Webley Book

[harvey_s]

Me too, it's definately a collector's book rather than an enthusiast's - theres no performance information at all unlike Mr Bruce's pistol book which had both....
I'm certainly not disappointed for the price I paid - however at the full cover price I wouldn't have been so happy.
All that said, it is still an impressive body of work

[oldcurmudgeon]

Many congratulations on an excellent tome, which despite some errors and omissions is indeed a landmark book and i believe something of a rod for the authors back. This book will bring out the nitpickers in droves to fill out much of the story yet to be told about the variations of the rifles that were not on catalogue but were available on special order(this may be where some of the missing serial numbers went) but all of that will be for the Mk2 version due some 5 years hence.

[harry mac]

I know what you mean about a "rod for his own back". Many years ago Ian Skennerton published the difinitive work on the Lee Enfield series of rifles "The British Service Lee". It too was a landmark publication, and I think it was intended as the last word on the subject. The book is now on it's third version as more information has come to light and previous mistakes or good faith errors have been rectified.
I suppose it's easy for me to sit here in my chair and say, "well so and so's wrong", or "that's not what that picture shows", but it's not me that's put the work into it and spent the frustrating hours on research.
Like I said, "mixed feelings", but I certainly won't slag the book off.
Thanks to the book I've been able to identify when my MkIII was completed and have found that it's serial number is one of the ones that's got a duplicate out there somewhere. So, has anyone else got a Webley MkIII with the serial number A2505?

[coburn]

Just a thought on having performance information in the book.

How relevent would it be. The original Webley figures were probably a mixture of guesswork and conjecture given the limited chrono facilities available in the 50, 60, 70s (just look at the trouble Smith had in his book published in the 50's to measure velocity). Also accuracy figures from those days were as only as good as the pellets available then.

As for testing the rifles today you'll note that Hillier stopped doing this after his first edition of Air Rifles and Air Pistol because it was time consuming and counter productive.

I think this book is best viewed as what it is an excellent guide to Webley Air Rifles for the collector.

[slug-gun]

COBURN has hit the nail on the head regarding performance figures. Apart from quoting manufacturers figures which themselves are often misleading, I very quickly decided that publishing any form of power or accuracy figures would have been completely irrelevant.
I could for instance have tested a mint unfired Mk.2 Service, with dried out lubricant and obtained one set of muzzle velocity or accuracy figures, but on the other hand could have tested a well used but properly maintained similar rifle and obtained a completely different set of results!
Which would have been right? Neither, both?
On the subject of mistakes in the book, that was almost inevitable given the production process, but is nevertheless disappointing.
Having completed the manuscript, the publishers required captions to all the photographs and an indication of where they should appear in the loose manuscript supplied.
I then supplied a page number and sizing chart for each photo and off it went to China for printing, and, this is where the system fails slightly, I did not see the thing again until it was actually published.
It would have been so much easier to go through the finished manuscipt with photographs applied, as the mistakes and over/undersized or misplaced photos would then have been much more readily spotted.
Anyway no excuses, hopefully there will be a second print run at some stage and at that time I will expect the publisher to allow me to correct anything that is not right.

[harvey_s]

Just a thought on having performance information in the book.

How relevent would it be. The original Webley figures were probably a mixture of guesswork and conjecture given the limited chrono facilities available in the 50, 60, 70s (just look at the trouble Smith had in his book published in the 50's to measure velocity). Also accuracy figures from those days were as only as good as the pellets available then.

As for testing the rifles today you'll note that Hillier stopped doing this after his first edition of Air Rifles and Air Pistol because it was time consuming and counter productive.

I think this book is best viewed as what it is an excellent guide to Webley Air Rifles for the collector.

Doesn't have to relevant with regard to numeric accuracy - Its just interesting to the enthuisiast to see the claims for accuracy and power made at the time.

[Binners]

COBURN has hit the nail on the head regarding performance figures. Apart from quoting manufacturers figures which themselves are often misleading, I very quickly decided that publishing any form of power or accuracy figures would have been completely irrelevant.
I could for instance have tested a mint unfired Mk.2 Service, with dried out lubricant and obtained one set of muzzle velocity or accuracy figures, but on the other hand could have tested a well used but properly maintained similar rifle and obtained a completely different set of results!
Which would have been right? Neither, both?
On the subject of mistakes in the book, that was almost inevitable given the production process, but is nevertheless disappointing.
Having completed the manuscript, the publishers required captions to all the photographs and an indication of where they should appear in the loose manuscript supplied.
I then supplied a page number and sizing chart for each photo and off it went to China for printing, and, this is where the system fails slightly, I did not see the thing again until it was actually published.
It would have been so much easier to go through the finished manuscipt with photographs applied, as the mistakes and over/undersized or misplaced photos would then have been much more readily spotted.
Anyway no excuses, hopefully there will be a second print run at some stage and at that time I will expect the publisher to allow me to correct anything that is not right.

I don't think tooo many people will be after a refund in a couple of years time.

[Lakey]

COBURN has hit the nail on the head regarding performance figures. Apart from quoting manufacturers figures which themselves are often misleading, I very quickly decided that publishing any form of power or accuracy figures would have been completely irrelevant.
I could for instance have tested a mint unfired Mk.2 Service, with dried out lubricant and obtained one set of muzzle velocity or accuracy figures, but on the other hand could have tested a well used but properly maintained similar rifle and obtained a completely different set of results!
Which would have been right? Neither, both?
On the subject of mistakes in the book, that was almost inevitable given the production process, but is nevertheless disappointing.
Having completed the manuscript, the publishers required captions to all the photographs and an indication of where they should appear in the loose manuscript supplied.
I then supplied a page number and sizing chart for each photo and off it went to China for printing, and, this is where the system fails slightly, I did not see the thing again until it was actually published.
It would have been so much easier to go through the finished manuscipt with photographs applied, as the mistakes and over/undersized or misplaced photos would then have been much more readily spotted.
Anyway no excuses, hopefully there will be a second print run at some stage and at that time I will expect the publisher to allow me to correct anything that is not right.

Hi Chris,

What the people who are critical about your book have to remember is that, 1).there was an information vacuum/shortage on the subject of Webley Rifles before your book was published, so your book is a trail blazer from that respect.It is very easy to comment on a book that is already there, rather different creating the book in the first place!
2) Mistakes are inevitable when the book is published in a far away country and the author doesnt see any proof copy, in order to correct any errors before publication.
3) You cant please all of the people, all of the time

I for one think the book is great and substantially adds to my knowledge and interest of the subject of webley rifles, and at the end of the day it would take me a whole day to describe everything that is great about the book, and about 2 minutes to describe the occasional errors!!!!

Wonderful book..... Thankyou


Lakey

PS, If you can tell us, how many books did the publisher create on this first print run?

[le frelon]

I'll add my tuppenny worth.

It's all been said before so really just a thank you for having the courage, devoting the time and adding to the collective knowledge.

Well done Chris.

atb Carl

[slug-gun]

Thanks for the encouraging comments.

I was told by Hale that the first print run was 750 copies.
I believe that the first print run for Bruce's book was...750 copies!

The rest is history.

[Phil Russell]

Hi Chris,

What the people who are critical about your book have to remember is that, 1).there was an information vacuum/shortage on the subject of Webley Rifles before your book was published, so your book is a trail blazer from that respect.It is very easy to comment on a book that is already there, rather different creating the book in the first place!
2) Mistakes are inevitable when the book is published in a far away country and the author doesnt see any proof copy, in order to correct any errors before publication.
3) You cant please all of the people, all of the time

I for one think the book is great and substantially adds to my knowledge and interest of the subject of webley rifles, and at the end of the day it would take me a whole day to describe everything that is great about the book, and about 2 minutes to describe the occasional errors!!!!

Wonderful book..... Thankyou


Lakey

PS, If you can tell us, how many books did the publisher create on this first print run?

My sentiments entirely and I sympathise on the fact that a few 'errors' slipped in at the publishers. It is a wonderful book, the photos are great and it stimulates the 'search, find and collect' feeling.

Now ... can we have a similar tome on Diana / Original models?


I still have not had my WHS copy ordered in April but wrote to WHS asking why not. A reply says 'technical error' and I should get it next week..... (have been reading Batfink's copy recently ... she ordered 3 weeks ago and received 7 days later).
Cheers, Phil

[coburn]

Just one more comment on Webleys claimed accuracy figures for say the MK3 which I think was all shots in 3/8 at ten yards.

You can bet that was done in house on the factory range by the bloke who'd just won that years Bell target championship using a Supertarget, not a normal MK3. Though too much M&B Brew XI might have opened the group up a bit!

The most startling fact in the book was that there were only 1290 Supertargets made......

[slug-gun]

Not quite what I say in the book COBURN - this is the LEAST number that were made. There may well have been some more but it is impossible to say exactly how many due to the notes in the ledger not being specific enough in places.

[coburn]

Sorry I was going from memory, even if they made 300 more that still makes the Supertarget a very desirable version of the MK3.

At the Bisley Arms fair the other week people were clamouring after one that was for sale, now we know why.

I remember years ago Geoff Boxall telling me he'd won some Bell Target comp because he'd lent his Supertarget against a radiator heating it up to the point that the next shot resulted in a violent diesel that rang the bell despite it being a slightly off target shot.

P.S Slug Gun if you do another book can you do it on Weihrauchs?

Regards

[Phil Russell]

Just one more comment on Webleys claimed accuracy figures for say the MK3 which I think was all shots in 3/8 at ten yards.

You can bet that was done in house on the factory range by the bloke who'd just won that years Bell target championship using a Supertarget, not a normal MK3. Though too much M&B Brew XI might have opened the group up a bit!

The most startling fact in the book was that there were only 1290 Supertargets made......

Ah... Brew XI. I think I was weaned on it .....

Cheeeers,. Phil