Questions for the Webley Experts

[ccdjg]

I have an early “Patents Applied For” Webley Mark 1 pistol, serial number 990, with some puzzling features and I would like to ask for the opinions of the Webley experts. The gun has the normal attributes expected for pistols in this serial number area, except for two anomalies.

Firstly, the barrel does not have the reduced diameter over its last quarter of an inch which was introduced when the spring clip closure was replaced by the sliding breech catch. You can see this here:

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q...psgk42dtdg.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q...pspaqhdhfv.jpg

Unfortunately there appears to be no documentation of barrel outside diameters in Bruce’s book or elsewhere, but the barrel on this example has an outside diameter of 0.33 inches, which corresponds to the stepped down diameter normally found on post-spring clip Mark 1’s. The barrel is presumably therefore one of the earlier ones intended for the spring clip model, which would make SN 990 a transitional model. Has anyone seen this before with examples around this serial number?

The second anomaly is even more puzzling. As can be seen from this photo comparison, http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q...ps6tog743h.jpg
the first and second images show the situation for SN 990, where the adjusting screw and guide peg for the rear sight plate are reversed to what is the normal situation (shown in the third image). This would appear to be a factory modification as close examination shows no trace of the original guide peg having been drilled out and threaded to accept the screw, or the original screw hole having been plugged with a peg. I can only think of two explanations: factory error, or a short-lived design or production modification. I originally thought it might be an attempt to increase the sight height, but on rethinking the reversal of the positions of the screw and plug would make no difference to the vertical movement of the sight plate.

So again I ask the question, has anyone come across this before with a Mark 1 pistol?

Your thoughts would be most welcome, as these odd features have been niggling me for quite a while.

[slug-gun]

I have a double spring clip Mk.1 No.649, and the rear sight is as normally found on these pistols.

But then I have No.966 where the rear sight and peg is indeed 'reversed' and as such similar to your pistol? And I'm damned if I ever noticed that before!

But then I also have a further 'Patents Applied For' pistol, No.1741, where the rear sight is again as normally seen on Mk.1's, ie the same as on No.649.

So it would seem likely then that Webley did make a run with the sight and peg reversed perhaps around the 900 serial number mark, perhaps as an experiment; perhaps because the guy assembling the pistols that week was on the gin and got mixed up - who knows?

But an interesting and yet further variation it would seem, and after all these years of looking at these Webleys!

[ccdjg]

Thanks Chris. It's nice to know that another Mark 1 design variation has been found, even if we don't know why it was introduced in the first place. Perhaps an apprentice machinist had his blueprints upside down for a week or two.

I would be very interested to know if your SN 966 Mark 1 has the unstepped barrel of the spring-clip model, as mine does. If so, then this would suggest that the decision to strengthen the barrel by increasing its OD must have come significantly later than the changeover from spring clip to sliding catch. It would be interesting to try to locate at what serial number the thicker barrel change actually occurred.

[AC99]

Concerning the reversed guide peg/locking screw. Although the two holes drilled on the centre line of the rear sight block are of very similar diameter it may be possible that on a batch the assembly operator may have tapped out the wrong hole to accept the threaded locking screw (possibly after a liquid lunch as has been suggested).
The tightly fitting peg could then not have been pressed into this hole and so was fitted to the other if the diameter was correct - it would however need to be a very tight fit. All of this compounded error would then have to be approved between the foreman and inspection/QA, and others I suspect, to approve this batch for shipping.
If this was the case then only a limited number would have been made this way. After all the rear sight would still function as normal but only on close inspection would it be spotted and then it would need to be compared with a 'normal' one. Otherwise I can see no obvious merit in reversing the screw and peg.
Just a thought!
Aubrey

[Josie & John]

This has been a most interesting observation John. I examined an early Mark I numbered 1247 this morning, which has both of the anomalous features you mention.

Firstly, no rebate to the breech end of the barrel:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dx30xuxae8...55.31.jpg?dl=0

Secondly, reversed rearsight fixing screw and guide peg.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/na8j3pzmo8...55.54.jpg?dl=0

Whilst it is possible SN 1247 was somehow mixed up with pistols in the SN 900 range, it does follow a pattern. At some 300 units higher than the other pistols mentioned on this thread, the presence of both features on SN 1247 suggests the features were present in more than just a rogue batch.

Kind regards,

John

[slug-gun]

Further update to this thread, information from a reliable source that Mk.1's number 784 and 1130 both have the 'reverse' rearsight feature.
It is entirely possible that this feature commenced with the cessation of the double spring clip pistols (at No.700) and that several hundred were therefore produced with the unusual rear sight?

Assuming no changes in specification, and with John's pistol above taken into consideration, certainly 500 at least of these may have been produced.

Both 784/1130 have the straight un-stepped barrel, as does 966.

[ccdjg]

All very interesting, and shows that research is rarely ever complete. The odd sight arrangement has actually been documented in the Encyclopedia of Spring Air Pistols with a photograph, but at the time was assumed to be a one-off and to have arisen from a factory error.

[Mobiasstrip]

After reading the Webley Mk1 section in John Griffith's excellent Encyclopedia and noting his comment that a small number of Webley Mk 1 pistols have the rear sight screw and locating peg reversed I had a closer look at my two early Webleys and found to my surprise that both of mine have this feature!

I removed the sight to inspect more closely and the peg on sn 1346 is at the top and looks untouched since manufacture exactly as John described. See two pictures below.



More surprisingly however on sn 1192 the "reversed" top peg looked less solidly connected to the breech. With a bit of carefully fettling I found that this peg unscrewed and is interchangeable with the sight screw thread! As shown in following pictures.






I emailed John and shared the above pictures with him. He suggested I resurrect this thread to seek others opinions too.
I wonder if early pistols were manufactured this way? - so factory assembly could be reversed (maybe in error) - or an owner swap them over later if they chose.
I have not risked mutilating my other Mk 1s to test this possibility....
Opinions sought with interest.
Steve