Webley Mk VI Revolver .455 cal 1917

**lithgow** · 03-26-2011, 09:33 PM

Hello-my Webley MkVI-made 1917 with 1918 R W Stibey made holster- perhaps the most effective and combat reliable handgun to see service in the muddy hell of the Western Front in WW1, developed from earlier large calibre Webley and Scott revolvers the Mk VI appeared in 1915 with the main changes being a standard 6" barrel and a square 'target' style handgrip. The peculiar conditions of trench warfare meant that the close range fighting and trench raiding gave a fairly major role to pistols but also showed the drawbacks of many types such as the German P08 Luger that didn't function well under extreme adverse operating conditions of mud, cold and dirt.

The .455 Webleys were hard hitting and quick to reload with the break top action but were a handful to control for accurate fire at range so were replaced from the late 1920s on by the lighter .38 calibre models. However the large numbers made and in service in the Empire meant that many remained in use throughout WW2 in secondary use as well as being a Commando favorite. The type was declared obsolete in 1947.

**Berthier92** · 04-06-2011, 12:18 PM

The good old webley. i guess i got the "Weblies", its my favourite service revolver

**prospecteur59** · 04-22-2011, 11:19 PM

bonjour

très belle pièce,merci pour la présentation

cordialement johann

**wingandprop** · 04-23-2011, 08:17 PM

by lithgow

The .455 Webleys were hard hitting and quick to reload with the break top action but were a handful to control for accurate fire at range so were replaced from the late 1920s on by the lighter .38 calibre models.

I have read that explanation as well, but find it puzzling. Having fired many pistols, including the Webley, I can say that it is a pussy cat. The .45 Colt single action army has more kick, as does the 9mm Beretta that has been in service with the US armed forces for some years. The Webley is heavy enough, and the cartidges are light enough (very short compared to the Colt .45 SAA) that there really is very little recoil and it is very accurate. The biggest problem for its accuracy is the weight of pull required to move the trigger, especially in double action fire; that really IS a handful to control! My daughter enjoys firing it in single action and I do too. I suspect the real reason the .455 was abandoned was not due to any effectiveness (accuracy) issue, but as an economy move. Smaller, lighter pistols and ammo can save a lot of money in volumn.

**lithgow** · 04-24-2011, 06:45 PM

Postwar analysis by the British had indicated that a smaller round (and therefore pistol) would be sufficient for the increased role as a weapon for support troops such as AFV crews, drivers, signallers etc-marksmanship training had proved to be difficult to obtain in anything like the amounts needed to produce good pistol shots in wartime and a heavy, bulky gun didn't help-even during WW2 and for many years after the S&W Victory .38 was the standard US aircrew weapon being lighter and less cumbersome than the M1911A1 and ammo as an emergency backup.

**wingandprop** · 04-24-2011, 10:13 PM

You are quite right on all counts Lithgow. The key phrase there is "would be sufficient". Most people using a pistol are lucky to hit the broad side of a barn at anything over 50 feet (18 meters) .38's are cheaper and, since they aren't going to hit anything with it anyway, they are good enough. It sounds harsh to say it, but it actually makes perfect sense. Left to their own devices, US aircrew in combat have carried a wide variety of back up side arms, practically all of which had more heft than the issue .38. Indeed, most were delighted to get rid of it in favor of the 9mm M9. Similiarly, it is a rare US cop indeed who is still armed with a .38 revolver as anything more than a back up weapon.

What really puzzles me is why the Webley was designed with such a heavy pull? Surely they could have reduced that over its many years of service. Using it single action isn't bad: in fact it's quite accurate. But double action has anyone but an expert spraying lead all over the place. So much for giving one to the lorrie drivers!

**lithgow** · 04-25-2011, 05:34 PM

Generally speaking for self defence/keeping the enemies' heads down thats all thats needed-having the option of aimed shots or a volley in the general direction is the most flexible especially when mostly only officers were packing pistols-the adoption of the hammer spurless Enfield No.2 Mk1*.38 showed that by WW2 they really were only regarded as 'noise makers' by that stage for general service.

cmp truck · 05-12-2011, 03:40 AM

There is also the reason the .455 was the cartridge of choice for British army officers.
Up to and including the Boer War, an officer was armed with a sword and a revolver. In many cases, especially in Africa, it took a heavy round to kill or knock a native warrior down.
The .455 was the closest thing to a dum-dum bullet the British army could use legally. If you look at the back of a .455 bullet, it is concave causing it to collapse on impact causing the tip to flatten and thus a nasty wound.
During later conflicts, the need for a large calibre revolver round was negated by other advances in firearms technology.