magnum running Lyman #358430 (195 grain RN) above 900 FPS, the bullets drive straight-through.
 

Charles Graff

Moderator Emeritus
Another under appreciated writer is Francis E Sell. He was more of a hunter/writer and a wildcatter. Not quite the easy going humor of Mr Stebbins, but still some good stuff for those who've never been into collecting the older books or only stuck to the classics like O'Connor, Askins, Hatcher, Whelen, etc. And pretty much anything by Charles Landis is going to be good, technical, but good. His "Hunting with the 22" is a classic as far as I'm concerned, up there with "Whitetail", "New England Grouse Shooting" and "Guns and Gunning". There are some really tremendous books out there that have about been forgotten.
I enjoyed the writing by Sell, although I am not much of a wing shooter. His writings about "snap shooting" rifles for deer were very very interesting. The young set of shooters seem to be mostly interested in "tactical". You know, running, jumping, rolling on the ground and shooting folks. We have always understood that firearms have their social use, but paranoia seems to be the order of the day now. The recreational sport shooting seems to be waning and the treasure trove of it's literature goes with it.
 

hporter

Active Member
US commercial .38 S&W ammunition with 146-grain lead round-nosed bullet is appropriate. Point of impact relative to point of aim may vary, depending upon which ammunition was used to target the revolver at the factory,

I would like to ask a question on bullet weight with regard to my 1941 Enfield No.2 Mark 1*. I had thought these revolvers were to be used with the British 200 grain load. Mine is only marked Cal .38 on the top of the barrel.

I picked it up at a pawn shop in 2014. It is in pretty good condition. I've taken it to the range only once, back in 2014.

I loaded three loads for it.

-One with a 150gr Lee Round nose over 2.0 grains of Bullseye.
-One with a 158gr RNFP Lee over 2.0 grains of Bullseye.
-And one with a 200gr Lee RF over 2.4 grains of Unique.

Both the 150gr and the 158gr shot to the point of aim, which surprised me because I had bought the 200gr Lee mold specifically for this revolver, thinking it was the correct bullet weight.

And this thread raised my curiosity about my revolver so I did a little research online. The Mark I* (if the sources I read were correct) was the tanker model with no hammer spur. That resolved another question I had, as there is a seam line between the hammer spur and the main body of the hammer. Someone at some point welded or epoxied on the spur.

Enfield No2 Mark1star.JPG