Webley Eclipse - Is this true ?

[silva]

Is This true ?

Patrick Anson (any relation to the Anson of Anson Deeley does anyone know?) born in April 1939 and died on 11th November 2005 – spookily, exactly 125 years to the day after the execution of Ned Kelly, is perhaps better known as Patrick Lichfield, the 5th Earl of Lichfield, Cousin of Queen Elizabeth 2nd and Society Photographer.

As well as shooting Webley shotguns, Patrick Lichfield was delighted when he visited the Webley factory to become the proud owner of a Webley Eclipse air rifle, serial number 0001, effectively the ‘negative’ from which all other examples of that model were ‘prints’.

"I understand that he was deeply chagrined sometime later when discussing his unique gun with a shooting chum, to find that he, also, had a Webley Eclipse serial number 0001. This was because the then Webley management had decided to make the model more collectable by simply having 10 samples – all with the serial number 0001!"

The link between Webley & Scott and Lord Lichfield continues to this day, in that the company currently produces a premier over and under sporting game shot gun simply designated “The Lichfield”

[Rickenbacker]

Well, as nobody else has ventured a guess (in well over 4 years), I'm going to say yes.

I'm quite willing to believe the shocking tale of the dubious 0001 Eclipse serials.

Except I believe it likely that it (they!) would be stamped 000001.

I say this because I have serial 000198.

I've seen # 000005 advertised for sale two years ago.

And there's always something wierd / dodgy / confusing - about Webley numbers.

Back to the Eclipse serials, I find it odd that they started in 1988 at 1, and seemed to run out of steam at over 860000 by the year 2000.

That would be over eight hundred and sixty thousand Eclipses' made in a period of 12 years - While it took HW from 1955 -to- 1984 to make a million guns (all-models - in total).

Afraid I don't believe that...

[Hsing-ee]

knackers.

they are all Spartacus, because they had to take on the Legions of 77s.

The aluminium was their grace and their downfall. The trapdoor loading with the long port, saved fingers (one chopped off the hand of every owner of 'the other rifle') but was inefficient. Light but expandable in hot summer weather (the weather in Britain in the late 80s was like that in Ukraine), it didn't stand a chance in the face of the 77.

So it became a pie filling, and people picked out pieces of the pie to make them so-called collectables.

The underlever one, similar to the ProSport would have been nice. But it stayed in the Pattern Room until it was flogged off.

As far as I know Webley rifles were never printed off an original 'last' like Napoleon's ruler, they were made up using the normal engineering techniques from tubes and split pins and bits of jelly.

[I. J.]

The underlever one, similar to the ProSport would have been nice. But it stayed in the Pattern Room until it was flogged off.

It ended up in Target Sports of Halliwell Road, Bolton when it was purchased from the Wallis & Wallis auction. I was tempted but I dont like the Eclipse so ... I bought the prototype Omega instead.

HTH
Ian

[ogilkes]

And there's always something wierd / dodgy / confusing - about Webley numbers.

Back in the day when they made only revolvers (around the time of their break through model, the Royal Irish Constabulary double action) Philip Webley used commonly to begin his number sequences with an unnecessarily high number to suggest he was making more pistols than he actually did. Clearly a traditional gun quarter practice!

[hwtyger]

Well, as nobody else has ventured a guess (in well over 4 years), I'm going to say yes.


Back to the Eclipse serials, I find it odd that they started in 1988 at 1, and seemed to run out of steam at over 860000 by the year 2000.

That would be over eight hundred and sixty thousand Eclipses' made in a period of 12 years - While it took HW from 1955 -to- 1984 to make a million guns (all-models - in total).

Afraid I don't believe that...

That indeed ís weird. I'll have a look at my Eclipse's SN.
PS I really like the balance of my Eclipse (carbine) way better than any HW underlever.
Its harsh to shoot though, even though it did only 8.5Ftp, it felt like double that. Dunno why
Its out for service now.

Whats the temperature problem with the Eclipse's than?

[Hsing-ee]

That indeed ís weird. I'll have a look at my Eclipse's SN.
PS I really like the balance of my Eclipse (carbine) way better than any HW underlever.
Its harsh to shoot though, even though it did only 8.5Ftp, it felt like double that. Dunno why
Its out for service now.

Whats the temperature problem with the Eclipse's than?

In warm weather the aluminium expands to a far greater degree than steel and there are issues with the piston seal fit. Allegedly.

[I. J.]

In warm weather the aluminium expands to a far greater degree than steel and there are issues with the piston seal fit. Allegedly.

One of our club members used to shoot one and each week he had to chrono it to check the power and, depending on the weather/temp. he had to re-zero it. :-(

[Rickenbacker]

One of our club members used to shoot one and each week he had to chrono it to check the power and, depending on the weather/temp. he had to re-zero it. :-(

Webley hater!

I've not shot my Eclispe at all, so the above is clearly not any kind of a problem.

[air-tech]

In warm weather the aluminium expands to a far greater degree than steel and there are issues with the piston seal fit. Allegedly.

Certainly very "Allegedly".

The total expansion of the aluminium must be completely insignificant compared to the inevitable clearance between the piston and the cylinder, which the flexible seal takes up, and even manufacturing tolerances.

The reasons why a springer shoots differently when taken to the range after not having been used for a few days has more to do with lubrication than anything else. My TX shoots low at first, takes around 15 shots to get back to zero, until I realised I was constantly faffing around with the scope.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/li...on-d_1379.html

Calculator shows that the circumference of the tube from 7C - 26C assuming a 3" start, increases to 3.0013 inches

Diameter at 7C = 0.954929658551372" = 24.255mm

At 26C = 0.955343461403411" = 24.266mm

0.011mm difference in diameter, that is, just over 1/100th of a mm

And that is ignoring the fact that the steel piston expands too, which it does, even if only half as much in circumference nominally, so the difference in FIT is even smaller.

[hwtyger]

Than the question still remains; why is the Eclipse harsh to shoot and difficult to tune?
Cause of the flip-up breech?

[I. J.]

Certainly very "Allegedly".

The total expansion of the aluminium must be completely insignificant compared to the inevitable clearance between the piston and the cylinder, which the flexible seal takes up, and even manufacturing tolerances.

The reasons why a springer shoots differently when taken to the range after not having been used for a few days has more to do with lubrication than anything else. My TX shoots low at first, takes around 15 shots to get back to zero, until I realised I was constantly faffing around with the scope.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/li...on-d_1379.html

Calculator shows that the circumference of the tube from 7C - 26C assuming a 3" start, increases to 3.0013 inches

Diameter at 7C = 0.954929658551372" = 24.255mm

At 26C = 0.955343461403411" = 24.266mm

0.011mm difference in diameter, that is, just over 1/100th of a mm

And that is ignoring the fact that the steel piston expands too, which it does, even if only half as much in circumference nominally, so the difference in FIT is even smaller.

Once again my typing finger is saved.