Club Obi Wan

Michael!!

VERY NICE!!!

I like those comparison photos. Let's see some full shots of the revolver also. I agree with you that the Webley looks better and a lot more screen accurate if they have some "natural weathering" on them already. Mine is the same way. It looks just like Indy's gun! By the way, I was the one who "lifted" that photo from Collector's Firearms and posted it on the IMFDB "guns in movies" site. I chose that gun over the other more "pretty" looking guns just because it looks like a Webley should, It looks like Indy's gun!!

Congrats on your purchase. It will be your most prized Indy item in your collection. I know, as that's how I feel about my Webley WG!!

Great find and awesome screen shot comparison pictures.

Regards,

Indiana Jeff

Yes, more pics! I love Webleys! The more distressed, the better!
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2018/222 ... 6887_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2322/222 ... ef4c_o.jpg

Great gun.

Michael,

I think it's OK to post some more pics. I think the rules are 6 pics per post and not 6 pics per thread. I have seen others including myself post a lot more than 6 pics throughout a thread.

Plus it's your thread and I'm sure we all would like to see a few more photos of your magnificent Webley!!

Below is a photo of my Webley WG and my S&W 1917.

Great gun - I'm officially envious now . I like how in your second comparison pic you matched the bunched-up jacket and flipped-over tie like in the screenshot - that's devotion to detail!

The gun seems to be in great (Indy) shape and the grips appear to be in perfect condition. Thanks for sharing!

Always a pleasure to share gear pics with everyone in my COW extended family. The grips on mine are perfect, and the gun has 80-something percent of the original bluing. Got it from http://oldguns.net (a place in Utah called Stormy Mountain Sports LLC). They have a lot of very nice vintage firearms at reasonable prices. I'd love to have a Webley WG, but they seldom appear for sale. And when they do, the quality examples command a hefty price tag. My regular MK-VI (with all matching serial numbers) was only $550. Not bad for an authentic bit of military history.

Yeah! That Webley looks awesome! I'd like to have one, too! Thanks for sharing the pictures.

She (and you) did a great job.

That Webley looks awesome! I'd like to have one, too!

If you check the site, they have a really good MK-VI up for sale right now.

Nice WG. Looks alot better than the site PICS. I passed on that particular piece cause it looked like it was in rough shape. I ended up getting another WG they had. Glad it worked out for you. There's nothing like owning a real WG. Welcome to the club

Thanks for directing me here, Michael! The attention to detail in your pics is awesome. I wish I could own a Webley like that, heck I wish I could own any gun for that matter. I'm afraid even replica's will get stopped by customs in Holland before it ever reaches my doorstep. Probably with a nice bill to boot.

Richard

Hey Michael!

I went ahead and resized your comparison shots to better match up the size of the photos. These are really great!! You and your lady did a wonderful job in matching the shots!

And yes! Let's see some more photos of all the other Webleys out there that are owned by our members.

Hey Tundrarider,

Could you resize the pics in the first post? They are making my screen go funny

Thanks

Ranger36,

I think it's the pics that whipwarrior posted that are a bit large and are causing the screen to get messed up. I'm surprised the moderators haven't caught that yet.

I turned my pictures into URLs to fix the screen problem. Sorry!

Here's the real question. Will it still fire? If so have you fired it yet? If so, how does it shoot after all of these years. Some old guns can be really nice, if they're taken care of. I have a 1947 Remington .22 long rifle. Absolute beauty. Other than being a bolt-action, it'll out fire any modern .22.

Sorry, Ranger36, The problem may have been due to the different widths of the computer screens. I rearranged them on the original post; if you return, please let me know if the problem has been corrected.

Worked like a charm! Thanks a bunch.

Tundrarider wrote:

sithspawn wrote:Nice WG. Looks alot better than the site PICS. I passed on that particular piece cause it looked like it was in rough shape. I ended up getting another WG they had. Glad it worked out for you. There's nothing like owning a real WG. Welcome to the club

Thanks Sithspawn, for the kind words and welcome! Have you ever posted pics of your WG? If not you are more than welcome to do so here!

Thanks again,

Michael

I'd really like to post PICS of my stuff, but unfortunately I've never been able to figure out how to do it.Several members in the past have tried to talk me thru it, but it never worked like it was suppossed to. What can I say? I'm technologically illiterate.

Scott

Sure. That sounds fine. PM me. It couldn't hurt to give it another shot. Maybe It'll work this time.

Very cool Michael!

I love the CS scene mock up and the gun is fantastic. I'm officially jealous, too.


W.E.

Tundrarider wrote:PM created (easier said than done to write these instructions clearly) and sent.

Let me know how it works!

You gotta post your pics here first!!!

You can do this!

Michael

I FINALLY figured it out. While I didn't specifically follow your instructions I figured out how to get PICs in a post. My first official PIC POST is of my SA Adventurebilt hat in the Fedora section. I'll get some PICS of the WG and post them here ASAP.

Scott

Well without further adieu here are PICS of my Webley Greene. I bought it in August '08 from Collectors Firearms. The holster is a CS style replica by Jake Johnson .

I have to admit those Webleys look great with a nice holster next to them!

You know, I read the thread previously, but never replied.

Great comparison pictures of you and the real indy!

Very nice piece as well. Did you share a picture of the right side of the pistol?
I only saw the left sided ones.

Cheers,

Russ

Aw shucks, you're gonna go and make me blush.

Looking forward to additional pictures. Can never have too many good pistol pics.

Russ

Nice! Same model run as the one I have!

Just curious, what's your serial number? You already know what mine is since it's on the
replica.

Russ

Hey Russ,

Michael's doesn't have that piece in front of the cylinder on the right side just like yours. Must be a minor change in production. Would be interesting to find out some history on that production change.

Ah, now I didn't necessarily state that my real steel pistol actually HAD that piece on the right side.

It's quite interesting all the production variants the WG went through. Some of the flat bottom grip versions had that side piece, others didn't. Some earlier version Bird's head handles didn't have the side part, others did.

Some had the super long "target" barrel with adjustable rear sight, etc.

Quite a few variants through their production run.

Russ

Yep, that's the serial number. On a complete matching parts gun it should also be stamped on the inside of the barrel hinge when the pistol is opened and many of them were also stamped on the face of the cylinder.

As for why I added that part to the replica...

Because INDY'S gun had it.
You know I want to be as accurate as I can be.

I'm not certain what the actual function of that part is.
On the other models (MKIV, VI, etc.) there was a pyramid shaped part
attached to that point that looks like it would function as a holster guide.

But that's conjecture on my part. I can't get to my references
at the moment (heading off to bed) but when I can I'll look it up
and see what they actually call those pieces.

On most of the other models, the Right and Left pieces are attached as a "U"
shaped piece that straddles the frame and sits just in front of the cylinder.

I'm not certain if they're attached on the WG.
Indiana Bond could say as his is the completely correct version.

I'd love to be able to pull a mould from that piece to bring my replica to that 99% accurate level, but nobody that has one will loan it to me.

For some reason that don't want to disassemble their $2,000 pistols.
Imagine that.

Russ

Hey Russ,

I don't recall but do you have any screen shots showing the right side of Indy's WG showing that piece? Would be interesting to find out what it's there for and why some have it and others don't.

I don't have my WG with me right now as I am back in my Hawaii home. But I did check my serial number in some photos I have. Can't exactly make out the numbers but it is a 5 digit number and not a 4 digit as on Michaels. Russ I assume your's is also 4 digit? I also recall it is a one piece "U-shaped" part.

Below is Sithspawn's WG and you can see that it has that piece and you can also see his has a 5 digit serial number. So it seems the piece was added to the later models. It doesn't seem to be a "holstering piece" like the pyramid shaped part found on the other Webleys. Since it was added later in production, all I can figure is it may be some "stregthening" part, or a part that helps keep the cylinder in place better. Obviously they felt it neccesary as some sort of improvement.

Let us know if you find anything more about it. Thanks!!

Nice to know I have the correct variation. Would hate to think I got the wrong one. I went by the PROPSTORES PICS when I was looking.
Not that the other variation WG's shown aren't nice. They are beautiful CLASSIC guns. I am, however, a SA NUT and want everything as close to film accurate as possible. Never noticed the differences before. I just assumed a WG was a WG. Looking forward to seeing what info can be found on these pieces.

Scott

Indiana Bond wrote:Hey Russ,

I don't recall but do you have any screen shots showing the right side of Indy's WG showing that piece? Would be interesting to find out what it's there for and why some have it and others don't.

Oh, you know I do...



Additional references and comparison shots may be found here:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=28869

I don't have my WG with me right now as I am back in my Hawaii home. But I did check my serial number in some photos I have. Can't exactly make out the numbers but it is a 5 digit number and not a 4 digit as on Michaels. Russ I assume your's is also 4 digit? I also recall it is a one piece "U-shaped" part.

Near as I could tell, the Propstore WG has a 5 digit serial number. I ID'ed
the last 3 numbers, but the first two are still a mystery. And Propstore refused
to answer my questions regarding the pistol.

Pretty interesting since we have all the info on the screen used 1917 supplied by
the excellent private owner, but not a "retail" site.

Below is Sithspawn's WG and you can see that it has that piece and you can also see his has a 5 digit serial number. So it seems the piece was added to the later models. It doesn't seem to be a "holstering piece" like the pyramid shaped part found on the other Webleys.

The problem I have with the serial numbers stems from the fact that I've seen early manufacture WG's in .450 caliber with 5 digit seriel numbers, while later runs in .455/.476 can have 4 digit numbers. Rather odd in my opinion.

Regarding the side piece, nope, it sure doesn't.

Since it was added later in production, all I can figure is it may be some "stregthening" part, or a part that helps keep the cylinder in place better. Obviously they felt it neccesary as some sort of improvement.

Let us know if you find anything more about it. Thanks!!

Boy, I really should make a concentrated effort to document the WG pistols more.
Loads of information available on the other models, but not so much on the WG's.

Russ

Hey Tundrarider,
here are some pics of my replica MkVI as promised.






As I said previously, it's only a carved wooden piece but the resin grips are quite nice.
Cheers,
JTW.

jones the whip wrote:Hey Tundrarider,
here are some pics of my replica MkVI as promised.
As I said previously, it's only a carved wooden piece but the resin grips are quite nice.
Cheers,
JTW.

Nice job, how long did that take you?

Thanks folks,
I hasten to add that I was not the maker of this replica, I found it on a UK reinactment site
http://www.relics.org.uk
Unfortunately, I don't think they are supplying any more of these MkVIs.



Cheers,
JTW.

If you hadn't stated already that the Webley in the photo was wood, I never would have known. Great picture!

Russ

I've been looking at a ton of pictures for these lately (lusting away until I can gear up to get one) and every one that I've seen that has this piece has the 5 digit serial number. None of the one's I've looked at with 4 digits have the piece.

So, if you want to be SA, take a hard to find gun in the first place, and narrow that down some more.

Tundrarider wrote:

sithspawn wrote:Nice to know I have the correct variation. Would hate to think I got the wrong one. I went by the PROPSTORES PICS when I was looking.
Not that the other variation WG's shown aren't nice. They are beautiful CLASSIC guns. I am, however, a SA NUT and want everything as close to film accurate as possible. Never noticed the differences before. I just assumed a WG was a WG. Looking forward to seeing what info can be found on these pieces.

crismans wrote:I've been looking at a ton of pictures for these lately (lusting away until I can gear up to get one) and every one that I've seen that has this piece has the 5 digit serial number. None of the one's I've looked at with 4 digits have the piece.

So, if you want to be SA, take a hard to find gun in the first place, and narrow that down some more.

No offense, sithspawn and crismans, but this is where SA and I part ways. Looking at these photos, it is difficult for me to understand how this gun has suddenly become "undesirable." And why? Because it is not "SA." Hard for me to understand.

This is exactly why I avoid the whole SA conundrum. I have been costuming for forty plus years. 6 months ago I first heard the term "screen accurate." I never have and never will use SA as my yardstick for costuming or collecting. My goal has always been to look as authentic as possible in my costuming and collecting. And so it remains.

I just want to set the record straight here. Nowhere in my original or subsequent posts did I ever claim this WG to be SA. So, I'm a little confused as to why folks feel it necessary to point out it's Screen Inaccuracy, when I never claimed it to be SA in the first place. I am very proud of this WG and maybe even more proud of the awesome comparison photos my Fiance' took. We did these "comparison shots" to show how "authentic" this WG looked.

I apologize if anyone felt I was trying to pass this WG off as SA. I wouldn't dream of it.

Michael

Couldn't agree with you more on the SA bit.

That's a great gun you have there, and some great photos. Color me green.

Serial #21XXX on mine.

Antilles

Tundrarider wrote:

sithspawn wrote:Nice to know I have the correct variation. Would hate to think I got the wrong one. I went by the PROPSTORES PICS when I was looking.
Not that the other variation WG's shown aren't nice. They are beautiful CLASSIC guns. I am, however, a SA NUT and want everything as close to film accurate as possible. Never noticed the differences before. I just assumed a WG was a WG. Looking forward to seeing what info can be found on these pieces.

crismans wrote:I've been looking at a ton of pictures for these lately (lusting away until I can gear up to get one) and every one that I've seen that has this piece has the 5 digit serial number. None of the one's I've looked at with 4 digits have the piece.

So, if you want to be SA, take a hard to find gun in the first place, and narrow that down some more.

No offense, sithspawn and crismans, but this is where SA and I part ways. Looking at these photos, it is difficult for me to understand how this gun has suddenly become "undesirable." And why? Because it is not "SA." Hard for me to understand.





This is exactly why I avoid the whole SA conundrum. I have been costuming for forty plus years. 6 months ago I first heard the term "screen accurate." I never have and never will use SA as my yardstick for costuming or collecting. My goal has always been to look as authentic as possible in my costuming and collecting. And so it remains.

I just want to set the record straight here. Nowhere in my original or subsequent posts did I ever claim this WG to be SA. So, I'm a little confused as to why folks feel it necessary to point out it's Screen Inaccuracy, when I never claimed it to be SA in the first place. I am very proud of this WG and maybe even more proud of the awesome comparison photos my Fiance' took. We did these "comparison shots" to show how "authentic" this WG looked.

I apologize if anyone felt I was trying to pass this WG off as SA. I wouldn't dream of it.

Michael

Michael,


My apologies to you if I upset you. It wasn't mine or(I'm sure) anyone elses intention. All the WG are beautiful guns whether they are SA or not. I really never noticed the difference until someone pointed it out. Haven't seen PICS of the sides of the screenused CS pistol except for the IJ book by DK. For all we know you might have the correct one. Regardless ,love seeing the WGs no matter the variation. They are a good looking old workhorse and a classic British firearm.

Scott

Tundrarider wrote:

Dragonlady Jones wrote:Couldn't agree with you more on the SA bit. Great gun you have there, color me green.

Thanks. If you make it to the TOD showing this month, you can have a closer look! If you are planning to make it to the showing, let me know so I can pick up tickets for you in advance.

Michael

Will do. It looks like I'll be in L.A. on the 24th. I have numerous other commitments, hopefully I can make the drive down though. Nothing takes mileage better than a rental!

Let me add my clarifications as well. I wasn't commenting on anyone's gear nor suggesting that if someone's gear isn't totally SA then it is somehow inferior. As with anything else, people have varying degrees to how far they want to take things. In the Mustang community, for example, some people want to be in the thoroughbred class and have the correctly dated hoses, clamps, you name it. They want it to be exactly as it was when it rolled off the assembly line and strictly use NOS (new, old stock) components. As far as my Mustang goes, I want one that looks fairly stock but I'm building a weekend warrior so getting a radiator hose from the local Advance doesn't faze me.

Same with Indy gear. For some people, the added piece would be an important addition as they want their pistol EXACTLY as Indy's was in the movie. For others (including myself), having a WG whether with or without the piece in question would be what mattered. For still others, having a "close enough" Webley, such as a Mark VI, would be perfectly fine.

For my own tastes, I would love to have a WG. Whether it has the piece or not, doesn't really matter to me. In fact, you may feel free to send me your gun and I would love it!

It's all about what makes people happy and one degree of SA isn't better than another. Sorry if my post came off that way.

Tundrarider wrote:

sithspawn wrote:Michael,

My apologies to you if I upset you. It wasn't mine or(I'm sure) anyone elses intention. All the WG are beautiful guns whether they are SA or not. I really never noticed the difference until someone pointed it out. Haven't seen PICS of the sides of the screenused CS pistol except for the IJ book by DK. For all we know you might have the correct one.

sithspawn, Thanks. I never felt there was any 'intention' to cause any bad feelings. However, with a little more thoughtfulness on the part of others reading our words, we might reduce some of these 'misunderstandings.'

In the one post, you referred to your WG as the "correct" one and mine as the "wrong" one. Considering that this was my very first thread I had ever posted, coupled with the obvious pride displayed in my original post and the screen shot comparisons demonstrating the authentic look of the gun; it just seemed a bit harsh to call my WG the "wrong" gun in this thread. It is just as "right" for me as it always was and seeing the authenticity of these photos still makes me proud.

In your last post, you said, "For all we know you might have the correct one." Perhaps you said this to make me feel better about my gun and that there may still be 'hope' for my WG. This is where I guess you still don't see my point. I am not harboring any hope that I may still have the "correct" one, as opposed to the "wrong" one.

I remain entirely happy with my "authentic' WG regardless of any SA verdict arrived about a small piece of metal, either present or missing.

Thanks for your concern,

Michael

The only one that has to be happy is you, so I'll stay out of any further conversations so as not to cause any more ill will.

You could also look at it this way: EVERYONE'S guns are screen inaccurate. The only truly screen accurate guns are the ones actually used in the films. Period. And there's only one member I know who ownes a truly screen accurate gun—Curator Rick, who owns the Chen Webley used in ToD. Now enjoy the guns you have, folks, or send 'em my way where I will be more than happy to enjoy them for you.

I'm not in the least offended. I bear no ill will toward you or anyone else. Regardless of our views about SA , etc.we can remain friends. In the end what we have here are members of a pretty exclusive club , so far,with some PRETTY AWESOME WGs.

Yeah, I guess if I was to built a "true" SA Stembridge S&W I would have to chip out a huge chunck of one grip. No way. Those grips are hard to find!

Antilles

Antilles wrote:Yeah, I guess if I was to built a "true" SA Stembridge S&W I would have to chip out a huge chunck of one grip. No way. Those grips are hard to find!

Antilles

You got that right. Everytime the Stembridge style grips come up on ebay (which isn't often) I'm broke.

GREAT SHOTS, Michael!

Those comparisons are amazing! Highest compliments to you and your lovely assistant... and WOW that's some firearm.
An Indy gun - or replica - is the ONE piece of Gear I still don't own... clearly, once I'm looking for some advice about certain details, YOU'RE the man I'll be askin'.

Cheers,
Mitch