Club Obi Wan

Torchwood for those of you who don't know, is a spin off from Dr. Who and was lauched here in the UK a few weeks ago.

During last week's episode, I noticed that the main character, Captain Jack Harkness, was sporting an old style holster and whilst I was watching last nights episode (Episode 4/13 - Cyberwoman) I got a pretty good look at the holster and gun.

This picture is a little small, but you can just about make it out.




Pretty cool, huh?

Hey, that's interesting! Originally, in the Doctor Who episodes he sported a futuristic wooden handled, but with a glowing "Powerpack", almost piratey looking gun. Unfortunately with the current gun hysteria in the UK, the likelyhood of a replica is pretty low. The beeb wouldn't sanction cyber killer bfgs either (would have made great water guns).

As soon as I saw the thread I heard alarm bells --- "Wait...Capt Jack...and TORCHWOOD???" Ooh, no spoilers, please! I hope The SciFi Channel picks this up, too. We are just now in something like the 4th or 5th episode of season 2 of Dr. Who...

Well, I thought that this thread would gather up some more interest, but, oh well...

KT & Jerry, thanks for the replies. and Jerry, don't worry. No spoilers here...

I have a local friend who's got the first couple eps of Torchwood. I have to convince her to share. And yes, please, no spoilers. Though Jerry, I can safely say that I've seen all the current eps. of Dr. Who BEFORE they were on Sci-Fi!

Now you're just showing off!

No, don't encourage him, we just got the flap back ON his bunny jammies...

I LIKE showing off! Besides, what a pair we'd make, Jerry, me in my bunny jammies, you in your Marion dress...

binkmeisterRick wrote:I LIKE showing off! Besides, what a pair we'd make, Jerry, me in my bunny jammies, you in your Marion dress...

...dancing into the night...like some Pepto Bismol induced hallucination...

Talk about STRANGERS in the night!

I was talking with my local Torchwod addict last night. Looks like I'll be borrowing some episodes soon enough.

Don't get your anticipation levels up too high. Not wishing to be overcritical they are a little "uneven". And none of the actors seem particularly likeable or, dare I say it, even that photogenic.

I won't tell my friend Carla that, since she drools over the good Captain so.

binkmeisterRick wrote:I won't tell my friend Carla that, since she drools over the good Captain so.

She knows he "bats for the other side" doesn't she?

I was under the impression he was a "switch hitter."

Indeed! . His stint on "how do you solve a problem like Maria" sort of confirmed any doubts.

It took me a little while to place him in "The Producers", the blond hair threw me.

Oh, way off topic sorry!

For you "Who" fans, Christopher Ecclestone has joined the cast of HEROES starting in Jan.

He didn't have a Webley, but did have a cool leather jacket.

Jerry and Bink, you're gonna give me nightmares.

I happen to think that Capt Jack is quite nice too. Shame he swings the other way though.

Shame he swings the other way though.

Now thats just funny.

Indiana Ripper wrote:

Shame he swings the other way though.

Now thats just funny.

What, the way I said it, or the fact that he's gay?

Im not sure....it just struck me as funny. I think it was the way you put it.

I had no clue what Torchwood was, so I looked it up on Wiki. Pretty thorough article on the history and characters and how it interlocks with Dr. Who.

It's probably worth looking at even, for fans. Does a good explanation of the main character's orientation(s).

We don't have Dr.Who here
The picture is SUPER cool Canyon! I've always liked the Webley

erri_wan wrote:We don't have Dr.Who here
The picture is SUPER cool Canyon! I've always liked the Webley

erri's right, the Webley is the only way to keep this on topic! Although an Indiana Jones / Dr. Who crossover would be interesting.

"That belongs in a museum!"
"Brilliant!"

Indiana Jerry wrote:

erri_wan wrote:We don't have Dr.Who here
The picture is SUPER cool Canyon! I've always liked the Webley

erri's right, the Webley is the only way to keep this on topic! Although an Indiana Jones / Dr. Who crossover would be interesting.

"That belongs in a museum!"
"Brilliant!"

oh well I meant that we don't have Dr. Who in Italy ("here")
Sorry for the misunderstanding.

erri_wan wrote: oh well I meant that we don't have Dr. Who in Italy ("here")
Sorry for the misunderstanding.

From what I understand, you will have before too long.

Darn, and I thought that meant we might get Dr. Who on COW. Well, back to hoping...

Enfield hammers didn't have a hammer spur for single action cocking, but were double action only. I can see a hammer spur in that photo, but also think it's a Mk IV .38 instead of a Webley .455.

Regards! Michaelson

Michaelson wrote:Enfield hammers didn't have a hammer spur for single action cocking, but were double action only. I can see a hammer spur in that photo, but also think it's a Mk IV .38 instead of a Webley .455.

Regards! Michaelson

In wrestling terms, that post would be an absolute clothesline, leading into a double-suplex piledriver...

...er, I meant, I'm still amazed at the stuff you know about firearms...how far can you shoot from your front porch? (I'm picturing the Africa scene from the League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen again..."Darnit...need my glasses...")

I only ask in case I need to stay out of range... 8-[

Don't worry Jerry, we're well out of range

::Explosion::

Here, you hide behind me, I'll hide behind you, and we'll just hope for a short round...

Actually, I'm getting more toward the 'Second Hand Lions' practice of sitting on the front porch with a shotgun and waiting until someone comes in the front yard......THEN pulling out the rifle when they run down the road......"take your time. You've already made the shot before you pull the trigger....."

Regards! Michaelson

Michaelson wrote:Enfield hammers didn't have a hammer spur for single action cocking, but were double action only. I can see a hammer spur in that photo, but also think it's a Mk IV .38 instead of a Webley .455.

Regards! Michaelson

Michaelson,

Hello!

You are correct about the pistol in the photograph of the young actor being a Webley, but not for teh reasons you give. On closer examination with a magnifier on a decent monitor it is, as you say, a Webley of some description, as identified by the scolloped barrel support and the 'pip' foresight. I don't think you can be so confident that it is a .38.

I quote from the official Home Guard Manual on small arms, '5 - Webley Pistol. (1) The .38 pistol is very similar to the .45 pistol, the only difference being that the Cam Fixing Screw is on the left on the .45 and on the right in the .38 (my italics). There is also the difference in calibre'. Home Guard Manual (1941) HMG, P. 66. I have looked very carefully with a powerful magnifier at the much larger original photograph from which Canyon's picture was taken (it appears in the British TV press advertising BBC3's Torchwood programme) and I can't see the cam fixing screw clearly enough to be sure. If you can see it, I salute your eyesight and your monitor.

I have to say that you are wrong about the hammer spur being missing from all the Enfield models. As I am sure you know the Enfield design was 'stolen' from Webley and Scott and the early Enfield MK 2 had a spur, very like the Webley. I quote Chris Chant (a noted authority on British service small arms):
'The Enfield product became the Pistol, No 2. Mk 1...large numbers of these pistols (my italics) were issued to the crews of tanks...who rapidly made the unfortunately discovery that the long hammer spur had a tendency to catch on the many internal fittings of tanks with what could be nasty results. This led to a redesign in which the Enfield pistol had its hammer spur removed altogether (my italics) and its trigger mechanism lightened to enable the weapon to be fired only as a double action pistol' Chant, C. (2003) Small Arms. Amber Books, London P.24.

So, clear enough, then. The early Enfield .38s were made with a hammer spur. The later ones do not have it. Incidentally, many Webleys had the spur removed 'in service' for the same reason, so the absence (or not) of a hammer spur is not a reliable way to differentiate between the models. The barrel, foresight and trigger guard are always different on all models.

Regards to you.

Alan

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so here a some pictures.

First an Enfield Pistol, Revolver No 2 from 1936. Note the hammer spur.


And a Webley Mk lV from the same period. Note the different foresight and barrel support and trigger guard.

And a war-time Enfield 'Tank Crew' model without the hammer spur.


In my experience, many people mistake Enfields in photographs for Webleys. It's easily done.

By the way, I showed the 'Captain Jack' photo to a friend who used to shoot Webleys in competition and his (very well informed opinion) is that it is a target model .22 rimfire MKlV as it appears to have an 8inch barrel.

Alan

Alan Eardley wrote:They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so here a some pictures.

Borrowing something we say at work, I'd extend that to say a working piece in hand is worth a thousand pictures.

Good reference pics - thanks!

Sorry, Alan, but I do not agree. I've OWNED an example of a .38 MkIV, and a .455 MkVI. The frame size difference is immense. It's like comparing a K frame Smith and Wesson to an N frame of the same company. Same outline, but the N frame is almost a 1/3 again larger in actual size.
The same goes for the .38 S&W Webley to .455 Webley in a 5-6 inch barrel, which is what is shown in this photo. Due to the none massive nature of the cylinder size for a .455 to the actor's hands, this is a .38 (that is unless this actor is the same size as Andre the Giant. If that's the case, all bets are off. )

Regards! Michaelson

I looked Webley up the other day to see what happened to them after their recent financial troubles - the good news is they were bought by a UK based company selling airguns and related products. It's interesting that on the Webley internet site they have some blank firing replicas:

http://www.webley.co.uk/products_list.asp?Cat_ID=24

I've emailed them and asked if they have any plans to do a Webley replica - I bet at the moment they could do well off the back of the Torchwood series. No answer yet, but it would be cool if they did!

Yes, the Webley and Scott company just down the road from me closed its doors for the last time in December 2005. I suppose it is some good news that its airgun and shotgun concerns were taken over by local companies that had been its customers.

More important, perhaps, is the news that that the Webley and Scott firearm archive has been rescued by an organisation which, I understand, plans to make it available to researchers (perhaps on-line) when it is suitably catalogued and organised. I was most concerned that this would be lost when the W&S assets were sold by the Official Receiver earlier this year. It consists of records on manufacturing runs, serial numbers, sales invoices, contract details and engineering drawings for all Marks I - VI going back to WW1. In the past, through a contact, I was able to visit the factory and inspect the old records and I can tell you they make fascinating reading. My notes from such visits include the following manufacturing details of the Birmingham factory:

Manufacturing books of Mark V & Mark VI .455 Revolvers (1914 – 1918)
Manufacturing books of Mark VI & WS .455 Revolvers (1918 – 1940)
Manufacturing book of Mark III .38 Revolvers (1925 – 1942), serial nos. 27800 – 32899
Manufacturing books of Mark IV .38 Revs (1941 – 1964), serial nos. 32900 – 44588
Manufacturing books of Mark IV .32 Revs (1949 – 1969), serial nos. 32900 – 44588

Now, to address Michaelson's point. If I may say, I think you are not so much comparing a .455 with a .38 as a big pistol with a little one. If you were to compare a Mk VI .455 with a Mk III .38 you would see that they are substantially the same, the main difference being in the 'handedness' of the ejector mechanism. This is what is being described in the Home Guard manual I quoted above.

Between WW1 and WW2 Webley made revolvers in two different frame sizes - Mks I - III and Mks V and VI are big ( approx. 1.2 Kg.) and the MKIV is small (approx. 0.9 Kg.) as you say. The MK III came in .38 calibre and had the same frame size as the Mk II, Mk V and Mk VI. It was never adopted by the British Army, although it went on to have a long (if not numerous) career in overseas armies, (particularly on the Indian sub-continent) and as a police and civilian weapon. Here is a commercial ('pocket') version of the MkIII, note the opposite position of the ejector to a Mk VI, but like a MkIV:


The Mk III was, of course replaced by the Mk IV which was a more sensible size for a .38 and which was developed in conjunction with RSAF Enfield which produced all the early MK IVs at Enfield Lock. Webley did not resume production of its own Mk IV at Birmingham until 1941 (see records above) the British Army having contracted all its .38 pistol production to RSAF between 1932 and 1941. Resuming production of the MIV at Birmingham coincided with the demise of the Mk III, as the Mk IV was a more sensible frame size for a .38. Note that the handing of the ejector on the Mk IV owes more to the Mk III than to the Mk VI, so the common statement that 'the Mk IV is a scaled down version of the Mk VI' is only partly correct. Note also that the Webley Fosbery (for which compete records are available in the Birmingham archive) was available in both .38 and .455 calibres.

Now, back to Canyon's photograph of Captain Jack. You can see the ejector on the left (but not on my old monitor!) so it is possible that it is a 'large' Mk III or a 'small' MkIV, but I will give Michaelson the benefit of the doubt on the frame size and on the barrel length. The photograph was taken with a wide-angle lens to exagerate the actor's pose, and that can give a very distorted impression of size and length. In any case, I bow to Michaelson's superior knowledge of things Webley.

Incidentally, if anyone wants a copy of the manual relating to WW2 Webleys (it is only a couple of pages and is done on a manual typewriter with quite crude line drawings) PM me and I see if I can send you a copy.

Suprisingly, you can still buy a brand-new copy of a Webley MKIII, although I wouldn't recommend it. I travel regularly to northern Pakistan, and in a town near the Afghan border called Darra (where copying guns is a local industry) there is a blacksmiths shop making by hand Webley Mk IIIs complete with fake WS diamonds, Birmingham Proof marks and the /l\ mark. Just don't ask me to bring one back!

Regards!
End of thread, I hope?

Alan

What''s the going rate on that Darra Webley?

Given the level of craftsmanship I've seen on pics of copied AK's it would only be the steel quality I'd be afraid of, not the workmanship.

Alan Eardley wrote: I don't think you can be so confident that it is a .38.

Regards to you.

Alan

I beg to differ, Alan. I can be JUST as confident as I WANT!!!!! :evil:

I'm probably WRONG, but can be CONFIDENT!!!!

Seriously, very good points. Yes, I've owned several Webley's in my time, and quite honestly, I do not care for them at all. They're built like trucks, and made to take a licking and keep on ticking....but they're to much steel to pack for the work they were built to do. Not to take a thing away from the Webley. It's a classic, and one well worth purchase for the serious gun collector and Indy fan. I'm just not one of them. I am familiar the Enfield AND the Webley .38's, though, and still stand by my statement regarding those being hammerless.....but like I said, I also stand by my right to be totally and completely incorrect on the matter. Thank you.

Thanks Alan! GOod stuff up there!!!!

HIGH regard! Michaelson

Michaelson wrote:
I'm probably WRONG, but can be CONFIDENT!!!!

HIGH regard! Michaelson

Often wrong, never uncertain.

FINALLY!!! I start a contraversial thread on COW!!!

Gentlemen, your expertese on the subject amazes me. I am astounded!!

carebear wrote:

Michaelson wrote:
I'm probably WRONG, but can be CONFIDENT!!!!

HIGH regard! Michaelson

Often wrong, never uncertain.

There you go!

Canyon, some of us count threads and haggle about pocket size and placement...others count screw heads on the sides of revolvers to determine a model. It's all in what catches your interest at any given time.

Regard! Michaelson

carebear wrote:What''s the going rate on that Darra Webley?

Given the level of craftsmanship I've seen on pics of copied AK's it would only be the steel quality I'd be afraid of, not the workmanship.

Their AKSU and AK copies are generally very good. If it's good enough for Mr. Bin Laden...

However, a US collectible arms dealer had two Webley copies from this area on his website recently with a warning that the cylinder wasn't registering properly with the barrel on either example. They were, it has to be said, quite old and that could be wear rather than a manufacturing fault. I think you'd need to inspect on before buying.

The going rate? Expensive. You could probably haggle down to two grand. That's in roupees, of course - about 35 dollars.

Here's some photos of the local production line in full swing. They're making a an Enfield Rifle No. 4 copy.


Forming the barrel



Making the bolt assembly



Drilling the chamber



Rifling the barrel. Note the rocks.

Alan

Canyon wrote:FINALLY!!! I start a contraversial thread on COW!!!

Gentlemen, your expertese on the subject amazes me. I am astounded!!

Canyon,

Nothing controversial here! Just two middle aged dudes having a discussion...

Michaelson is correct - Mr. Barrowman is sporting a Mk IV Webley in the photograph.

He is also correct that Webleys were archaic, crude and obsolete by the beginning of the 20th century. I think that's a part of their charm - a bit like the British motorcycles that used to be made in the same city.

How about this? It's a Webley and Green .476 with a nine inch barrel. Called 'the British Peacemaker' at the time.

Ungainly, heavy.....and probably one of the most beautiful in terms of fit and finish, and next TO the Colt Peacemaker, the most recognized military revolver ever made in history!

VERY nice example there, Alan!! Is it yours?


Regards! Michaelson

Mine? No. It belongs to a noted Webley collector in the US.

Hang on...looking at the barrel...it may be an eight inch...

Regards

Alan

Alan Eardley wrote:The going rate? Expensive. You could probably haggle down to two grand. That's in roupees, of course - about 35 dollars.

Alan

I've seen that middle guy's work, no way I'm going over $32.50.

It seems so amazing in these days of injection molding and CAD/CAM milling machines but, heck, it isn't THAT different from the gunworks of the latter half of the 19th Century.

If the Russkies (and the West, to be fair) hadn't spent most of the latter 20th handing out rifles like lollipops we'd see more of this kind of thing outside the Hindu-Kush.

Human ingenuity will out.

You see the same thing in some of the repro pocket watches coming out of China. Simply amazing work.

Regards! Michaelson

With hand tools and a charcoal forge.

Too bad distance and so many regulatory agencies are involved or these guys could probably do quite well making inexpensive but dead accurate, non-firing replica's for reenactors and such in restrictive countries.

Change the economy a bit toward the peaceful side.