Good questions!

Posted by Michaelson from em12-686.utsi.edu on October 20, 1999 at 10:44:38:

In Reply to: Question for Michaelson posted by Anejo Joe on October 19, 1999 at 21:02:01:

: I was reading your FAQ discussion on Indy Gear concerning the MkVI Webley in LC and you state that it is too heavy to be practical. I have never seen a MkVI other than in photos, but it seems to me that it is no bigger, or not even as big, as most 44 Magnums. If Dirty Harry could carry a 44 Magnum around semi-concealed, why not a MkVI for Indy? Of course, the power level is no where near equal, but the 44 is something of an overkill unless you a up against a bear.

: Also, in regard to accuracy, I have a MkIV .38 and a S&W Model 13-4. I find the S&W to be more accurate, but I believe this is due to better sights, and a better trigger pull, rather than anything inherent in the pistols. It might be due to me.

: One more question. How do you know it is chambered for .45 instead of .455? Can you tell that from the scene with the Bf109's, or did that info come from another source?

: PS: The "Question" side says MkVII instead of MkVI.

First of all, Joe, let me say that your questions are always right on the mark, and makes one realize that when you're close to the subject, you do tend to assume a lot on the part of the reader, and that is definately a no-no. Secondly, let me also admit that I too have noticed that in my writings I tend to interchange the Mark VII and Mark VI back and forth with impunity. I must have a very active "I" key on my pad here, as this is a common occurance. Let's just say that anytime you see me writing about the Webley, I'm talking about a Mark VI, and about the bag, a Mark VII. Ignore any other reference, because I'm probably not paying much more attention to that. Now, on to your questions... you're asking about a comparison size wise between the Webley and, using your model of choice, a S& W model 29 .44 mag. Now bear in mind we're comparing two weapons that were designed almost 100 years apart, and with two completely different sciences to support, and to be supported by. What in the heck do I mean by that? The Webley was designed for use by the troops of her majesty Queen Victoria in the 1870's and used black powder rounds. Smokeless powder had not been invented or improved enough for use until the early 1890's. Black powder is explosive and used this technology to move a very heavy bullet down the barrel, where smokeless powder is considered much safer in terms of not being explosive but capable of a rapid burn instead, creating a more positive source of ignition rather that the rapid expanding fire ignition of the black powder round. The metalurgy of the 19th century was not the grade of strength of the 20th century inventions, and companies had to over engineer the weapons around the black powder rounds that existed. The theory was the more mass to hold the controlled explosion, the safer the weapon. Strength of the molecular structure of the steel was not a factor at that particular time. If you want a comparison, check out the hunting rifles of that same period compared to the current offerings. The rifles of today are almost 1/2 the size of those huge rifles of that time period and yet fire a much more powerful selection of rounds than were offered at that time. The Smith 29, on the other hand, was designed and produced in 1955. The metalurgy was there for the power of the .44 mag. bullet, so you could down size the frame of the weapon with out sacrificing the strength of the frame, while at the same time stand the monstrous pressures of the .44 mag round. The Webley was used right up to the end of the 1940's, and was upgraded to use with smokeless powder rounds, but Webley never downsized the frame of the weapon itself. It was still made to the same specs of the 1870's revolver, and is probably 1/4 larger than the standard model 29 with a 6 inch barrel. It was also heavier than the 29 fully loaded, simply because they never change the frame size, and even though the steel is much improved, the frame was as massive as it ever had been with black powder. As I said in the FAQ, for a field piece it was unsurpassed as a military weapon, as you have less muzzle flip with a heavier weapon and therefore any follow up shots will be much more accurate with such a weapon. Not so with the model 29, as it's muzzle flip with a full .44 mag load is tremendous, but it was never designed or intended for the field combat situation like the Webley was made to do. The model IV you have will alway take a back seat to your Smith. Why? Because it was designed for the British .380 revolver round that was a 200 grain full metal jacket bullet that was equal (according to the books) to the Webley .455 round in terms of stopping power. The .38 S&W round that we can pick up anywhere and fire through these surplus guns are not the same ogive as the .380 British, and therefore will never stabalize in your barrel. I know, I used to own one too. Though it fired well, it sure wasn't a target weapon. You Smith, on the other hand, fires the rounds it was designed for, and the target accuracy, though other factors figure in, are only as good as the shooter behind the gun. I know that one too, as I ALSO own a model 13. Now THAT'S a nice Smith.

Last but not least, I have to cheat and state that the .45 conversion info was from a Guns and Ammo "Q & A" column I read back in '89 that stated it was the .45 ACP conversion, and simply because that was what they needed for their 5-in-1 blanks on the set. They don't have that blank in .455. Hope this sheds some light. Regards. Michaelson

Follow Ups:

Re: Good questions! Anjeo Joe 12:37:54 10/20/99 (1)
- Re: Good questions! Michaelson 12:45:25 10/20/99 (0)

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: : I was reading your FAQ discussion on Indy Gear concerning the MkVI Webley in LC and you state that it is too heavy to be practical.  I have never seen a MkVI other than in photos, but it seems to me that it is no bigger, or not even as big, as most 44 Magnums.  If Dirty Harry could carry a 44 Magnum around semi-concealed, why not a MkVI for Indy?  Of course, the power level is no where near equal, but the 44 is something of an overkill unless you a up against a bear.

: : Also, in regard to accuracy, I have a MkIV .38 and a S&W Model 13-4.  I find the S&W to be more accurate, but I believe this is due to better sights, and a better trigger pull, rather than anything inherent in the pistols.  It might be due to me.

: : One more question.  How do you know it is chambered for .45 instead of .455?  Can you tell that from the scene with the Bf109's, or did that info come from another source?

: : PS: The "Question" side says MkVII instead of MkVI.

: First of all, Joe, let me say that your questions are always right on the mark, and makes one realize that when you're close to the subject, you do tend to assume a lot on the part of the reader, and that is definately a no-no. Secondly, let me also admit that I too have noticed that in my writings I tend to interchange the Mark VII and Mark VI back and forth with impunity. I must have a very active "I" key on my pad here, as this is a common occurance. Let's just say that anytime you see me writing about the Webley, I'm talking about a Mark VI, and about the bag, a Mark VII. Ignore any other reference, because I'm probably not paying much more attention to that. Now, on to your questions... you're asking about a comparison size wise between the Webley and, using your model of choice, a S& W model 29 .44 mag. Now bear in mind we're comparing two weapons that were designed almost 100 years apart, and with two completely different sciences to support, and to be supported by. What in the heck do I mean by that? The Webley was designed for use by the troops of her majesty Queen Victoria in the 1870's and used black powder rounds. Smokeless powder had not been invented or improved enough for use until the early 1890's.  Black powder is explosive and used this technology to move a very heavy bullet down the barrel, where smokeless powder is considered much safer in terms of not being explosive but capable of a rapid burn instead, creating a more positive source of ignition rather that the rapid expanding fire ignition of the black powder round. The metalurgy of the 19th century was not the grade of strength of the 20th century inventions, and companies had to over engineer the weapons around the black powder rounds that existed. The theory was the more mass to hold the controlled explosion, the safer the weapon. Strength of the molecular structure of the steel was not a factor at that particular time. If you want a comparison, check out the hunting rifles of that same period compared to the current offerings. The rifles of today are almost 1/2 the size of those huge rifles of that time period and yet fire a much more powerful selection of rounds than were offered at that time. The Smith 29, on the other hand, was designed and produced in 1955. The metalurgy was there for the power of the .44 mag. bullet, so you could down size the frame of the weapon with out sacrificing the strength of the frame, while at the same time stand the monstrous pressures of the .44 mag round. The Webley was used right up to the  end of the 1940's, and was upgraded to use with smokeless powder rounds, but Webley never downsized the frame of the weapon itself. It was still made to the same specs of the 1870's revolver, and is probably 1/4 larger than the standard model 29 with a 6 inch barrel. It was also heavier than the 29 fully loaded, simply because they never change the frame size, and even though the steel is much improved, the frame was as massive as it ever had been with black powder. As I said in the FAQ, for a field piece it was unsurpassed as a military weapon, as you have less muzzle flip with a heavier weapon and therefore any follow up shots will be much more accurate with such a weapon. Not so with the model 29, as it's muzzle flip with a full .44 mag load is tremendous, but it was never designed or intended for the field combat situation like the Webley was made to do.  The model IV you have will alway take a back seat to your Smith. Why? Because it was designed for the British .380 revolver round that was a 200 grain full metal jacket bullet that was equal (according to the books) to the Webley .455 round in terms of stopping power. The .38 S&W round that we can pick up anywhere and fire through these surplus guns are not the same ogive as the .380 British, and therefore will never stabalize in your barrel. I know, I used to own one too. Though it fired well, it sure wasn't a target weapon. You Smith, on the other hand, fires the rounds it was designed for, and the target accuracy, though other factors figure in, are only as good as the shooter behind the gun. I know  that one too, as I ALSO own a model 13. Now THAT'S a nice Smith.

: Last but not least, I have to cheat and state that the .45 conversion info was from a Guns and Ammo "Q & A" column I read back in '89 that stated it was the .45 ACP conversion, and simply because that was what they needed for their 5-in-1 blanks on the set. They don't have that blank in .455. Hope this sheds some light. Regards. Michaelson

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]