Brit Breaktops (And Picture Thread...)

Big fan here! (Surprise!)

In the large frame guns, I would avoid the .45 ACP/Auto Rim conversions unless you intend to handload .455 equivalent ammo. This goes doubly for the early Marks I to III that were black powder only and a .45 ACP ball load exceeds proof on each shot. Unfortunately, most of them on the market have been butchered in this way.

In the .38 guns, the most common is the Enfield DAO, followed by the Webley MK. IV and then the unaltered Enfield DA/SA guns. All of them are great shooters. The main fly in the ointment is the Enfield No. 2, Mk 1**, which was made without a hammer block. Most of those were retrofitted later, but some have been seen in the wild.

I received my pre-war Enfield DAO as my main defensive sidearm at age 14 in 1990 and have been hooked ever since.

Speedo66 said:

Re: the MK IV .45 conversions, have there been many cases of the guns kabooming from using full power .45acp, or are they constructed strong enough that they can handle them?

I would have to figure long term they'll at least loosen up.

Click to expand...

The MK IV and MK V (.455 or conversion) are pretty rare. The MK VI is what the British made in vast quantities during WWI. These smokeless guns USUALLY hold together shooting .45 ACP, but do loosen pretty quickly, and I have seen pics of cylinder failures. One problem is that these guns have a "choke throat" cylinder that was designed to get the small cordite charge to burn more efficiently due to a jump in pressure. The soft lead .455 bullet would squeeze down and then hollow base would expand back in the barrel. Trying to jam a jacketed .45 ACP through the same throat is problematic. The WWII .455 load was also FMJ, but it was engineered to work OK with the guns still in service.

Loading .45 ACP or Auto Rim to .455 specifications is easy. Hollow base is best, but even soft cast will work OK. Since I am not shooting any cordite ammo, I have actually had the throats on my main MKVI opened-up to match the barrel groove diameter.

Great topic, we have similar DNA, all these Webley posts have got my wheels turning. Looking forward to the responses already learned from .455_Hunter. Love reloading already, would have fun with tailoring loads.

My 1916 Webley Mark VI in 455 Webley (unshaved)


My 1982 Webley Mark IV in 38-200R

I reload for both revolvers using bullets from Matt's bullets. He makes very nice historic replicas of the bullets used in both of these revolvers.


260 gr hollow base round nose bullet very similar to the one used in the historic the Mk II load.

200 gr flat base hemispherical round nose bullet very similar to the one used in the historic Mk I load.

IIRC the No. 2 MkI was such a close copy of the Webley that they had to pay for patent infringement.

Speedo66, Mine is a Mk VI, "shaved" for .45 ACP use. I use lightly loaded .45 ACP or Auto Rim cases. Also have one of those conversion rings that allows use of original .455 ammo.

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/920347923

I didn’t even know this was a thing 2” Enfield

I’ve posted both of these many times, but I certainly can’t leave them out of this thread.

wcwhitey said:

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/920347923

I didn’t even know this was a thing 2” Enfield

Click to expand...

Nice, that one at least didn’t get sandblasted by some goober as mine did. These were standard 5” revolvers which were modified by a company called Seaport traders in the 1960’s.

I’ve posted it before but mine is a 1943 No.2 MkI*



I also have this undated Mk.VI which I really need to get a better picture of. It’s shaved for moonclipped .45ACP but until I get hold of some .45 AR cases I have a steel spacer ring which allows the use of proper .455 Webley ammunition.

Enfield No 2 Mk I, 1939, .38 S&W


Webley Mk III, 1929, .38 S&W

RevolvingGarbage said:

I’ve posted both of these many times, but I certainly can’t leave them out of this thread.


Nice, that one at least didn’t get sandblasted by some goober as mine did. These were standard 5” revolvers which were modified by a company called Seaport traders in the 1960’s.

I’ve posted it before but mine is a 1943 No.2 MkI*

View attachment 1049981

I also have this undated Mk.VI which I really need to get a better picture of. It’s shaved for moonclipped .45ACP but until I get hold of some .45 AR cases I have a steel spacer ring which allows the use of proper .455 Webley ammunition.

View attachment 1049982

Click to expand...

What ammunition is show in your first picture? Reloads or factory?

mcb said:

What ammunition is show in your first picture? Reloads or factory?

Click to expand...

The speed loader and speed strip as well as the gun are all loaded with factory military 178gr FMJ, known as .3802Z. The rounds pictured are CIS manufacture from Singapore in 1967. Good ammo and good cases for reloading. I also have the FN version of the same ammo which has a slightly different cannelure style, sealant on the case mouth and primer cup, and is berdan primed unfortunately.

I’ve always been intrigued by the looks and history of these revolvers but leery of the treatment those that have been “shaved” may have had, and somewhat appalled by their tiggers. In my, albeit limited, experience, the double action pull puts them in virtually “belly gun” territory and the single action pulls are still “minute of Fritz” at 10 feet. Would the proud owners of the very nice examples above care to rebut my aspersions on trigger pull?

Roverguy said:

I’ve always been intrigued by the looks and history of these revolvers but leery of the treatment those that have been “shaved” may have had, and somewhat appalled by their tiggers. In my, albeit limited, experience, the double action pull puts them in virtually “belly gun” territory and the single action pulls are still “minute of Fritz” at 10 feet. Would the proud owners of the very nice examples above care to rebut my aspersions on trigger pull?

Click to expand...

Yes- They are heavy, but smooth. I was dropping bowling pins with my DAO .38 Enfield at 25 yards as an 18 year old.

The trigger on my converted Mk.VI is indeed heavy. Maybe 15lb? I haven’t actually measured it but it’s heavier than a S&W M&P and much heavier than my 1966 Cobra. The Enfield trigger may even be heavier.

I have significant experience with a great many styles of double action revolver triggers. Through lots of dry fire as well as live fire practice I have the ability to keep the sights of the revolver aligned on the target throughout the double action trigger pull, regardless of how heavy it might be. If someone finds they have a hard time holding a good group firing DA when the gun in question has anything more than a very light trigger I am very tempted to say the issue lies in a lack of hand strength, a lack of practice, or a combination of both.

My Enfield..... gifted from my grandfather, was drug through WW 2 by its lanyard. Looks like hell but still rock solid and a real hoot to shoot. Been loading. 38 S&W for years. I like the break top I like the ease of reloading. Im not too hot up for the DAO but it grows on you. Like to find a SA/DA hammer for mine but haven't run across one yet. Their a great handgun

The Bottom Mark VI is shaved and I shoot .45 Auto Rim only in it, my own reloads. The Middle 1915 Mark V is .455 and a wonderful shooter and quite rare. I love the size and birdhead grip and have an English Officers set up for it custom made in London in 1916 for it . The top .38 was sold to a person of these forums a few years back. It was in perfect shape , it has the Hong Kong Police Cross bolt safety. I have another Mark 3 short barrel .38 made in the 1930s that I don't have pictures for. but this is what it looks like , I think it was South African Police gun.

wcwhitey said:

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/920347923

I didn’t even know this was a thing 2” Enfield

Click to expand...

Anyone know if those were actually chambered in .38 Spl, as noted in the listing? Or would it be .38 S&W?

GarrettJ said:

Anyone know if those were actually chambered in .38 Spl, as noted in the listing? Or would it be .38 S&W?

Click to expand...

Couldn't be a 38 Special. An Enfield and Webley Mk IV cylinder is only slightly l0nger than the empty 38 Special case let alone a loaded cartridge.

Read the Tommies preferred the S&W with its smoother action.
I have a 1932 No. 2 MkI, looks like it saw little if any use. Paid a whopping $35 for it in 1972.
No idea what British small arms training was like at the time-hey, I was in Uncle Sam's Army 1967-1971, assigned the M1911A1 twice, didn't receive a minute's training on it.
Range time?-surely you jest! The Brits realized that a hit with a minor caliber hurts a lot more than a miss with a major.

Roverguy, The DA on my MK VI is heavy but smooth. I suspect that if needed needed to save one's life during the heat of combat, a soldier armed with a Webley would not find the heavy trigger to be much of a detriment. The SA is quite acceptable. I wasn't at all sure though, that my old gun would even stay on the paper at 15 yards with my reloads. Accuracy was better than I expected. I don't have much doubt that a Webley with proper ammunition, and a hundred years or so newer than mine, would be capable of placing most shots on a human size target at 25 yards or more, if the shooter was up to it.