View Single Post
Old April 12, 2012, 08:12 PM   #7
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,876
Quote:
Note, too, that Webley Mks I through III were chambered for black powder cartridges.

The Mk III had to be withdrawn from service upon adoption of cordite in 1892 because those guns couldn't even be trusted to stay together with the sedate smokeless loads that had been adopted.
I would also add that the Mk. IV .455 was/is marginal at best for smokeless powder and should be handloaded with black powder or an acceptable substitute if one intends to fire it. The only Webley .455's that can handle a steady diet of today's smokeless powders are the Mk. V and Mk. VI and then only with loadings equivalent to the original .455 Mk. II loading.

Conversely, the Mk. III and Mk. IV .38 caliber revolvers can handle ammo loaded substantially warmer than commercial .38 S&W ammunition or what most manuals list as maximum for that cartridge. This is because factory ammo and load data for .38 S&W is kept intentionally mild out of deference to the weak U.S.-made top breaks that exist in large numbers in .38 S&W. The Webley/Enfield stirrup latch is much stronger than that found on most top-break revolvers and as such they can handle much stouter ammo. While I won't post the exact load data, I've run handloads with 200gr LRN bullets over a powder charge in excess of 50% over current book maximums with no ill-effect to my 1950's vintage Mk. IV (this load was very carefully worked up to and still not quite as high as what I've read others are doing with that particular powder for these revolvers).
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar

Last edited by Webleymkv; April 12, 2012 at 08:17 PM.
Webleymkv is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04409 seconds with 7 queries