Webley Mk1 Slant Grip Prototype?

[Diabolical]

Good afternoon, I am interested to see if anyone can shed possible light on this recent acquisition. It is a Webley Mk1 pistol with no markings other than a serial number of 47911 in the usual position and 911 on the front lug. The grip frame has been machined across and a new frame with slant grip angle has been bolted up to it with perfectly matching contours (machined at same time as the rest?). The patina of the modified frame also matches perfectly the rest of the pistol so I assume was contemporaneous. The grips have been machined from aluminium flat with great care and attention to rounding off and matching both sides.
Here is a link to a set of photos

https://www.flickr.com/gp/164729373@N04/LXN5Mn

Any thoughts greatly appreciated!

[JB101]

just re did the link for you


https://www.flickr.com/gp/164729373@N04/LXN5Mn

[Josie & John]

Good afternoon, I am interested to see if anyone can shed possible light on this recent acquisition. It is a Webley Mk1 pistol with no markings other than a serial number of 47911 in the usual position and 911 on the front lug. The grip frame has been machined across and a new frame with slant grip angle has been bolted up to it with perfectly matching contours (machined at same time as the rest?). The patina of the modified frame also matches perfectly the rest of the pistol so I assume was contemporaneous. The grips have been machined from aluminium flat with great care and attention to rounding off and matching both sides.
Here is a link to a set of photos

https://www.flickr.com/gp/164729373@N04/LXN5Mn

Any thoughts greatly appreciated!

This kind of modification has been seen before and I recall the late Dr Joe Gilbart featuring a well made conversion from straight to slant grip in Guns Review during the 1970s/80s. Although well made, it looks a little crude to be a factory prototype but an interesting item, all the same.

Kind regards,

John

[Geezer]

The serial number is intruiging. Straight grips go up to about 50000. So 47911 could be around the time they were planning the change to slant grip.

I guess we’ll never know for sure.

[Garvin]

I have to defer to John Mil's great experience on this one but I must admit that if I hadn't seen his post I would have felt that the quality of the workmanship and the high serial number together would have meant it was probably a factory prototype.

A skilled engineer with time on his hands may have wanted to upgrade hs 'old-style' straight grip to a swanky modern slant grip, I suppose.

[Josie & John]

A skilled engineer with time on his hands may have wanted to upgrade hs 'old-style' straight grip to a swanky modern slant grip, I suppose.

That's just what Dr Gilbart said about the conversion he handled. The top catch on this one looks to have been modified/replaced too.

My thoughts are just my opinion on the subject and not necessarily correct but I'd like to see some solid provenance before accepting this as a factory prototype at anything more than face value.

John

[ccdjg]

At first sight I was also inclined to think that this was a modification made by a skilled amateur, who perhaps owned an old straight grip pistol and wanted to bring it up to date soon after Webley introduced their new slant grip design. However, it then struck me that the grip is removable via the two securing bolts (unless I am misreading the pictures). Surely an amateur would have no reason to do this, when brazing would be a much simpler and more effective way of securing the grip to the cylinder? On the other hand, if Webley were contemplating changing the rake of their straight grip pistol it would make a lot of sense to adapt a straight grip pistol in this way so that a variety of grip designs could be tested without having to go to the expense of forging a complete cylinder-grip unit each time.
Another point to consider is that changing the rake of the grip frame of a straight grip pistol could have been achieved in various ways without having to discard the old trigger guard. In this case the new grip frame has an included new trigger guard, which would be an unnecessary and major engineering hurdle for an amateur but not for Webley.

So on balance I think this has a good chance of being a genuine Webley prototype, and could be of historical significance.

[Vic Thompson]

I realise that I'm going against expert opinion, but I'm with Josie and John on this one. IMHO, the images provided suggest a level of "Workmanship" that Webleys (most moderately skilled) "Toolmaking Team of the times" would be embarassed to present for open view.

JMHO,

Vic Thompson.

[Geezer]

I realise that I'm going against expert opinion, but I'm with Josie and John on this one. IMHO, the images provided suggest a level of "Workmanship" that Webleys (most moderately skilled) "Toolmaking Team of the times" would be embarassed to present for open view.

JMHO,

Vic Thompson.

I think I’m with you on that, but, as I said, it’s intruiging, and we’ll never know.

[Diabolical]

Thanks for the comments. Yes, the grips are secured each side with a screw. There are no machining marks visible on the grip frame, and the front end of the trigger guard is 'keyed' into the original frame very precisely. The rounding off of the edges of the grip frame all around match exactly that of what remains of the original frame, which as a model engineer myself would not have been an easy operation. It is a fact that there is no provenance with this pistol hence why I posted on here for any views and information. One point that has not been covered thus far though, why are there no patent markings on it? What is the likelihood of a Mk1 with that serial number having etched markings on it that have long worn off...

[DCL_dave]

Can't quite see, does it have deep socket cap head screws holding the grip frame to the cylinder?...if so, aren't they possibly a bit too modern? ...or could just be more recent replacements so no real clue there I guess?

[ggggr]

My own views on this are that is is a home brewed "special" or maybe something that an apprentice had a go at?
Ignore the cap head screws, they are probably what someone has fitted later on for ease of getting to the head of the screws. Also, why would you fit 2 screws side by side, when one should do the job? A recessed hole at the back of the frame would have been a simpler fix ( A hole in the bottom of the grip frame like a lot of guns would have had to be at an angle).
An integral trigger guard------is something Webley might have looked into but as it wouldn't result in any less machining is not something I think they would have ever looked at seriously.
For a very talented amateur modifying the pistol later, more of a slant gripped frame could have been used and the later trigger guard retained, so it looks like he wanted the "all in one" approach.
I thought about the frame being brazed or silver soldered but you could not do this as you cannot remove the trigger without removing the trigger guard-----and the trigger guard is integral with the grip so the grip HAS to be able to be removed.
Reguarding the grips themselves, somebody handy with a a saw and file could knock a set up out of aluminium if they really wanted (remember those sold cast brass thingsthat surface now and again?)---------but why would Webley go to the trouble when wood ones would have been quicker to test a gun?
The other thing that strikes me about the grips is that the original rear trigger guard hole is being used for the locating peg on the grips. This would not be a great position with the turning forces involved in cocking a Webley pistol. Often, the RHS wooden replacement grips available for Hurricane/Tempest will move forward slightly on cocking the pistol as there is no locating peg at the base of the grips.

So--for me this is a home brewed one. I suppose the thing that swings it for me really is that if Webley were testing a slant grip, they would have used the existing trigger guard instead on making it integral with the grip. Webley would not have gone into production with a grip you could unscrew, and as I have pointed out, you cannot remove the trigger without removing the trigger guard.

[smallholder1]

I have a mk1 slant grip with a modified barrel catch works perfectly

[ccdjg]

My own views on this are that is is a home brewed "special" or maybe something that an apprentice had a go at?
Ignore the cap head screws, they are probably what someone has fitted later on for ease of getting to the head of the screws. Also, why would you fit 2 screws side by side, when one should do the job? A recessed hole at the back of the frame would have been a simpler fix ( A hole in the bottom of the grip frame like a lot of guns would have had to be at an angle).
An integral trigger guard------is something Webley might have looked into but as it wouldn't result in any less machining is not something I think they would have ever looked at seriously.
For a very talented amateur modifying the pistol later, more of a slant gripped frame could have been used and the later trigger guard retained, so it looks like he wanted the "all in one" approach.
I thought about the frame being brazed or silver soldered but you could not do this as you cannot remove the trigger without removing the trigger guard-----and the trigger guard is integral with the grip so the grip HAS to be able to be removed.
Reguarding the grips themselves, somebody handy with a a saw and file could knock a set up out of aluminium if they really wanted (remember those sold cast brass thingsthat surface now and again?)---------but why would Webley go to the trouble when wood ones would have been quicker to test a gun?
The other thing that strikes me about the grips is that the original rear trigger guard hole is being used for the locating peg on the grips. This would not be a great position with the turning forces involved in cocking a Webley pistol. Often, the RHS wooden replacement grips available for Hurricane/Tempest will move forward slightly on cocking the pistol as there is no locating peg at the base of the grips.


So--for me this is a home brewed one. I suppose the thing that swings it for me really is that if Webley were testing a slant grip, they would have used the existing trigger guard instead on making it integral with the grip. Webley would not have gone into production with a grip you could unscrew, and as I have pointed out, you cannot remove the trigger without removing the trigger guard.

All very valid points, and without close personal inspection it would be very difficult to reach a firm decision one way or the other. However, there is one feature that is difficult to explain away, and that is the lack of any sign of stamped lettering on the body of the gun. To have rubbed away all traces of the impressed lettering by natural wear and tear is not really conceivable, as it is very difficult to do even with emery paper. If the lettering was deliberately removed there would either be evidence of depressions in the metal surface, or if an attempt was made to hide these depressions by rubbing down the whole surface of the pistol then the various edges of the frame would be very rounded, which they aren't. It seems to me that the gun was never stamped.

So if the gun is a modification by an amateur how did he happen to come across a Mark 1 that had somehow left the factory without any lettering? I stand to be corrected, but I don't think such a lapse of quality control by Webley has ever been reported before. I find it easier to accept that if the gun had no stamping then it never actually left the factory and so could have one that was pulled out of production for experimentation.

The fact that the pistol has a serial number corresponding closely to the end of the run of straight grip pistols is also a bit of a coincidence.

[ggggr]

All very valid points, and without close personal inspection it would be very difficult to reach a firm decision one way or the other. However, there is one feature that is difficult to explain away, and that is the lack of any sign of stamped lettering on the body of the gun. To have rubbed away all traces of the impressed lettering by natural wear and tear is not really conceivable, as it is very difficult to do even with emery paper. If the lettering was deliberately removed there would either be evidence of depressions in the metal surface, or if an attempt was made to hide these depressions by rubbing down the whole surface of the pistol then the various edges of the frame would be very rounded, which they aren't. It seems to me that the gun was never stamped.

So if the gun is a modification by an amateur how did he happen to come across a Mark 1 that had somehow left the factory without any lettering? I stand to be corrected, but I don't think such a lapse of quality control by Webley has ever been reported before. I find it easier to accept that if the gun had no stamping then it never actually left the factory and so could have one that was pulled out of production for experimentation.

The fact that the pistol has a serial number corresponding closely to the end of the run of straight grip pistols is also a bit of a coincidence.

It probably did come out of the factory by the back door---------someone asked for a body to tinker with, but i still do not think it is an official factory prototype. It may have come out of the scrap bin as it had not been stamped correctly. The previous things I mention about the solid alloy grips, the locating pin, 2 bolts to hold the frame to the body and in an awkward place------------and the fact that you would have to unbolt it to get the trigger out. If you were going to all that trouble for a prototype, wouldn't you have had a bigger trigger guard loop (llike the Premier Mk2) so the the trigger could be removed without having to unbolt the frame? Obviously, Webley would not have put something like that bolt up grip into production. If you just wanted to mock up a crude slant gripped model to try, wouldn't it have been easier to cut and weld the grip?