Posted 10 years ago
Chrisnp
(310 items)
While the rest of the world was moving on to semi-automatic pistols, the British continued to embrace the rugged dependability of the revolver when it came time to replace the venerable .455 Webley.
The Enfield Number 2 Mk I Revolver, a development of the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield, was standard issue for the British Army beginning in 1931. The design was very close to the Mk IV Pattern Webley submitted for consideration, and Webley sued for patent infringement, but lost. During WWII Webley would produce the Mk IV for the British government to make up for shortages of Enfields. Although officially superseded by the Browning Hi-Power, the revolver continued to be used in many of the former British colonies around the world, as I believe this one did.
In 1938, two changes were made to the Enfield Revolver. The wooden grips were changed to plastic, and the hammer spur was bobbed. The new variant was named the Number 2 Mk I*. The plastic grips were thought an improvement at the time. Supposedly, the reason for the bobbed trigger was that reports from the Royal Tank Corps complained the trigger spur would catch on equipment. Many argue that the real reason was that the change simplified and sped up production.
Removing the hammer spur meant the revolver could not be cocked to fire single action (pull the hammer back, then pull the trigger to fire) but could only be fired double action (pull the trigger only). Since the trigger has to do the work of pulling back the hammer as well as firing, it takes considerably more finger pressure to fire this gun. This translates to reduced ease of firing and decreased accuracy, and generally the troops didn’t like the change.
My Enfield was a gift from my ex-wife. Made in 1944 (the revolver, not the wife), it has the correct bobbed hammer of the Mk I*. However; instead of the expected plastic grips, mine been supplied with wooden grips. Another inconsistency is that it has a grey Parkerized finish, as opposed to the black Suncorite finish which the British applied to these revolvers during WWII. Frankly those Suncorite finishes look awful, so the Parkerizing is an aesthetic improvement, but likely a post-war refurbishment.
My Pattern 37 holster is marked “FINNIGANS LTD” and “1944” with the British broad arrow acceptance stamp between the manufacturer’s name and year of manufacture. It’s attached to a period British issue belt. There is a cleaning rod pocket inside the holster. The rod is also original and ends in a screwdriver bit for disassembling the weapon.
Ammo: As a result of the British military looking for a lighter replacement for the .455 Webley, they settled on the .38 Smith and Wesson chambering. They used a 200 grain lead round nose bullet, naming it the .380-200. The bullet had a velocity of 625 feet per second and had about the same performance as the .38 Long Colt. I’ve closely replicated it with a 195 grain cast lead bullet and 1.5 grains of Hercules Bullseye. I get a 9” group centered on the target at 25 yards with a machine rest. Unsurprisingly I get a much poorer result firing off hand, grouping to the right. This thing has horrible trigger pull. Eventually, the British replaced the 200 grain monster bullet with a 160 grain full metal jacketed bullet in compliance with Geneva conventions. I’ve made up a few of these with 159 grain bullets and 2.2 grains of Hercules, with so-so results. Reloading data is provided for information only. I do not recommend it for any other firearm, as the condition of vintage firearms varies.
This will be my last firearms post, at least until I acquire another firearm.
I'm pretty happy that I've kept my new years resolution to do at least one posting a week, and now my weekly posts will move on to other military collectables. I hope everyone will continue to be interested in my posts as I look forward to reading your comments. We have a great group here on CW.
I have learned a lot from you and always enjoy your posts ! oh and PS they caught the neigborhood guys breaking in houses and what do you think they found in their stash of stolen property ? GUNS they were stealing guns . I guess they knew I didn't have one yet so feeling safe now with 3 18 yr olds locked up 2 already had felon charges prior to recent home break ins .
Keep on posting as I do love Military :-)
I knew there was a reason for getting out of bed this morning. I've never had one of these but have handled & shot other peoples. Think you fairly well summed it up. You have my permission to take a break from these mon. You have done a very good job.
Thank you for another interesting episode. I take this was not the most successful firearm in history.
Yeah Fort. The Brits were very reluctant to change on firearms in those yrs.. In average conditions, I read where tests show that revolvers jam more than automatics & that has been my experience also, plus the auto is usually faster to clear the jam. The Commonwealth played around with the Browning Hi-power & that is still probably my favourite. I won't have a pistol without an exposed hammer because you don't have to take your eye off of the "target" to know you are ready for anything. That 1/10th of a second to glance at a hammerless can be a matter of life & your death. Another of my favourites is the Sterling smg. What a sweet thing that & as good as the "Swedish K" in my opinion. Want accuracy, get a tight gun. Want dependability, get a gun with "play". Well, with Chrisnp taking a vacation, guess I'll poste my Browning police Hi-power that I sold to a local friend, and yes, I regret it.
Blunder, I'm only done with my firearms posts - expect me to be posting some interesting military stuff at the end of each week.
Fortapache, you are right that the Enfield No2 was not among the most popular handguns of WWII, but it did meet the requirements set by the British military establishment. The .455 Webley then in use was heavy, fired a powerful round, and took some training to become competent with. The British were looking for something simple to clean and operate, light weight and low recoil, and required minimal training, and could still stop a man at short range. I think they were influenced by their experience in WWI, when their comparatively small pre-war army expanded to millions of men requiring training.
But the Enfield had three strikes against it:
1. It was a revolver in a world that had moved on to semi-automatics. The Germans adopted the Luger in 1908, The Americans adopted the Colt Automatic 1911, The Japanese adopted the first Nambu in 1914. Yet the British Military decided on a revolver in 1931.
2. It was chambered for a cartridge that was underpowered compared to its contemporaries. The .38 Smith and Wesson was an old police revolver round. As I mentioned, with the 200 grain bullet it was comparable to the .38 Long Colt, which the US Army stopped using at the turn of the century because it was inadequate against charging, fanatical and often drugged up Moro Warriors in the Philippines.
3. With the hammer spur removed, it’s hard to take slow, deliberate aimed shots because it takes quite a lot of finger pressure to pull the trigger. But again, the British were not thinking about slow deliberate shooting, they were thinking of fast brutal contact at very short range. Again the lessons of WWI took hold.
Manikin, I'm glad they caught the culprits. Sorry though to learn they were so young. It's sad when people that young are already so far down the wrong road.
Thanks for the love kerry10456, blunder, fortapache, southcop and Manikin
On the 8th day, God created 9m/m! Luv sparing with U & Fort & know we will keep in close touch. Meanwhile, I have a crisis situation here. Jacky wants to fly to Tel Aviv because of a girlfriend with a 1 month old. It's either her ticket or the Royal Enfield I want. I made the only reasonable choice. Enfield of course! Why should I pay for a ticket for her to leave??
I don't mean to beat up on this revolver, would be happy to own one myself. But it seems this revolver was out of date by the late 1800s. Solid frame had dominated the commercial market by this time for decades. Something in general I have noted with military pistols. is they were made by committees who hated each other. Just call Colt and Smith or Wesson. They were making stuff then that still sells today.
Buy the Enfield but go figure I am single.
Fortapache, I wasn't defending the revolver as much as trying to paint the historical perspective of how I think the decision process went - and getting into long-dead people’s minds is a tricky business. It could very well have been that they were all stodgy old coots with no vision at all. I just hate to dismiss them that easily.
Good point about the break-top revolver vs the solid frame. The Webley that the Enfield replaced was also a break-top, but with a more powerful round, so I think the War Department was comfortable with the system. The top break would have been faster to reload than a fixed cylinder with a loading gate. Swing-out cylinders could have been considered, but the crane mechanism swing outs use may have been seen as a weak point.
Blunder, I'd go with the Royal Enfield. If Jacky hangs out with you, she must have a sense of humor for your proclivities.
Thanks for the love tom61375
Thanks Chris. We are in the middle of this as I write. Who needs children when she is around? I agree that the swing-gate is a weak point & just had to get a new one for a friend's revolver & it proved a real weak link in that system. I got out of revolvers decades ago so I'm a bit biased. Yrs ago, I took an orig. Colt 32-20 that I used for fast-draw & turned the barrel down 1 turn to take the gap out between the cyl. & barrel. It started jamming because of primers protruding a bit too much. By the time I got that problem solved, - I was almost back to the orig. gap. Live & learn. Guess they knew what they were doing at the factory & added a "tad" bit more to be safe. As we know, a lot of pressure is lost in that gap. Autos don't lose that pressure if the main spring balance & locking sys. is correct. Basically, what I'm saying, is you can over customize if you don't know precisely what you're doing. Learn & pass the info to others.
Seen the word proclivities but honestly, had to look it up. I was thinking more sociopath. Then I looked again and saw you were referring to me instead of her! LMAO!! Given it some thought & think we both might be right! Signing off because my vision is blurred from laughing MAO! You're good!
Thanks for the love officialfuel