[soundguy]

here's mine..

 

[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.

 

[Beerhunter]

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

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

 

[etwmsjr]

Here's an intresting "bobbed" MkIV. Don't think it made its way into many tanks!

 

[Beerhunter]

I agree. In fact I don't think that a) its been bobbed b) it is military revolver.

It look like a perfectly normal commercial Webley to me with a perfectly normal short barrel.
.

 

[David Murvihill]

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

I thought one of the UK holster models started as a shoulder holster, then were converted to belt?

 

[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.

 

[etwmsjr]

Levity was the intention! Perfectly normal response!!

 

[ward miller]

The photo posted at 10:28 is a commercial Mark VI, subsequently modified to .45 acp, and not a "bobbed" Mark IV.

 

[Beerhunter]

I thought one of the UK holster models started as a shoulder holster, then were converted to belt?

Not that I have come across. The really low-slung cases (British Army speak for holster) started life belt-attached for the Patt.08 web equipment and the later Patt. version of that was also belt-attached.

 

[PJGP]

The photo posted at 10:28 is a commercial Mark VI, subsequently modified to .45 acp, and not a "bobbed" Mark IV.

Looks like the 4" Mk VIs purchased for the South African Police (SAP) around 1935. Is it shaved? The metal behind the locking grooves on the cylinder appear to be full width.

Peter

 

[etwmsjr]

Mk VI not shaved.

 

[[email protected]]

This is a 1931 dated Enfield made for the RAF.

 

[mrent1]

Sorry for the delay. I've been busy lately and it's kept me off gunboards - hate when that happens.

Of course! Please use them. Glad they are of interest.

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.

 

[mrent1]

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?

Yes, it was a little bit of a pain to open sometimes without the added leverage of the regular length barrel, but nothing too bad. You're right about the accuracy. Not a sniper rifle that's for sure, but it sure was fun to shoot. I actually sold it some months back to a member on here for a little less than $300 if I remember correctly. If it had been the original length, unmodified, I would have kept it without a doubt. Great little revolver.

-Matt

 

[soundguy]

my snubby has no issues opening. neat lil gun. if the grip wasn't bigger than one found on some rifles.. it would actually be a neat lil 'small' gun... as it is, it's a big gun with little bbl.

 

[John Sukey In Memoriam]

You might want to keep in mind that Webley also made guns for the police and the civillian market.

 

[oldpaul]

Here is a version made from a Webley with a hammer. Tom

 

[Beerhunter]

Here is a version made from a Webley with a hammer. Tom

A couple of points.

Unlike the Pistol Revolver No.2 Mk.1*/1** you don't get Webley "War Finish" Mk.IVs without hammer spurs.

As a War Finish model it would originally have had a five inch barrel. It was probably bobbed in the US.