Webley Mk IV latch and hammer spring -- too tight?

[Esoteria]

So I got a Webley Mk IV (.38 S&W) a few weeks ago and I've put several hundred rounds through it now.

I quickly learned some things I didn't fully expect before getting my hands on it. #4 represents the main question for this thread:

(1) The thing is built so well! Tolerances are tight and the gun just oozes quality. This is the first pre-60's handgun I've owned. Were they all like this or was it just Britain being awesome?

(2) I've found it's pretty hard to shoot accurately. The double action is inconsistent, so I can't consistently hit any target smaller than 12" at 20 yards. In single action, the trigger's pretty stiff but it's at least predictable. My groups still suck compared to other revolvers though.

(3) The latch lever on the left side recoils rather painfully into my thumb when I use my typical two-handed grip unless I hold pretty low on the grip, which then requires a full reset each time I fire. For this reason I've switched to shooting one-handed for now. The ergonomics of the gun seem pretty good, and I guess it was designed for one-handed shooting anyway.

(4) When opening the gun, it seems like the latch has to go back far enough that it's actually slightly cocking the hammer for the last 1/16" of movement or so. Is this normal? It's a problem because the hammer spring is so tight I can't really break open the gun without either really bearing down on it with my thumb (kind of painful), or cocking the hammer first. I don't really like doing the latter, because it feels unsafe. Is this difficulty in opening the latch normal? Should the hammer resist the last little bit of latch movement?

As a side note, my primers are getting absolutely demolished by this hammer. I'll post some pictures if you like (but I just deprimed all the cases so it'll have to be next week I guess). Anyway this may be normal, but I haven't seen such a big dent put into primers before. These are Winchester small pistol primers, which I hear are pretty soft, but still....

Thoughts? Other Webley owners out there, have you noticed the same things?

 

[Jim K]

Webley always had good quality, but they did a lot of hand work, one reason the guns were high priced. They were never made for a two-hand hold.

Your (4) sounds normal, but you might check for a replaced mainspring if cocking is too difficult. I can't judge the primer impact without seeing pictures, but it shouldn't (can't) be any greater than other revolvers. The anvil limits how much any hammer blow, no matter how hard, can dent the primer.

Jim

 

[Esoteria]

Thanks Jim,

I'll post pictures after next weekend (assuming I'm able to get out to the range). I'll load up a few with Winchester primers and a few with S&B primers (since that's what I have now, thanks to an ongoing Cabela's sale). Maybe the S&Bs won't look so mutilated coming out.

The mainspring isn't noticeably different from the rest of the gun in terms of fit, color, etc, so I would guess it hasn't been replaced. Cocking the hammer manually is stiff but not unreasonable. It's only because the mainspring is combined with the latch spring at the end of the latch movement that it becomes pretty brutal.

That's the main thing I wanted to ask about -- it sounds like you're saying that's just how they are. I wasn't sure if maybe the hammer was supposed to rest a little further back (and not interfere with the latch at all) or if maybe one or both springs was stronger than normal for whatever reason. Obviously the mangled primers made me lean towards something being a little off with the hammer.

 

[Esoteria]

Bump. Hoping for another Webley owner to chime in.

I've got my 38 S&W loaded up with different primers to compare.

 

[dogmush]

Opening the revolver pushes the hammer back between 1/8" and 1/4" on both my Webley Mk VI and my Enfield No 2 Mk 1*. Seems pretty normal.

Both take a pretty stiff push to open but I can easily do it with just my right thumb after I grasp the barrel.

Mine are pretty accurate, but I only shoot them one handed and bladed to the target, old school style. Just seems appropriate. Also keeps it from getting tangled in the whip.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I've been shooting Webleys for 40 years. What Jim K posted is the straight dope. What is happening is the result of a safety function to ensure that a failing hammer will fully seat a stirrup that is not fully forward and locked. I don't recommend disabling that safety function. Practice and the increased thumb strength that results will solve the problem you are having. If necessary reduce the mainspring poundage. The little .38s seem to be tougher than the .455s.

I have seen Webleys smash primers considerably harder than some revolvers but it does not have a monopoly on that characteristic. For example, my Nagant does a similar job of smashing primers. Remember these military revolvers were designed to detonate relatively insensitive, military, berdan primers.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I have an older Webley orginally .455 and pressing the latch open does move the nose of the hammer back so I have to fight the latch spring and the hammer spring to unlatch the gun. That is apparently part of the Webley revolver design.

On quality of fit: Were they all like this or was it just Britain being awesome? My Webley has proof marks crown over VR -- Victoria Regina, Victoria was Queen of England to 1902 or so. Other than black powder pitting in the chambers of the cylinder and grooves of the barrel, the gun is in great shape, locks up without play or looseness. So I will say, whatever anyone else was doing, Webley was being awesome. They wanted soldiers in the world-wide British Empire to have reliable, rugged equipment.

 

[Esoteria]

Thanks a lot guys. This gives me a lot more confidence. I'll try gripping the barrel for the extra leverage and opening it that way. After some more practice if that isn't working for me I may lighten the mainspring a bit since it's certainly stiffer than it needs to be to reliably set off modern primers.

Any suggestions on the mainspring modification if I end up there? Seems like shaving a very small bit of the spring is the only reasonable way to do it. Just take it slow and careful? Sandpaper good enough, or should I apply the bench grinder? Also saw some suggestions to cut slots lengthwise. I'd looked into this briefly before, and it seems like replacement parts have dried up since a few years ago. I may not want to risk ruining my spring.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Esoteria,

I am hesitant to make any recommendation on mainspring modification. I have never worked on a Webley or Enfield .38. My experience is with the MkVI .455. The mainspring is attached to the frame differently than on the smaller .38s. and of course is larger. I strongly recommend finding a replacement mainspring before attempting to modify the one you have. Whatever you do, remember there are few greater fools than a fool with a dremel tool . Sandpaper and stones give your brain more time to think before you reach the point of no return.

 

[Lone Star]

Is your .38 not marked "War Finish"? Most MK IV's were. I've seen the commercial finished ones, too, a few, and they were nicely finished. But no better than equivalent Colt or S&W arms.

The premium grades of Webley, like the Webley-Wilkinson series and the Webley-Green, are VERY well made, for purchase by knowledgeable shooters and the wealthier members of the officer class before WWI. The Government-adopted MK series guns were more plainly finished and did not have honed actions. MK IV .38's made during WWII had many tool marks and other finish imperfections. But they were made from 1927-about 1970, so quite a few had nice commercial finishes.

 

[Esoteria]

My Mk IV isn't a war finish one. The fit is very nice but the finish is hurting a little bit from age and/or minor misuse. The finish is matte and not glossy like pretty much every other revolver I know of from the time period, so it's not really comparable I guess.

Anyway when I said the gun felt really well made I was more referring to the mechanical quality and fit.

So, an update on the smashed primer issue. Sure enough, the S&B primers held up much better than the Winchester and they look a lot more "normal" after being fired. On the other hand, after another hundred rounds using the latch without cocking the hammer first, I'm still not feeling confident in it. It just feels like it's taking too much force. I really have to adjust my grip and bear down HARD on the latch in order to get it open unless the gun is pretty hot from shooting or being out in the sun (I'm kind of surprised at how much difference the temperature makes, actually).

I'll give it another few weeks of shooting, but I'm definitely considering taking some sandpaper to that mainspring.

 

[AlexanderA]

(4) When opening the gun, it seems like the latch has to go back far enough that it's actually slightly cocking the hammer for the last 1/16" of movement or so. Is this normal? It's a problem because the hammer spring is so tight I can't really break open the gun without either really bearing down on it with my thumb (kind of painful), or cocking the hammer first. I don't really like doing the latter, because it feels unsafe. Is this difficulty in opening the latch normal? Should the hammer resist the last little bit of latch movement?

I just checked my Webley Mk. IV, and it's extremely difficult to unlatch the gun with one hand, unless the hammer is fully cocked. Loading the gun with the hammer cocked would be unsafe, since the hammer would then have to be very carefully lowered to the safety position, with a live round in the chamber under the hammer. The unlatching process, therefore, must have been intended to have been a two-handed operation.

My Enfield No. 2 Mk. I revolver (not the double-action only model, which is the Mk. I*) is the same way.

Edited to add: Do not make any alterations to the mainspring.

 

[Esoteria]

I think the size, angle, and overall design of the latch indicates it was meant to be used with one hand, with the other ready to push down on the barrel to break open.

There's nothing preventing dropping the hammer while the action is open, which is what I do if my thumb is worn out. Problem is for unloading you need to be extra sure there are no live rounds left, which is arguably not something you can/should rely on, so it's still not the safest option.

 

[Jim K]

"What is happening is the result of a safety function to ensure that a failing hammer will fully seat a stirrup that is not fully forward and locked."

And, in reverse, that the latch is fully closed before the hammer can reach the primer.

Those pistols were meant to be used with one hand and users were trained that way; the now-common two-hand hold was almost unknown before about the 1960's, and then caught on only in the U.S.

Jim