Webley Mk. VI range report

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Billy Shears

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
1,020
I just acquired a nice new (to me at least) Webley Mk. VI, in original .455 Webley caliber, which I took to the range today. Based on the stamps on the frame, this one appears to have been made no later than 1919, which means it was too late to see service in WWI (which might account for the overall great condition, and the mirror-bright bore). The good: it's very accurate with Hornady's .455 Webley ammo (which is just as well, as that stuff ain't cheap!) and shoots to point of aim. The sights are actually damn good for a handgun of this vintage. I don't especially care for the very wide notch, but the front blade is pretty wide as well -- much wider than most handguns from this period -- and picks up pretty quickly. The gun ejects empties smartly and is faster to reload than modern hand-ejectors (if only I could afford one of those vintage Prideaux devices). The grip, even with factory panels, is much better than on Colts and Smith & Wessons -- there's a reason for Tyler t-grip adapters and custom revolver grips; American revolvers invariably have grips that are way too skinny -- it's hand filling, and perfectly angled to make the gun point naturally. It even has slight palm swells.

The bad: wow that double action trigger's heavy. I mean really heavy. I used to have one of these that had been converted to .45ACP, and I don't remember the trigger on that one being this heavy. I wonder if the previous owner of that .45ACP one had ever had it lightened, and the standard Webleys all had this beast of a trigger.
 
The revolver is impressive, but the cartridge is pretty anemic. It is a bit hard to believe the British ever took the handgun seriously as a military weapon, even a defensive one.

One indication is that the ammunition issue (either .455 or .380) was 12 rounds per gun, with 12 more in the unit supply. The officer or soldier was given a whole dozen rounds and told to carry on with the war.

FWIW, I strongly recommend against firing .45 ACP factory loads in those converted Mk VI revolvers; some have blown up from the much higher pressure.

I recently acquired a Mk I, the early gun with the holster guide and recoil shield made as part of the frame. I have not had a chance to fire it yet.

Jim
 
I don't have the .45ACP one anymore anyway. And curious as it seems, the Webley cartridge had quite a good reputation as a man stopper in its day. It outperformed even the much more potent .45 Colt cartridge in the (admittedly unscientific) Thompson-LaGarde tests.

And actually, the .455 Webley was a good performer by the standards of its day. Not anemic at all. It makes sense when you think about it. In that era, before hollowpoints, there was no expansion of the projectile. There wasn't a bullet that was going to be any greater in diameter, after all was said and done. And effectiveness, then as now, was entirely dependent on penetrating far enough to hit something vital, and doing enough damage once there. But without expansion, the Webley's .455 caliber bullet was going to be as large in diameter, and tear up as much tissue as any other handgun bullet was. And even though fired at quite slow velocities by modern standards, it shot a heavy bullet, at 265 grains. Slow as that was, it was enough to drive such a heavy slug deep enough into the body to tear up a vital organ if well aimed.
 
Agreed, but given my druthers in the man stopping category, I think I would prefer the .45 Colt (original load, not the .45 Army). The problem for the Webley was that the breaktop action wouldn't work too well with a cylinder long enough for the Colt round, and the top joint probably would not have held up either.

And the Colt revolver was single action and slow as two turtles to reload.

Still, the Webleys are fine old guns, reminders of the days of the Raj and the Empire, and the "old Queen" and all that.

Jim
 
Well, the British preferred the slower velocities because it gave milder recoil that allowed for faster follow up shots. And if the cartridge was effective enough, you can't really argue that that was a poor choice. And what's more, given the size of the British Empire in the late 19th and earlier 20th centuries, they probably had more occasion to use handguns than the U.S. army did. Remember that U.S. cavalry troopers didn't carry any more handgun ammo on them than the British did -- only about a dozen extra rounds or so. Any given soldier probably wouldn't have more than a dozen or so good handgun targets at most in any given action, what with all the other friendly guys shooting at the same enemy. That's one reason why the Schofield wasn't adopted over the SAA; the faster reload of the S&W break top wasn't considered a really significant factor. Most soldiers just didn't shoot that many handgun rounds in any engagement.
 
This is a dead-honest question, not sniping at anyone. Does anyone know of the Brits (or their colonials) ever complaining that the .455 was an inadequate "stopper"? All I've ever heard re. complaints about the caliber was their conclusion in the 1920s that a .38 would be easier for the average soldier to master. And I'm not sure how much of that was due to cartridge power/recoil, vs. how much was due to bulk & weight of the gun itself.

You may have seen my recent posts on the heavy-bullet .38s, and the Brit views on that are of great interest to me. Since they didn't use the .380/200 lead bullet much in combat, before changing to a 178g (?) FMJ due to German complaints/threats, I'm not sure how much their theories of 200g stopping power were ever really combat-tested. The widely-repeated story is that they concluded it was equal in "stopping power" to the .455, which seems amazing. Or was that just the opinion of Army bureaucrats, rather than soldiers at "the sharp end"?

With all of that being ackowledged, I have never personally heard that they complained about the .455's effectiveness. I believe they had strong views that "savage" opponents such as they faced in the Empire needed a lot of stopping, apparently unlike "civilized" European soldiers, and it seems telling that when they eventually changed calibers, it was to something lighter, not heavier.

I love history and that's a big part of my interest in both of these calibers. I welcome any sources to read actual Brit tests, conclusions, etc. Please pass along if you know of sources!

BTW, I'm a fan of .45LC too--it's my primary HD sidearm. If it was considered less effective than the .455 by anyone, Thompson-LaGarde or otherwise, I assume it's because of the LRN configuration. I could certainly be wrong--was the .455 a LFN, as was the original .380/200?
 
And BTW, although 12 rds is a slim basic combat load, our .45ACP combat load in Germany 1980s was only 21, i.e. 1 mag in the pistol, two in a pouch.

Pistols then and now were basically for officers, who are expected to lead rather than shoot, and as close-defense weapons for specialists who aren't expected to face combat, or whose primary job is to serve a major weapon system (MG, arty, mortar). For a while our Army & Marines were crosswise on this situation: the Army issued officers & heavy-weapons crews carbines or later M-16s, whereas Marines insisted on issuing officers only .45s. . .to ensure they didn't get caught up in shooting, and stop leading.

So, I wouldn't draw conclusions based on the size of the British basic load. I imagine officers in the Empire whose experiences led them to expect to fight much personally at close range, made a point of taking more ammo than the Ordnance planners envisioned. Just a guess (as a 24-year Ordnance ammunition officer, BTW :) Our M-16 basic combat load for riflemen in Vietnam was 140 rounds, but many soldiers wound up carrying 500-800 in combat, depending on their experiences.
 
Gordon,
Sounds like you're referring to M1917 revolver combat loads? Makes me wish I still had that M-1917 S&W that passed thru my hands about 25 years ago :)

That was the only time I ever experienced a squib load, or a "pop and no kick" as we called it in the Army. Of course it wasn't the gun's fault, it was the ammo. I was firing some old milsurp ammo in half-moon clips that I inherited from my father-in-law, and danged if it didn't leave one in the bore. Although I'd bought the gun before entering the service, I think this incident occurred after I'd joined & learned about the dreaded "pop & no kick." I reacted before blowing up the gun with my next shot, so was grateful for the training.

I still have a number of those half-moon clips with the old ammo. Maybe someday I'll have another revolver to go with it. . .although I think I'll leave the ammo for photo ops :) Glad I didn't inherit my F-i-L's M1917 Colt, because no telling what I would have traded it for in my younger days. When I do get one someday, along with an S&W, they won't go anywhere. . . .Feel free to post a photo of your setup so we can all drool over it!
 
I've got a nice Colt M1917, which is a good shooter. The trigger pull on that is a tad heavy, though not so heavy as this Webley. It has a long trigger reach though, almost too long for my hands; the New Service was a big revolver.

I also have an S&W M1917 that I picked up for about $200, since a previous owner had customized it and it no longer has any collector value. The barrel has been cut down to 3 1/2 inches, and what looks like a rifle sight base was installed, and covers the top of the barrel from the front edge of the frame to the muzzle (and neatly covers the roll stamping on the top surface of the barrel that would have been cut in half when the barrel was shortened). The lanyard loop was removed, and the slight backward flare at the rear edge of the base of the grip was ground off to make an almost round butt frame. It looks like whoever customized this was trying to make a concealable gun for carry, which makes the choice of front sight he stuck on that base curious: a hook-like target sight with a very sharp point, absolutely guaranteed to catch on clothing during the draw. I plan on replacing that sight, and the gun would actually make a very practical carry revolver once this is done.
 
I have a stock MKVI except for being recut for .45ACP. I download to reduce pressures, use a 250gr lead bullet, and .45 Auto Rim cases. Fine shooter. Regarding the issue of ammo for persons carrying the pistol, are there any other Army Vets that were commonly issued the 1911A1 and FIVE rounds of ammo when guarding things? I was an MP, and quite often, it was Army policy to issue the pistol, or M16 with only five rounds. A lame idea, of course, but indictative of the Army. If they don't give you ammo, you won't be reckless with it, etc. This was stateside, as an MP, during and after the Viet Nam War. OF course, GI's always managed to obtain ADDITIONAL ammo, and kept it a secret from the sergeants and officers, just in case................
 
I've had several Webleys and they all have had heavy trigger pulls.
 
Webley trigger pull was/is heavy; the Brits expected their officers to be MEN, not limp-wristed panty-waists. Webley revolvers that were modified for competition shooting did have the trigger pull lightened as well as the action smoothed.

As to the .455 rd being under powered, ONLY by modern magnum standards. It was and is an effective man-stopper.

Now, for those of you who have Webleys converted to fire .45 acp, I am now doing restoration on Webley .455 cylinders. Contact me for more information.
[email protected]
 
Sharpsdressed, I have the cut Mk VI as well, and like you I use downloaded .45 Auto Rim brass. I've noticed mine picked up significantly in accuracy when I tracked down some .454 lead RN bullets. I'm shooting 230 gr. RN now (at 700 fps) and haven't had any difficulties so far.

KR
 
They may seem a bit anemic to us now but in thier day they where considered a real man killer for when you are at smell the spices in the attackers dinner. Due to the type of combat they where used in they got a lot of respect due to the DA and fast reload feature. Junior officers where expected to lead by example and tended to be in a lot of 10 to 1 situations where the guys with colts died in short order when the line was being over run. The hollow point slugs they used in the things probably put 4 times the hole in a person than any .45 ball load too.
 
The hollow point slugs they used in the things probably put 4 times the hole in a person than any .45 ball load too.
Click to expand...
I think you are exaggerating a bit. The .455 is such a low velocity projectile that I think expansion would be somewhat limited. Or of the lead was soft enough that it would expand that much, penetration would suffer.
 
The British put a lot of thought into their ammunition.
There was the famous Mk III Manstopper bullet with both ends cupped; the rear for gas seal, the front for expansion. It was followed by a simple full wadcutter in Mk IV. You really want to keep the Fuzzy-Wuzzies out of reach.

They had the "dwell time" and "resonant frequency" theories to explain why a low velocity bullet was an effective stopper. This justified the adoption of the .38/200.
 
One wonders just how scientific or sound those theories really were. Even today we have a far less than perfect understanding of wound ballistics. It's hard to believe that they understood it better back then. Also, W.E. Fairbairn, a man of extensive experience with gunfights and their results if ever there was one, relates examples such as a Sikh constable shooting a .455 Webley at a fleeing suspect, and hitting him with five of six fired shots, yet the man continued to flee without even slowing his stride. On the other hand, he reports seeing the "terrible damage caused by a Mauser automatic" (referring to the broomhandle). He relates an example of a 7.63mm Mauser bullet, though only of .32 caliber, hitting a suspect in the arm and inflicting so much damage, that although the man was taken to the hospital within half an hour, the arm had to be amputated due to how badly the bone and muscle had been "pulped."

My take on it is this: the .455 had a very good reputation as a manstopper in its day but its day began in the blackpowder era -- one dominated by round nose lead bullets fired mostly at slow to moderate velocities. By comparison with some of the the most popular self-defense cartridges of the day (e.g. .38 S&W, .38 Colt, .41 Colt, .32-20, etc.) it probably did perform at least as well as almost any of them in terms of stopping power, and better than most. It was probably equaled or outperformed only by a small number of powerful cartridges such as the .44 Russian, .45 Colt and .44-40, et al.. So the cartridge's great reputation as a manstopper is really in comparison to the rather poor manstoppers of the black powder era. Even the Mk. III "manstopper" hollow point round, which the British had to abandon because it violated the Hague convention, was such a low velocity round I doubt it offered more than a modest improvement on the wound ballistics of the time, and wouldn't remotely compare in performance to the best hollowpoints today. The British had their theories to support the Webley's cartridge, but like a lot of theories about stopping power right down to this day, they were far from conclusive. And of course, it goes without saying, that then as now, shot placement is what really matters most.
 
OK, no one wants to get shot, but would it really matter if one was shot with a 9mm+P+ or a .455 Webley? Both will ruin one's day.............
 
When you get right down to it, I wouldn't even want to get shot with a .25. If the bullet hits the right body part, any gun will plant you in the dirt. Having said that, if the shot placement is less than perfect, some guns will give you a better chance of stopping a fight quickly than others; this is why some calibers are considered marginal at best. It's also why modern hollowpoints have been developed, and are now almost universal for "social purposes" outside the military.
 
mybe i'm missing something but as far as i know and this is open for discussion the ordinary british soldier was not issued with a revolver at all ,only non com's and up had them at least up too the first world war ???????. The war office didn't rate a revolver as an effective weapon at all.
 
Last edited:
True, the men in the ranks did not have them. But officially, every officer had one, and before WWI, officers were commonly armed only with a pistol -- it was the officer's job to lead the men and give orders, not engage individual targets like a rifleman. However, experience in the trenches soon revealed that the man with nothing in his hands and a pistol on his belt was the enemy sniper's preferred target, so before long most officers learned to carry a rifle just like all the troops. They still had their revolvers though, and assuming you managed to cross no-man's land and get into the enemy's trench, a handgun that would fire as fast as one could pull the trigger and a trench knife or entrenching tool were actually better for use in the close confines of a trench than a full length rifle whose action had to manually operated before every shot (though the Tommies had a better weapon for the trench assault in the SMLE than either their allies or enemies did, the Enfield not only being shorter and handier than the French Lebel or Berthier, or the German Mauser, and having a ten shot magazine compared to the five shot one most rifles of the era had, it also had a faster operating bolt).
 
Last edited:
The way they were cranking out 1911s and 1917s in year 1918 to prepare for the Spring Offensive of 1919, I believe they were following Gen Pershing's idea that everybody ought to have a sidearm, all the front line troops, anyhow. I would sure want a pistol and a knife to clear a trench... if I couldn't get a shotgun.
 
In the WWI era U.S. Army, many more soliders carried pistols than before or since. Officers, company NCOs, platoon leaders, assistant platoon leaders, squad leaders, machinegunners, assistant machinegunners, BAR men (later) and assistant BAR men, mortar crews, drivers, etc., etc. This was due mainly to the proliferation of infantry weapons other than the service rifle and to the people who fought with them. They needed a weapon to defend themselves if their main weapon was disabled, but carrying both the main weapon and a service rifle was out of the question. Hence the need for pistols in large quantities. I don't think there was any serious intent to arm every soldier with a pistol.

But the main problem with the M1911 pistol was that, while it is accurate enough, too many people could not hit anything with it. Just before U.S. entry into WWII, that resulted in the Army issuing a requirement for a light rifle, and the subsequent adoption of the M1 Carbine. Small and light enough not to be as much of a burden but a weapon that could be fired more easily and accurately than the pistol.

Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Shooting British 455 Webley Cartridges in a Shaved Webley MK VI Revolver
Replies
3
Views
1K
VA27
VA27
V
  • Locked
Webley 1915 MK VI .455 Revolver
Replies
5
Views
702
PabloJ
P
Lizzie Borden
  • Locked
Webley Mk. VI caliber conversion
Replies
9
Views
1K
Vern Humphrey
V
B
  • Locked
Webley No 1 Mk VI
Replies
5
Views
800
KodiakBeer
K
T
Webley Mk VI 455 cylinder
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
Vern Humphrey
V
Back
Top