The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - 1895-97 .455 Webley Revolver

Claddagh · November 30, 2010, 09:31 AM

I know that the .455 Webleys are big; I owned an old surplus Mk. VI when I was a very young man, as well as an Enfield No. 2 in .380/200 a bit later. This was pre-GCA '68, and there was still some surplus ammo for them turning up now and then.

I remember being surprised (and a bit disappointed) that actually shooting such legendary military weapons turned out to be such an "underwhelming" experience. At the time, my only bases for comparison were the .38 Spl. from my dad's old Colt OP and the .45 ACP from a pal's 1917 S&W. To my youthful and inexperienced self the difference in relative performance as perceived by the hand and in reaction-on-target, were quite pronounced as I recall.

Perhaps I should've enumerated my concerns more clearly when I stated my opinion about the relative strength of the Webleys. While I agree that its latching system is much stouter than that of any other contemporary top-break I'm familiar with, IMO that contributes more towards extending durability under field conditions than it does to make the design capable of withstanding more powerful ammunition. As a practical matter, if a cylinder wall blows out does it really matter if the latch is still fastened?

IMHO, the British applied the same sort of inertia in their thinking with their individual military weapons during this period that ended up costing them their motorcycle industry later: They opted to keep trying to incrementally adapt what they were accustomed to making in the face of a radically changing paradigm instead of innovating.

November 30, 2010, 09:31 AM	#13
Claddagh Senior Member Join Date: February 6, 2009 Location: Central Indiana Posts: 313	I know that the .455 Webleys are big; I owned an old surplus Mk. VI when I was a very young man, as well as an Enfield No. 2 in .380/200 a bit later. This was pre-GCA '68, and there was still some surplus ammo for them turning up now and then. I remember being surprised (and a bit disappointed) that actually shooting such legendary military weapons turned out to be such an "underwhelming" experience. At the time, my only bases for comparison were the .38 Spl. from my dad's old Colt OP and the .45 ACP from a pal's 1917 S&W. To my youthful and inexperienced self the difference in relative performance as perceived by the hand and in reaction-on-target, were quite pronounced as I recall. Perhaps I should've enumerated my concerns more clearly when I stated my opinion about the relative strength of the Webleys. While I agree that its latching system is much stouter than that of any other contemporary top-break I'm familiar with, IMO that contributes more towards extending durability under field conditions than it does to make the design capable of withstanding more powerful ammunition. As a practical matter, if a cylinder wall blows out does it really matter if the latch is still fastened? IMHO, the British applied the same sort of inertia in their thinking with their individual military weapons during this period that ended up costing them their motorcycle industry later: They opted to keep trying to incrementally adapt what they were accustomed to making in the face of a radically changing paradigm instead of innovating.