Double Spring Clip Webley Mk1 Air Pistol.

[Josie & John]

Not sure if the apparent condition justifies £1k+, irrespective of rarity. Personally I'd consider this a good buy at around £600 hammer.

Still, way better than a refinished example and I'm sure there will be potential bidders out there who disagree with me though.

John

[erichtfisherman]

Quite a high serial number at 1530 I thought only approximately 700 were double clip ? It looks original though.

[Josie & John]

Quite a high serial number at 1530 I thought only approximately 700 were double clip ? It looks original though.

Yes and no Eric. I have seen double spring clips in this serial number range before, so it is a good example of not relying solely on serial numbers to date a certain pistol. The change from spring clips to thumbcatch came in at around SN 700 but that is not to say you will not find examples with slightly higher numbers.

Kind regards,

John.

[Garvin]

An expert in these pistols has just pointed out to me that any potential buyers would be wise to exercise caution!

He points out that the spring clips are much too long and have no 'dimple', and that the breech block is damaged with the frontal projections broken.

As for the high serial no., it has been overstamped. He speculates that maybe it went back to Webley for work, hence the confusingly high number overstamped. He reports no.707 is known to have the familiar sliding top latch.

This pistol also has a rear plug retained by a screw, which is wrong for the purported period.

Lastly, he points out that the interior of the box tray is not shown so there is no way of knowing if the original, large double pellet compartment is still intact or present.

[Abasmajor]

An expert in these pistols has just pointed out to me that any potential buyers would be wise to exercise caution!

He points out that the spring clips are much too long and have no 'dimple', and that the breech block is damaged with the frontal projections broken.

As for the high serial no., it has been overstamped. He speculates that maybe it went back to Webley for work, hence the confusingly high number overstamped. He reports no.707 is known to have the familiar sliding top latch.

This pistol also has a rear plug retained by a screw, which is wrong for the purported period.

Lastly, he points out that the interior of the box tray is not shown so there is no way of knowing if the original, large double pellet compartment is still intact or present.

Hi Danny,

Thanks for sharing the reservations regarding the 'Spring Clip' which once again highlights the importance of this site and the invaluable input available from experts within and sometimes outside the forum.

Caveat emptor as they say.

Regards

Brian

[JimmieDee]

Hi Danny,

Thanks for sharing the reservations regarding the 'Spring Clip' which once again highlights the importance of this site and the invaluable input available from experts within and sometimes outside the forum.

Caveat emptor as they say.

Regards

Brian

Hey Danny,

My observations are:

The spring clips may have been replaced.

The broken frontal projections - this is not uncommon. This may have been done at the factory either by accident or deliberately or they may have been broken off with use. It is possible that at the factory, one projection could have been broken and that they removed the other deliberately in order to sell the pistol. There is another, later variant of the double spring clip that was made without the projections above the spring clips.

The rear plug retaining screw is also not unheard of.

The high serial number is the real oddity in my opinion. But an intriguing one nonetheless.

I have two double spring clips in my collection.

#281 Thicker reinforced (?) barrel. Projections broken off or removed. Visible signs that they existed. No retaining screw.
#656 Thin barrel. No projections. Not broken off. The metal work is square. Retaining screw present.

It is very plausible that design improvements were added to the double spring clip before the 2nd series with the sliding barrel catch was introduced.

As ever, I will fully document these variations in an article on my blog page when I get round to it.

All the best,
Jimmie Dee

[Gareth W-B]

Thanks for sharing the reservations regarding the 'Spring Clip' which once again highlights the importance of this site and the invaluable input available from experts within and sometimes outside the forum.

Indeed and agreed. Many thanks.

[Troubledshooter]

Lastly, he points out that the interior of the box tray is not shown so there is no way of knowing if the original, large double pellet compartment is still intact or present.

The boxes with the larger inner compartment were also slightly smaller in overall dimensions than the later Mk.1 WG boxes with the smaller inner compartment.