Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 34

Thread: Webley Mk3, initial impressions

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Bruton
    Posts
    6,591

    Webley Mk3, initial impressions

    Rowlocks, I fear I am becoming a proper collector.

    Back up a bit. My formative airgun years as a kid were around 1978-83. Back then, it was obvious to me that the only really good air rifles were full power German break barrels. Maybe a look-in for the Airsporter S, Vulcan, and Tracker. But, really, if you could afford an 80, 45, 124/127 and not have one there was something wrong with you. If you'd offered me a Mk1 Airsporter or a Webley Mk3 - or even a Service - free, I'd probably have turned you down, or more sensibly taken it and traded it on something "better" and more modern.

    Fast forward more years than I care to think, and I have just taken delivery of two Series 3 Mk3s. One standard, one with PH16M rear sight.

    Initial non-shooting impressions:

    - build and finish quality are absolutely awesome;
    - period charm matches and may exceed that of my Mk1 Airsporter (though not its elegance);
    - butt is too thin (not just a period thing, compared to eg a contemporary Diana 35) and far too short (though I am 6'2" and lanky).

    So, in short, having taken the plunge, I can see what a lot of you guys like. Just hope the pair shoot well.

    Question: does anyone know (Chris Thrale's book doesn't say) why they put the loading tap lever on the wrong side?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Chelmsford
    Posts
    448
    I am a mk3 fan myself and own quite a number of them and you are absolutely right about build quality and finish.
    They are not to everyone's taste though especially Airsporter enthusiasts. Although I own four Airsporters - which, as you say, are much sleeker in appearance than the mk3 I still prefer it for its solidity and (possibly) over-engineered design. I may be prejudiced since the Webley was my first serious air rifle as a 15 year old.
    I cannot answer your query concerning tap location; I have never given it much serious thought and just taken it for granted that the tap is the 'other' side!
    Aubrey

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Pulborough
    Posts
    997
    I agree with you, Geezer, although I personally prefer the elegance of the Mk3, as did a friend of mine who bought one after he saw my own.

    I produced for the site, a few days ago, a comparison between a 1922 BSA v three Mk3s, which you might find of interest.

    Generally, the trigger is stiff for the Mk3 but if it is loosened too much, I discovered it might discharge accidentally. A stiff trigger affects accuracy unless and until the owner properly becomes acquainted with his rifle. Furthermore, on the foresight, the blade is not as good as the bead on the Standard - in my opinion. I found that a bead provides a sharper image - just a personal preference.

    Out of the three Mk3s - one belonging to a friend - we have discovered that BSA Elites do best and, remarkably, I achieved some 11.8ft/lbs on my 1968 Mk3 - which is exceptional. Superdomes are not too bad and Defiant Vintage (if you can find them), are pretty good but I noticed there was a difference with the later Mk3, which was produced in Nov 73. At some point - not sure when but perhaps around '69-71 - the Mk3 embraced button rifling and this presumably upset the pellet preference above. Not sure when your Series 3 were manufactured.

    The accuracy leaves a little to be desired on a Mk3 - 3/4in from 12 yards - but the trigger and blade played a part in this, I suggest. These can be mastered as one gets to know the rifle better - an essential requirement.

    In my view, they were designed to be shot with open sights and I doubt I shall fix scopes to mine. I shall sight them in for 25-30 yards and then study the holdover and holdunder for different ranges. Certainly, they produce a better challenge and better sport than pre-charge rifles, which are characterless and make everything far too easy.

    Let us know how they shoot. It would also be worth testing various pellets through a chronograph to see what readings you get.

    Like Aubrey, I had one of these when I was 12/13 and hit plenty of pests with it but then traded it in for an HW35 which had a useless spring in those days, which lost power after some two tins of pellets. The Airsporter which followed was hopeless and undermined my faith in BSAs. Over 40 years later, I have just bought two Mk3s.

    Rgds
    Andrew.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Narberth
    Posts
    767
    andrewM, agree with your comments especially accuracy and the trigger not helping with accuracy. Really, I am more of a BSA collector, but, was intrigued by the quirky vintage look of the Mk3, so I bought one that is fairly immaculate. It does have a chunky, solid feel about it, seems well engineered and has a dark walnut stock. Mine is more of a cabinet display due to the mentioned accuracy and trigger, but, it does get a bit of airing now and again......

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Norwich 'A Fine City' (unless you're a driver)
    Posts
    2,838
    Loading tap up issue... Yes as its a copy of a Diana 45 (?) Where the tap is on the 'right' side, it's an oddity . Did they do it to be original(no pun intended) or is there a practical reason?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Near Reigate, Surrey
    Posts
    19,495
    When folk on here extoll the virtues of the Mk 3 I wonder if I am in a parallel universe! I bought a new one back in the day and it was HORRIBLE. It was quite a pretty rifle but not in the same category of the Airsporter but it was dreadful to shoot AND the loading tap was dreadful too. Being honest I hated it and was really relieved to buy something decent-a Weihrauch HW35.
    I appreciate that it is of interest to collectors but to shoot it needs real dedication. At my club which has a vibrant vintage section, I have shot fettled Mk 3's but in standard guise I thought they were rubbish.
    'It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others'.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Pulborough
    Posts
    997
    As I understand it, there were some 80,000 Mk3s produced, so it has some considerable grounding and was magnificently presented. Webley would have been well advised to have produced a Mk4, based on the quirky Mk3 design, with an improved trigger, better accuracy and sights but missed an opportunity. Still, those in top condition can fetch £400 - which attests to their popularity amongst collectors. I think few other rifles of that age would establish such a price, excepting Mk1 and 2 Airsporters in top condition.

    Rapidneck has thrown a rock into our pool! I can safely say, however, that the loading taps are perfectly engineered and more so than the Airsporters I have seen. With some, I have heard that the cocking lever can be left at right angles if the loading tap is raised, as the air is held. I am not concerned that the tap is on the other side as I am a left-hander. Yes, the HW35 was the beginning of the end for the British airgun industry, which failed to innovate and reinvest in research and development (R&D) - rather as with our motorcars - and we lost our lead to the Germans. After that, the superb FWB Sport and Original 45 mopped up - at least until we invented the pre-charge rifles and then AirArms threw another spoke into the German wheels - which goes to show that we are still the best and can still invent, albeit we are Heath-Robinson sometimes and do not always understand the importance of R&D.

    Incidentally, given their age, surely most Mk3s are now fettled - unless they have not been fired or hardly so, quite rare methinks. Many must have had the contents of many dozens of tins down the barrel. We should also not forget that they are of the old British .22 measurements, so some care must be taken over pellet choice.

    I have read, here, that the Mk3 was a copy of the Diana but, to be fair, was not the Diana a copy of the Lincoln Jefferies' design?!!

    Rgds to all
    A

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Bromsgrove
    Posts
    870
    Quote Originally Posted by Geezer View Post
    Rowlocks, I fear I am becoming a proper collector.

    Back up a bit. My formative airgun years as a kid were around 1978-83. Back then, it was obvious to me that the only really good air rifles were full power German break barrels. Maybe a look-in for the Airsporter S, Vulcan, and Tracker. But, really, if you could afford an 80, 45, 124/127 and not have one there was something wrong with you. If you'd offered me a Mk1 Airsporter or a Webley Mk3 - or even a Service - free, I'd probably have turned you down, or more sensibly taken it and traded it on something "better" and more modern.

    Fast forward more years than I care to think, and I have just taken delivery of two Series 3 Mk3s. One standard, one with PH16M rear sight.

    Initial non-shooting impressions:

    - build and finish quality are absolutely awesome;
    - period charm matches and may exceed that of my Mk1 Airsporter (though not its elegance);
    - butt is too thin (not just a period thing, compared to eg a contemporary Diana 35) and far too short (though I am 6'2" and lanky).

    So, in short, having taken the plunge, I can see what a lot of you guys like. Just hope the pair shoot well.

    Question: does anyone know (Chris Thrale's book doesn't say) why they put the loading tap lever on the wrong side?
    Ok ...reg the loading tap Webley did think they had put it on the right side. Well... tried both the Airsporter and Mk3 for many years and i dont agree.
    The argument for Webleys favour at that time might revolve around the pellet being held in the right hand while you crank the lever with the left but i feel it more important to maintain the grip of the pistol grip in my right hand throught the entire loading and firing process.
    ....unless your a lefty of course.

    Build of the MK3 and beautiful smoothness of the one piece steel lever shaved the function of the Airsporters but thats where the comparison ends.
    Sadly Webley got the transfer port size wrong, opting to drill and broach through the tap and into the bore at the same diameter.
    Two things wrong here ....first the pellet could fall from the tap and into the transfer port....and sometimes the cylinder when Rook shooting up into trees and second it robs a full ftlb of power compared to the of any of the Airsporters marks.
    The shot cycle is also made worse.
    There is an answer but its highly technical in difficulty.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Pulborough
    Posts
    997
    Interesting - even for someone not mechanically minded like me. That said, I had a Mk3 as a young teenager, often took high shots and never had a problem with the pellet falling back. My Mk3 is doing 11.8ft/lbs with BSA Elites (tested by Protek), so is probably well run in and perhaps exceptional too. These rifles were designed to do about 10.5ft/lbs or some 550fps, depending upon the pellet. That is what my friend's achieves.

    I had an Airsporter a couple of years after my first Mk3 and it was erratic in behaviour. It was no more powerful than the Mk3 and I have read articles where some Airsporters were less powerful. I think we can argue the toss on this.

    This is a fascinating discussion.

    Rgds
    A

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Bruton
    Posts
    6,591
    I would rather this didn't turn into an Airsporter v Mk3 thread. Airgunners have been having that debate since 1948. Could we all agree that they are both rather lovely and special, and equally important parts of the history of British airguns?

    I still can't believe (see John M's piece in a recent AGW) how much skilled handwork must have been involved in making the Mk3. I wonder if Webley actually recouped their production costs at sale.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Bromsgrove
    Posts
    870
    Quote Originally Posted by andrewM View Post
    Interesting - even for someone not mechanically minded like me. That said, I had a Mk3 as a young teenager, often took high shots and never had a problem with the pellet falling back. My Mk3 is doing 11.8ft/lbs with BSA Elites (tested by Protek), so is probably well run in and perhaps exceptional too. These rifles were designed to do about 10.5ft/lbs or some 550fps, depending upon the pellet. That is what my friend's achieves.

    I had an Airsporter a couple of years after my first Mk3 and it was erratic in behaviour. It was no more powerful than the Mk3 and I have read articles where some Airsporters were less powerful. I think we can argue the toss on this.

    This is a fascinating discussion.

    Rgds
    A
    It was usually the .177 that suffered more the problem with pellets into the transfer port when elevated but it did occasionally happen in .22
    There is no debate regarding the Airsporter being more powerful. You must have had a rough one.
    Airsporters could very easily exceed the legal limit if messed with too much and stock could run 11ftlbs plus.
    The Mk3 was 10.1ftlb gun.....occasionally a tad more .....smaller cylinder......transfer port too big.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Bruton
    Posts
    6,591
    Quote Originally Posted by clarky View Post
    It was usually the .177 that suffered more the problem with pellets into the transfer port when elevated but it did occasionally happen in .22
    There is no debate regarding the Airsporter being more powerful. You must have had a rough one.
    Airsporters could very easily exceed the legal limit if messed with too much and stock could run 11ftlbs plus.
    The Mk3 was 10.1ftlb gun.....occasionally a tad more .....smaller cylinder......transfer port too big.
    It's ironic isn't it that something so well made could be so indifferently designed.

    Bit like 1950s Diana 35s. Lovely to look at, but flawed internally. Unless you are cool with 10 ft/lbs. which I am, these days. Ditto leaky breech HW35s.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    3,161
    Reminds me to get through the pile of projects and finish this one
    Made a M6 screw in transfer port to sleeve it down . Can't remember size now but around 3mm.
    Simple enough exercise with my basic tools and skill set but wasn't impressed with results. However I've more experience with shot "feel" now so must get back on it. Aware of the design criteria for bell mouth opening/turbulence etc but come on it's "just a bit of fun".

    From memory the Mkll Service TP is 45mm X 4.5mm so shouldn't work at all maybe. Got some nice copper tube here. That may be interesting.
    Oh hell another distraction.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    sheffield
    Posts
    6,693

    Thumbs up

    I love the mk3, My mate Les (Kamag on here) has the most gawjuss mk3 i've ever seen, The stock was reworked by Don Robinson and is a beauty!!

    Pic 1

    Pic 2

    Pic 3

    Pic 4

    Pic 5


    THESE are mine..

    Geezer- Have you tested your tap/seal system by cocking the rifle then opening the tap, Squeeze the trigger whilst holding the lever back, Let the pressure off the lever and if all's well the piston will be held back by the compression



    John
    for my gunz guitarz and bonzai, see here
    www.flickr.com/photos/8163995@N07/

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Pulborough
    Posts
    997
    Magnificent collection you have, there, Johnbaz; thank you for sharing that. How do you find they compare in terms of operation, trigger, accuracy and power? Is there much variance?

    Yes, I agree Geezer that this should not turn into an Airsporter v Mk3 debate as both were superlative British rifles, albeit somewhat long in the tooth by the time the '70s were upon us, and could not compete with the German manufactures towards the end of the decade.

    Deejayuu, I did not follow your line of thought but it sounds as if you are modifying the transfer port. Do let us know how that develops. Given I have two Mk3s, I would be happy to submit one for experimentation.

    I missed JM's article in AGW, despite searching for the journal in WHS; I think they had all sold out by then.

    Rgds
    A
    Last edited by andrewM; 17-02-2017 at 12:16 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •