View Full Version : Webley & Scott Question
October 22, 1999, 01:50 PM
My gun shop has a Webley Mark IV .38 and I was wondering about it and it's value. They'll let me have it for $90.00. There's some surface rust, the top-break lever works, but needs the spring replaced and the screw is missing at the back of the trigger guard. It has the composite grips. Is it shootable? Is ammo available for it? And it it priced right? One more thing: It's stamped "War finish" on the left side of the frame.
Thanks as always, and the check for the raffle is going out this weekend
October 22, 1999, 02:55 PM
I have seen Webley Mk IVs in good shape go for about that, but the price is not bad. The catch spring and screws are available from Gun Parts Corp.; $7.95 for the spring and $1.75 for the screws.
The "war finish" was Webley's way of assuring their regular customers that the poor quality of finish was due to the war emergency and that no one should mistake it for their normal quality of workmanship. (Only in England!)
November 7, 1999, 05:46 PM
No doubt the S&W USA made .455 Webley is the one to get as regards value and sheer grunt. Its feats are legendary and it was much loved - and still is despite ammo being expenseve.
The S&W Enfield .38(NOT S&W 38 Spl) was introduced (as was 9mm in US) to "aid training" ...not combat effectiveness ! The 38 Webley is one to forget in my opinion, except perhaps for the collection of the rarer Webley "tank crew" D/A (no hammer spur model) in SSAA 'excellent' condition.
The 38 Webley makes also a good small inland boat anchor if you twitch enough of them together on the end of e chain! (A joke...No offence meant.)
November 7, 1999, 08:40 PM
Big Bunny, you are confusing the Webley Mk IV with Pistol, revolver, No. 2 Mk 1, commonly called the Enfield revolver. While similar in appearance, they are not the same gun. It is the Enfield that was made without the hammer spur (as the Mk 1*).
The Webleys are far better made than the Enfields. I agree that there are far better guns for practical use today, but they certainly are collectable. The big S&W in .455 would be a good choice only for collecting; the Model 1917 is essentially the same and would be more practical as it uses .45 ACP ammo.
November 7, 1999, 11:57 PM
Jim...we still have usefully working Service S&W .455 in our club(issued early WW2 in UK)and they are very well made, easy to handload and brass is available, as are .45 projectiles . They were much preferred to the 38s by the users. In my humble opinion they are as strong or stronger than any of your more modern English revolvers, even though some of those I have seen have a nice extra ejection characteristic!
As regards different models - I leave this subject to experts like yourselves. I shoot S&W and am interested/biased completely to that marque as regards revolvers, though a Ruger or two has caught my eye I admit.
November 9, 1999, 09:38 PM
Hi, Big Bunny,
That big S&W .455 is certainly strong. I think much more so than the Webley Mark VI .455, though I usually get an argument when I say so. Still, the S&W solid frame has to be stronger than the Webley top break.
I have fired the .455 S&W and it is OK. I did not look to see where you are from, so I was talking from a U.S. viewpoint when I talked about ammo availability.
The reason I made a point of the difference between the Webley Mk IV and the Enfield is that the Enfield was a wartime product and not especially well made, where W&S, even in wartime, kept up their quality.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.