I had one for 30 years. Built like an Army truck, but I found them to have a lousy DA pull. A very nice pistol for a keep loaded by your nightstand though.
My father had a beautiful H&R .22LR break action revolver when I was a kid. I loved that gun. :) Very easy to load and I appreciated the ammo versatility. I liked loading it with .22 Short. :)
I've never fired a Webley and have only handled one once, but I must point out that the Mark VI was more or less the pinnacle of its evolution, whereas these were the very first Colt and Smith & Wesson large-frame swing-out cylinder double action revolvers, so I'd expect it to come out ahead. It was also, if I'm not mistaken, designed as a military sidearm, while both American manufacturers had focused more on civilian and law enforcement sales, despite subsequently filling large orders for both UK and US militaries. The ergonomics and sights on both designs improved significantly over the next half century. I've large hands so the double action pull on my Colt 1917 never bothered me much as far as trigger reach, weight, etc., but I'll agree that both the panels and shape of the grip frame leave much to be desired. The Smith's problem has more to do with the early panels than the shape of the frame itself. Now, a Smith & Wesson revolver with a proper set of grips and a good trigger job is my first choice for a sidearm and I've nearly always got one close by, but these now have more than a century of development invested. It would be interesting to see where a large-frame top-break design like the Webley might have gone with modern materials, manufacturing techniques, and further gradual design improvements.
I think here we can see that American military sidearm sentiments had already shifted to automatics. The Webley seems, in my eyes, to be the absolute apex for military service revolvers. The balance, stopping power, and overall presence make it an absolute icon. But, as we all now know, they lack longevity and strength of action that the solid frame American revolvers are famous for, and which made them such commercial successes. This was a great video, it's a shame those crappy grips held the Smith and Wesson (my favorite) back. All three of these were beautiful sixguns, and served our nations honorably. Great video!
I think the fact that a lot of them have been firing 45ACP a overpowered round for it for well over a 100 years shows that it’s not weak by any stretch of the imagination
That's a really very nice vid you've produced there, stoaty. When I was in basic RAMC training (in early 1966), we had to go through the drills with .455 Webleys (and endure its kick), even though we expected (as Medics) only to be, more or less, equipped and familiar with the L9. What I find very inspiring is that your "colleagues/victims" (fellow shooters) used only one hand to fire the weapons (as was the "style" at the time), instead of the "double-hand" grip favoured by subsequent generations. I very much like that and hope that you'll continue to contribute to the sum of knowledge. More power to your elbow. Genosse! MsG (ARRSE Bugsy, or "DaManBugs")
that thumb biting problem is not the cylinder release , it is the hump on the back of the frame . that biting problem is easely solved by using the grips for the S&W .38-44. it works , because thats what i did to fix that problem on my S&W 1917
+Bloke on the Range, thanks for this GREAT video. Wonderful to see these three historic WW1-era revolvers being fired side-by-side. I would love to get my hands on a Webley, but those grand old revolvers are difficult to find here in the U.S. I wish someone (Uberti?) would come out with a Webley .455 replica at least. Best wishes from the Virginia /Tennessee border area, and thanks again for posting this video.
I've fired the M1917 .45ACP version of the Colt and the Smith & Wesson, and I used to own an original .455 Webley Mark VI. I'll agree the Webley had far better sights, and a better grip. The S&W grip was indeed too skinny (which is why generations of revolver shooters here put things like Tyler T-grip adapters on them, and S&W even came out with its own adapter in the '30s -- you can see one on George S. Patton's .357 magnum). The Colt has a such a long trigger reach that it makes double action shooting hard for anyone who doesn't have very large hands. But I'd never pick the Webley over the Smith & Wesson. The DA trigger on that thing was simply horrendous. It made accurate DA shooting inordinately difficult, because it was so heavy, it was hard not to pull the weapon off point of aim during the trigger stroke. That's why I ended up selling the thing. I'd have picked the Smith & Wesson in a heartbeat, and put custom grips on it to solve the skinny grip issue.
Well, I've had four large frame S&Ws over the years, two were S&W M1917s (I still own one of those), one Model 28 Highway Patrolman .357 magnum, and one 1962 dated Model 29 .44 magnum. They all had much better triggers than that Webley, even the two WWI military revolvers. The Model 29 especially had a nice trigger. The older S&Ws did have heavier triggers than the two newer ones, because they had the old "short action" lock work that Smith & Wesson discontinued right after WWII. The "long action" that replaced it -- and that the two newer revolvers had -- achieves a lighter pull at the expense of a longer travel.
I have a Webley MkI and from my experience it has an extremely heavy trigger pull (even in single action) which is a major negative influence on its potential accuracy. That being said it is a built like tank and is quite British in its simplicity and chunkiness. They must have done something right if they are still not only shootable but in fantastic shape a hundred plus years later. Unfortunately I don't shoot mine much because of ammo cost and scarcity. I have 5 boxes of fiocchi on hand which I don't plan on ever finishing because my Web is primarily for wilderness and hunting carry due to Canada's messed up handgun laws which exempt it as an "antique".
I kinda want to see somebody make a reproduction of the Mk. VI with modern alloys chambered in .45 ACP, so us American shooters won't ruin our original Mk. VIs.
I own a 1915 Webley MKVI in 455 and a Colt 1917 in 45ACP. I like the Webley better then the Colt. I use Fiocchi 455 ammo in my Webley and get sub 3 inch groups at 25 yards. Great gun!
I wouldn't have been surprised about the colt being the worst of the three. Their M1917 revolvers in .45 auto were based on the new service, whereas the smith guns were based on the triple-lock. Both very good double action hand-ejector revolvers- but the triple lock is better.
Those goofy, skinny grips on the old 'Smiths are very painful (except the "Victory Model in .380 British - like shooting a BB gun). An old time "grip filler" works wonders.
I have an earlier Webley, about 1896 vintage and a Mk II I believe. Sadly the cylinder has been machined to accept .45acp. Still, it's a very stout revolver and fun to shoot.
I can tell you my smith victory in 38sw makes my webley mk4 look very bad in the accuracy dept. The smith trigger is excellent in single action. Currently wating for a hand ejector in 455 to keep it company
Looking at a Hand Ejector that has been machined to accept the 45 Colt, I have seen many of these revolvers and seems like the love of Britannia boosted the points of the Webly. Colt New Service and Smith and Wesson were making the finest double action revolvers in the world at the time these weapons were ordered and they are still fine shooters out there today. The Webly is a pretty rudimentary looking piece compared to the Smith and Wesson and Colt. The Colt groupings were uniformly tight compared to the Webly which looked sprayed about. As long as the gun could group at 7-8 paces they were good to go for the trenches and battles that they were used for. All good weapons that served the Commonwealth with honour. The Colt's were actually issued to the North West Coast Mounted Police Force that some of these survived into the RCMP era. 5' Colt Official Police and Smith and Wesson Military and Police 5" were also the next developments that lead to the Victory Revolvers. Great History and stories these old shooters could tell! Good shooting to all.
No, a love of ergonomics boosed the points of the Webley - it's the only one with a grip that actually fills your hand and gives a decent reference point.
You can't shoot fruit on your range? Try this: "Shoot the fruit? No, we're just bringing along a snack. Well, we need to split this somehow... I know!" *minutes later* "Nah, we aren't that hungry anymore."
+Bloke on the Range That is truly unfortunate. I would say move to the states but the issue of getting your wondrous selection of firearms in with you would be a struggle, not to mention the fast paced downward spiral our government is experiencing
One thing I notice about all of you fine gentlemen, all of you don't speak unnecessarily like most people do here in the US. I notice here that people speak so much random, unneeded banter, while you all conduct yourselves to a higher standard and have a more sophisticated comical sense. I love it.
I haven't shot a Colt in 455 but the Smith bites for sure and the Webley Mk VI is far more pleasant to shoot. If I can find an N frame rubber grip I might just put it on!
Great video. Nice to see all 3 side by side. They did have skimpy sights back then. I was expecting the Smith to come out on top, but i guess the Webley rules. Bully for Webley! And bully for u for loading all that ammo. I hear the 455 is not easy
A quick point on the theoretical accuracy of the Smith & Wesson vs. the Colt: Firstly, there’s no reason to think the Smith & Wesson as a platform would be the most accurate, as the Colts had a sight edge in silhouette shooting during during this period. Secondly, the throat and groove diameters of the Colt are *much* more conducive to accuracy than those of the Smith & Wesson, which had throat diameters of .456”, and groove diameters of about .457”. Because of the second point alone, the theoretical accuracy of the Colt should be much higher than that of the Smith (and this coming from a Smith & Wesson fan). As for the actual results, where the core of the Colt’s group was the largest, this could be down to sample size, or perhaps the fact that the Colt seemed to be the least stable in the hand shooting double-action. It should also be noted that the Webley Mk VI was a relatively new design during the First World War, improving on the Mk V’s grip considerably. The grips on the Colt and Smith & Wesson had remained unchanged for many years by this point, in large part because in the States they had been passed on in favor of the Model 1911 by the military (except as substitute-standard arms, naturally), so there was relatively minor innovation devoted to those platforms. The Colt New Service would be discontinued in 1944, and the grips on the Smith & Wesson N-frame revolvers wouldn’t be improved until the introduction of Magna grips in the 1930s. The Magna grips resolved the biting problem in chamberings in the .455 power class, and even made the heavy-recoiling .44 Magnum manageable
I also find the conclusion a bit puzzling; the Smith & Wesson was universally found to be painful to shoot, and yet was universally favored over the Colt? The only points for which the Smith was favored over the Colt (other than in their esthetics) were in pointability, and in accuracy, and it was admitted that the accuracy of all three were acceptable. Now, I’ve got small hands, and find that the Second Model Hand Ejector is to be preferred to the New Service for me, but this comparison seemed to be fairly subjective.
Where did you get all that brass....when I had my .455 Zigzag in the 80's I had about 20 rounds and kept reloading them....every time we went past gunshop we popped in to see if the had any.....I was over the moon once cos Tom Collins (yep Lewis Collins uncle) in Old Kent Road had 4 rounds.
using recently manufactured ammunition should give better results as the old Canadian made 455 Eley and Webley tends to have lower and somewhat inconsistent velocities. Modern Fiocchi ammo recoils more, is faster and consistent. The Colt Eley has a longer case holding more powder than the Webley with great velocity.
I make other cals but not this one yet, though have what too much pure lead to ever use. I found my Colt quite accurate, a WW1 Colt with Canadian officers name engraved on the strap.
Hey BotR - I wonder if you can help with question... In Alberta Canada, there are some excavations around old forts and a bunch of cartridge cases and fired bullets have been found. They were incorrectly labelled 45 colt when they are really 455 Webley. Having pointed out the difference, they run questions by me. They have forts and whiskey trading posts (ex civil war soldiers with Henry repeating rifles). The question I have, and you could help with.. Is this... The NWMP had either Webley 455 or Colt New Service .455. I suspect they have different lands and groove counts and so we could tell from the fired bullets what pistols they were using (Colts I expect). As you seem to have access to both, could you help? Many thanks Mike
@@BlokeontheRange Hey bloke - sorted it out as I have acquired both colt 6 webley 7. Now live in the US in a 2nd A friendly place, shoot SLRs to wind up the locals
I have fired a lot of older "N" frame Smiths like the 1st Model .44 Hand Ejector aka. "Triple Lock" and the U.S. M-1917 (basically a 2cd Model HE, but with a 5 inch barrel instead of a 6") and I have never had any problem with the cylinder release catch "biting" my thumb, because I take a firm grip of the revolver with my thumb wrapped around, not lying to the side, and perhaps because I have smaller, less fleshy hands. I like the feel and ergonomics of even the older walnut grips of the old Smiths, and I find that they are very natural pointing revolvers. The high exposed backstrap on the pre Magna grip models ça. pre-1935 does slap the web of the thumb when firing powerful ammunition, however. I do not like the Colt's ergonomics at all. The grip is too straight and uncomfortable, and is not a natural pointer to me. I also prefer the stronger lockup of the cylinder and crane of the Smiths over the Colts. And Smiths just look better than the Colt product.
First you must be able to hold the pistol correctly, otherwise an improper grip leads to bite as well as poor shot placement.One must do their part, for handgun to be able to do it's.
I would be a lot happier if you had included the rarer Spanish Webley (a Spanish copy of the old top break S&W, but in caliber .455 as purchased issued and used by Britain). I had one and much preferred shooting it over my Webley Mk VI. I rhink ir ia ahoor what you are used to. I grew up on Colts and I agree the back strap is too smooth. LoL, Colt agreed to and their Shooting Master model had a checkered back strap. Also in .45 a Tyler T grip greatly improves the hold. I didn't like my own Webley Mk VI at all for shootablilty. IMO the trigger stacks too much (more and more pull needed for a DA shot) so that it was usable on small game such as running rabbits, while my Colt and S&W 1917s gave much smoother trigger pulls and under 30 yards hits are easy. No argument the early front sights of the Colt and S&W suck compared to the Webley's. Although I was trained on and forced to carry Smiths for over a decade, I much prefer the DA trigger of an older Colt. Inn single action of course any of them should have been side by side bullet holes, or one big hole so something is hinky here. I am dismayed by the groups your shooters got from the Colt and S&W and am wondering at the experience levels, but also at the condition of the barrels.. What is the barrel condition of those specimens? at only 10 meters each should be capable of hitting a running rabbit, but not with those groups, so something is wrong there. If you get the chance, hunt up a Spanish 1884 revolver. You will easiest find them in 44 Russian (of course in BP they will usually also chamber and safely fire 44 Special, 44 American and .442 Webley as well. As i mention in WWI the British Army bought 3 versions of them in 455 Webley and issued them and they did fairly well until logistics issues ended the contract.
They are using one-handed grips, as was the common practice during WWI. That could account for the groupings- a 2-handed grip is much more stable and accurate.
.455 was a terribly under powered cartridge. The troops in the trenches complained about it as it could NOT penetrate a German helmet but a Luger could. The British replaced it with the .38 cal. round which was much better. Heavy gun to shoot pigs from horse back with. And if they hit a hardwood tree they will bounce back at you.
Note on the SMLE;using a bolt action the heel of the palm should never be used on the forward stroke as an accidental discharge caused by proud primer or similar would result in the bolt being blown back into the wrist,the bolt should be operated with forefinger and thumb.
How do you manage to get the ammo + guns? I thought in Britain that you could only own Historically important firearms (which these are) but you had to have a different gun of the same calibre to own ammo. Something about section 7 or some such.
Forgive my ignorance, but I assume you are in the United Kingdom judging by your accent. Its my understanding that all handguns have been banned in Britain, so how are you able to possess and shoot them? I live in Australia and we now have pretty tough and some can reasonably argue overly strict gun laws, though you can still own certain types of handguns if you meet certain criteria.
Could you get a video on the .455 or at least pictures I want to see the markings to do a replica for possibly a few photos with my great grandfathers medals he had one from somewhere when in pre ww2 service or so goes tue story and it was carried when he was shot down over france in 1940
There's a company doing a new run of them dont have the link to hand and its going to be expensive but have a google. Same company that makes a fairburn sykes iirc. If your stuck in England with itsncrap pistol laws ypu could always get the .177 but the shells are nearer the .38/200 in size im looking a eother the 6mm airsoft or the well 6mm clone but annoyingly the well isn't compatible with the shells of the gun it clones so could be dicy to get extras. I want it for AIPSC just to see if it is competitive compared to my Dan Wesson 6mm (licensed ASG manufactured thing with a mishmash of S&W and colt styling)
Thankfully I live in Idaho, the problem here is finding a decent one that hasn't been cut down for 45 Autorim. And when you do find one in its original state they're usually rust badly.
webleymkvi.com/ - its a petition but who knows it cvould happen and if I could afford it id be in. Anderson Wheeler make a "mark 7" in 357 mag but their about 10000usd and the guy demoing it at SHOT rubs me the wrong way I get the vibe that he's not massively bothered that the average Englishman can't buy his pistol and fairly happy that handguns are for the wealthy/well connected in the UK PHSADC are tooling up for Fosbery's allegedly and hopefully that will happen
Having had the opportunity to shoot both the Webley MkVI (shaved for .45acp) and the S&W Hand Ejector (in my an case an M1917) I have to agree. The S&W really puts all the recoil force into one small spot in the webbing of your hand, where as the Webley spreads it out much better. I would not have thought a .45 could be so annoying to shoot if someone had told me. The sights are easier to pick up on the Webley. While the trigger on the MkVI is stiffer, the overall design of of the piece makes it easy to manage. Definitely a better military revolver, with much more thought put in to the details of the design. Also that's a beautiful Lee-Enfield! Don't see many early ones like that!
With Smith and Wesson, the grips in the early models are the only real sticking point. From the '50s on they just rocked, one awesome revolver after another.
Three revolvers and a few rounds of ammo and you limeys are all excited. LOL just kidding, you're having a great time with the restrictions you've got. Keep up the great videos.
If I ever get the chance to get my hands on a Webley I would probably have to get the cylinder filed down by a gunsmith to allow for the .45ACP to be able to fit with the moon clips. Why shoot .45ACP rounds on the Webley because .45ACP is very easy & much affordable than the .455 here in the US
Don't shoot factory 45 ACP in a Webley. It runs at a higher pressure than even .455 proof rounds. The shaved ones do in fact blow up quite frequently as a result.
@@BlokeontheRange thanks for the info so my guess is that I might as well leave it chamber in .455 rather than going through the troubled of filling the cylinder for the .45ACP & not to mention also going through the troubled of doing reloads to prevent the Webley from exploding
Looking forward to it. I've been wanting a shooter's grade MK VI. I don't mind if it's been shaved for .45 ACP, since I cast, I can load them fat and make good shooting ammo, with brass that is common in my country.
Even if he was in the uk he could get all three on a sec 7.3 as a historical collector though he would have to store at the range. In northern ireland he could get them on a sec1 at home for some reason they have more rights than we do...
