[mikesm44]

Just curious about the value as I'm wondering if it's worth putting a regular length no.2 barrel on it (found one for sale, $117), just to have it fit the holster, improve accuracy, and look the way it was originally designed to.

These things only sell for about $300 max and it will never be "original". It is an Enfield produced gun, so not even one of the rarer manufacturers. I would assume that since most shoot extremely low with most commercial ammo it would not help too much with accuracy either. They were designed for .38/200 grain bullet and most you can find now is in the 158 gr range. I personally have about 11 of these things and a number of Webley's as well so I would just keep it for the "oddity" of it's existence, and since I do have some replacement grips lying around I would probably put the barrel on it, but I do not know if you have that kind of sentiment for these pistols, or what you paid for it originally.

Also, I've always wondered, is it extremely difficult to open since you do not have as much barrel to grab onto now?

 

[mikesm44]

AFAIK there were no Enfield revolvers made with the short barrel. US importers bobbed the barrels to make the guns sell. Same as shaving Webley cylinders from .455 to work with .45ACP and .45 Auto Rim. Lots of ads in pre 1968 US gun magazines for the Enfield tankers. $19.95 or less !

I have a Webley Mark VI that I took to a gunsmith. It had been missing parts and when I put in the replacements for some reason it froze up and I could not get it open. Anyway, upon seeing it he immediately said, "Oh, you want me to shave down the cylinder?" and this was only about 2 years ago, so apparently it still happens.

 

[mikesm44]

I do have to laugh at the term "tanker" When you are climbing out of the hatch, its NOT the barrel that could get caught, but rather the grip. Even saying that, the British holster just about swallows the entire revolver!

I also have to agree that the grips are original, since commercial grips would NOT have that brass ID disc.

Wouldn't the tankers have shoulder holsters anyway? I'm pretty sure US forces had shoulder holsters.

 

[mikesm44]

Just picked this up today.

I read somewhere online that the "snub nose" modification of the Enfield no.2 mk1* was done by an American import company trying to garner more interest in the large shipment of enfield revolvers, calling this modification things like a "Commando model" or Police issue. Is this true?

Also, the wooden grips look like they don't belong originally, but I could be wrong. I haven't seen any that look like these.


Thanks,

Matt

View attachment 905273 View attachment 905274 View attachment 905275 View attachment 905276 View attachment 905277 View attachment 905278 View attachment 905279 View attachment 905280 View attachment 905281

Thank you for sharing the photos of the pistol. I was wondering if you would mind if I used them and some of the information in this thread on my blog? There is a link to it in my signature line. Thank you.

 

[mikesm44]

Nope. British "tankies" wore a variety of belt holsters, often very low slung on the leg.

Oh yeah, duh. I have one of those holsters. Haha.