Club Obi Wan

I inherited a Enfield No.2/Mk.1** Revolver Made by "Albion" from my grandfather. I noticed the similarity to the gun Indy carried in "Last Crusade", except the one I have has a "bobbed" hammer. Anyone have any more info on this gun? It has 1943 stamped near the trigger

I have an Enfield... only its a few thousand miles away from me at the moment. If I remember correctly it is strictly a double-action revolver, while the Webley is single/double action.

Kind regards,
Indy

The early Enfields were single/double action (the No.2/Mk.1) the models wth the * were double action.

Comparison shots:
Webley Mark VI

Enfield No. 2 MkI


Nice info site:
http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/weapons/pistols.htm

Regards,
Swindiana

Nice comparison pics! The Enfield shown above is a No. 2/Mk1 (no "*") and is a single and double action revolver. The hammer spur was removed (No. 2/Mk1* and No. 2/Mk1**) and made double action only after numerous complaints from tankers who kept getting the spur caught on gear while inside the tank. That's why you sometimes hear these revolvers called "tankers' pistols."

Nice acquisition, but the Enfield was not up to the same quality control as any Webley. They were replacement double actions that were produced to replace and/or back up low numbers of the Webley Mk. IV .38 during the war. They were not very reliable, and were not very popular with the troops either. Regards. Michaelson

My Enfield fires a .38 S&W round which is slow as molasses. I remember the first time I took it out... I fired a round and wondered where it went as I didn't see it hit the target. Then it struck! Sheesh. I also remember how soft the lead was in that round. I fired it at an old car hood. I think I took some of the paint off. Did I buy the cheap brand?

Kind regards,
Indy

Nope. That sounds about right. Just to be fair, the Webley Mk. IV and the Enfield were designed to replace the old Webley Mk VI .455 warhorse, and were made to fire a 200 grain .38 bullet. According to the sectional density comparison between the two bullets, this was supposed to be equal in knockdown power to the .455 bullet, and from all reports, did just that. They didn't weigh as much as the Webley .455, so the recoil was pretty heavy, as where the bullet itself was smaller, it was a pretty heavy powder load. This hotter load and better metal in the revolvers were supposed to equal the replaced Mk.VI in performance. The 200 grain .38 S&W (referred to as .380 cal. for the English. NOT the same as the U.S.. caliber description) hasn't been available since the war, and so folks had to use the anemic 90 grain (give or take) bullet that could be found on the market. Needless to say, the difference WOULD be quite dramatic, as Indy Magnoli reports. My old Webley Mk IV shot exactly the same way. I swear that you could hear the bullet rattle down the barrel as it was fired out of the gun. Regards. Michaelson

p.s. Just as a comparison, I once had the opportunity to fire the WW2 .38 special full metal jackted equivalent to the .38 S&W 200 gr. FMJ. This was back in the late 1970's, and was from a collectors supply of WW2 surplus ammo. I fired 3 rounds out of a Ruger Blackhawk .357 mag., and well have to say they were VERY impressive. I took the top off of a sold oak fense post, and this from a surplus 30 year old bullet! The recoil was pretty stout too, so I can only imagine what those Enfields and Mk IV's were like with the designed war ammo.

Makes you wonder if Harrison ford had a say in the prop gun used (much like what Lucas does with the lightsaber handles). And it's becasue of LC that whenever I see a Webley, I say "Look! It's Indy's gun!". Another thing, if it weren't for this forum, I'd probablly still hate the Webley. But since I've discovered COW, I'm satring to get attached to it. I also noticed taht there's not a whole heck of a lot of difference b/w the Webley and Enfield. Was that an accident, or what? As you probablly guessed, I like guns, but don't know too much about them.

Indy N.

My S&W Victory fires .38S&W and I'd say it handles pretty much the same way. It's a fun target pistol to shoot, but if I had to use it to defend myself, well... Let's just say I'd make sure my shoes were well tied before sprinting.

The Webley only appeared in the 3rd film because the script author saw one in a gun store, and just liked the look of it. He told me this himself. That's the only reason it ever showed up. As to the appearance of the Enfield and the Webley, they do indeed favor each other, but believe me, that's where the comparison stops. The mechanisms are COMPLETELY different. The Enfield is pretty rough in stamped parts (for rapid production during the war) rather than the milled parts of the Webley. Even Webley began stamping some parts before the war was over, but their QC was MUCH higher than Enfield, even though the early Webleys were MUCH better than the mid to late war year guns. Regards. Michaelson

I also noticed taht there's not a whole heck of a lot of difference b/w the Webley and Enfield.

It's more or less because Enfield took the contract from Webley during WWII. (There's a longer story to it, though) The Enfield essentially IS the Webley, but a cheaper, not as good Webley.

Believe me, there is NO comparison. Nothing can be swapped between the guns either. The Enfield is a weapon designed by the Enfield co., and not just picked up from Webley. I know....I've worked on them. Regards. Michaelson

Well, yeah. I was just trying to paraphrase a little. Okay, a LOT. If I had my choice, no doubt it'd be the Webely Webley, not the "Enfield Webley."

Gotcha. Oh, I don't know....an Enfield in a sock makes a GREAT blackjack I'm told. (grins) Regards. Michaelson

Thanks for the info and comments, gents. Here's two pictures of the gun I have:





While I'm certain my grandfather was never a tank operator, he was a security guard. Given the comments in this thread, this Webley knockoff was probably plentiful after 1943, so I can see that a security company would grab them up.

This used to be a matching set. I've no idea what happened to the other one. The other was in better condition, and had a ring on the bottom of the grip. (The one I have was filed or cut off). The shell ejector no longer works. I was considering bringing it to a repair shop to see if it could be repaired, but I don't think I'd ever consider firing it.

[/img]

Gotcha. Oh, I don't know....an Enfield in a sock makes a GREAT blackjack I'm told. (grins) Regards. Michaelson

Or you could just pick out the live casings and throw them at your target. bink

Indy Magnoli wrote:My Enfield fires a .38 S&W round which is slow as molasses. ... I also remember how soft the lead was in that round. I fired it at an old car hood. I think I took some of the paint off. Did I buy the cheap brand?

Kind regards,
Indy

The problem with the .38 S&W round is that so many of the existing guns out there that are chambered for it are the cheap "Saturday Night" or "Suicide Special" coat pocket revolvers that used to sell for $1.50 in 1905. You know the ones - small frame break-open double actions with 3" barrels, nickel plating and black grips by Hopkins & Allen, Ivor Johnson and the like. I've handled a few of these and they were obviously made to be carried in a pocket and not fired much. Usually they are pretty rickety and the cylinders don't index firmly. That's why commercial ammo for the .38 S&W has to be so anemic - so people don't blow themselves up if they fire it in one of the older, weaker guns. My Victory Model will barely dent a 55 gallon drum when I fire commercial ammo in it. The only way to match the original .380/200 is by handloading. I plan to get around to it one day as soon as I find a source of 200 grain bullets of the proper diameter.

That pretty much squares with what I've learned, that the .38 Special is a superior round to the .38 S&W.

Well, I was browsing Midway's website tonight and I answered my own question about a source of bullets for the .380/200. They've been right under my nose all the time. I've been too busy looking at handgun bullets and not enough looking at the rifle section. Of course, a 200 grain roundnose jacketed bullet has been a standard choice in the .35 Remington for years, and you can get them from Hornady, Remington, or Sierra!

These bullets are softpoints and they are .358". The cannelure even looks like it's in about the right spot. I believe the bullet size for the .38 S&W is supposed to be .360 or .361, but some people have reported getting good results with the slightly undersized .357" bullets intended for the .38 Special/.357 Magnum, so these .358" bullets look promising. Now I just need to track down some velocity data on the .380/200 and try to work up a load that matches the original ballistics! Might take me some time to get around to it, but it should be fun!

Amaziah Rimfire, I would be careful using the 200 gr. jacketed bullets as sometimes jacketed bullets can shed their jackets when fired at low velocities, leaving the jacket in the bore. Another option is casting your own bullets. Lyman makes a 200 gr. round nose mold that is suitable.

The Brit .380/200 "manstopper" round was put aside before the war because of concerns that the exposed lead round was "inhumane." It was replaced with a FMJ bullet of, I believe, 180 grains. This new load was known for it's mediocre performance.

Modern .38 S&W isn't anything to write home about. My first gun was a Enfield Mk II No 1*. I remember firing it at 50 yards once and watching the bullet hit the dirt about 2/3'rds of the way down range. I still have the gun, but I can't remember the last time I shot it.

I missed out on some South African surplus .38/200 a couple years ago that Dennis at Empire Arms was selling. That was the only time I've ever seen the round for sale.