What rifles replaced the Webley Mark III in the 70’s?

[45flint]

Interesting thoughts which are pretty well spot on, I fear. However, our inventiveness also led to the pcp and that was considered, at the time in the late '80s, a real threat to the Germans. As you say, thank Heavens for Air Arms but it is regrettable that we cannot produce the quality barrels the Germans have specialised in manufacturing. If Webley had improved their trigger, their iron sight with a horizontal screw, produced a longer cocking lever and improved power output, along with a proper telescopic ramp and somewhat better accuracy, they could perhaps have kept the Mk3 in production, even at a premium price.

Pretty long list of improvements to a rifle they were already loosing money on. When tested my W H B Smith in the 50’s the Mark 3 was the most accurate rifle in the world along with Walther? Had things gone downhill by the 1970s? Actually if all the improvements were made not sure I wouldn’t still go for the original, love the open sights and a telescopic sight is just not right. Lol

[slug-gun]

I am curious to know why Roman numerals, when it is printed in the handbook and stamped on the rifle "Mk3".

Mark.

Both Mark 3 and Mark 111 are correct !

The rifles have the '3' whereas much of the advertising literature called the rifle the Mark 111. However the handbook that comes with later Mark 3's refers to it as that. No rhyme or reason to it really?

[Muskett]

Barrel making machines cost a few bob.
Theoben first used Webley barrels but were so unimpressed then bought German. How good a barrel is has as much to do with how old or how new the machine is. To get your money on the investment then plenty need making. No money to invest then the old one will have to do. Story of UK gunmaing.
There are companies and expertise that can make barrels in the UK. Most for the military market. I think 50 cal ones are UK made.

[andrewM]

Pretty long list of improvements to a rifle they were already loosing money on. When tested my W H B Smith in the 50’s the Mark 3 was the most accurate rifle in the world along with Walther? Had things gone downhill by the 1970s? Actually if all the improvements were made not sure I wouldn’t still go for the original, love the open sights and a telescopic sight is just not right. Lol

Yes, they would certainly have had to raise the price. I don't think the accuracy deteriorated on the Mk3 in the '70s - at least I have not heard this. 'Button' rifling was introduced, I gather, but the '70s Mk3s were accurate, albeit not as accurate as some of the new rifles that were just appearing, such as the FWB, etc. Like you, I like the open sights.

I was very interested to read your point about WHB Smith and his testing of a '50s Mk3. Do you have a link to that article or can you post it here?

Because it was absolutely still this afternoon, I took my 1973 Mk3 out for an airing. The more practice one has, the easier it becomes to master the iron sights. Excepting for one flier, I reckon my five shot group fell within 3/4 inch at 25 yds and this was without leaning on cushions. It provides considerable satisfaction to master this rifle but it also requires good eyesight!

[Hsing-ee]

Barrel making machines cost a few bob.
Theoben first used Webley barrels but were so unimpressed then bought German. How good a barrel is has as much to do with how old or how new the machine is. To get your money on the investment then plenty need making. No money to invest then the old one will have to do. Story of UK gunmaing.
There are companies and expertise that can make barrels in the UK. Most for the military market. I think 50 cal ones are UK made.

I hear what you are saying but BSA barrels have always been excellent. I am sure if I cut the one off my 1973 Meteor, turned it down and fitted it to a PCP it would cloverleaf at 50 yards.

Air Arms screwed up by asking Webley instead of BSA...

[45flint]

Yes, they would certainly have had to raise the price. I don't think the accuracy deteriorated on the Mk3 in the '70s - at least I have not heard this. 'Button' rifling was introduced, I gather, but the '70s Mk3s were accurate, albeit not as accurate as some of the new rifles that were just appearing, such as the FWB, etc. Like you, I like the open sights.

I was very interested to read your point about WHB Smith and his testing of a '50s Mk3. Do you have a link to that article or can you post it here?

Because it was absolutely still this afternoon, I took my 1973 Mk3 out for an airing. The more practice one has, the easier it becomes to master the iron sights. Excepting for one flier, I reckon my five shot group fell within 3/4 inch at 25 yds and this was without leaning on cushions. It provides considerable satisfaction to master this rifle but it also requires good eyesight!

The W H B Smith book was published in 1957 and did extensive test of virtually all airguns manufactured in that “golden era”. It is a very interesting read and done with great attention to detail in the testing. A virtual window into that era. The book can be had pretty cheaply on the auction sites got mine for $20 and is totally worth the time and effort to get a copy. They even cover the Falke guns that were short lived as well all the American pump and CO2 guns. Here is the testing write up on the Webley Mark 3. I included pics of the Chrony they used. Times have changed! Given I own a BSA Airsporter of the same era it was fascinating to read there opinion on that vs the Webley. To paraphrase, high marks on innovation but fell short of the Webley in manufacturing quality and performance. Having now shot both of these rifles from that era I would say he was very fair with his assessment.

https://imgur.com/a/Yb3RTZd

[andrewM]

The W H B Smith book was published in 1957 and did extensive test of virtually all airguns manufactured in that “golden era”. It is a very interesting read and done with great attention to detail in the testing. A virtual window into that era. The book can be had pretty cheaply on the auction sites got mine for $20 and is totally worth the time and effort to get a copy. They even cover the Falke guns that were short lived as well all the American pump and CO2 guns. Here is the testing write up on the Webley Mark 3. I included pics of the Chrony they used. Times have changed! Given I own a BSA Airsporter of the same era it was fascinating to read there opinion on that vs the Webley. To paraphrase, high marks on innovation but fell short of the Webley in manufacturing quality and performance. Having now shot both of these rifles from that era I would say he was very fair with his assessment.

https://imgur.com/a/Yb3RTZd

That was kind of you to post that, Flint, and I found it very interesting. It tells us a quite a lot about the backdrop in those days and the competition. It was also interesting that the author should compare the Mk3 with the Airsporter but, doubtless, this was inevitable. Whilst I know nothing of pellet technology, I think it would be fair to say that this has developed in the 60 years or so since that article. I was able to obtain three tins of the old .22 Eley Wasp pellets at Kempton a year or so ago. However, my Mk3 prefers Superdomes and H&N Sniper Light to the old Wasps. Perhaps the skirt of the pellet expands to fit the barrel, as these pellets are the metric 5.5mm.
I wonder what pellets you have tried in your Mk3 and whether you have discovered a similar preference for 5.5mm.
I think it was Lakey, here, who informed me that the Mk3 progressed to 'button' rifling in the late '60s or early '70s. Previously, I think he mentioned that each barrel was hand finished and the rifling would take 90 minutes or so. I wonder if the 'button' rifling made much difference to the accuracy. On the other hand, whilst I had 1in groups in my mind for 25yds, I now think it is feasible to improve on these.
It is a pity the author did not test both rifles, above, alongside the older pre-War BSA Standard. I think this would have had the edge over both the Mk3 and Airsporter. I wonder how the Webley Mk2 Service Rifle would have performed as well.

[45flint]

That was kind of you to post that, Flint, and I found it very interesting. It tells us a quite a lot about the backdrop in those days and the competition. It was also interesting that the author should compare the Mk3 with the Airsporter but, doubtless, this was inevitable. Whilst I know nothing of pellet technology, I think it would be fair to say that this has developed in the 60 years or so since that article. I was able to obtain three tins of the old .22 Eley Wasp pellets at Kempton a year or so ago. However, my Mk3 prefers Superdomes and H&N Sniper Light to the old Wasps. Perhaps the skirt of the pellet expands to fit the barrel, as these pellets are the metric 5.5mm.
I wonder what pellets you have tried in your Mk3 and whether you have discovered a similar preference for 5.5mm.
I think it was Lakey, here, who informed me that the Mk3 progressed to 'button' rifling in the late '60s or early '70s. Previously, I think he mentioned that each barrel was hand finished and the rifling would take 90 minutes or so. I wonder if the 'button' rifling made much difference to the accuracy. On the other hand, whilst I had 1in groups in my mind for 25yds, I now think it is feasible to improve on these.
It is a pity the author did not test both rifles, above, alongside the older pre-War BSA Standard. I think this would have had the edge over both the Mk3 and Airsporter. I wonder how the Webley Mk2 Service Rifle would have performed as well.

Well you got me reading more about button rifling than I needed to know? Lol He does cover the BSA Standard in his book and says they are the equal of any gun made “today”. On the BSA Airsporter he is very complementary of the gun and it’s design, calling it “the most advanced design on the market”. He does say in testing that he laments that it didn’t come up to the very high standard of the original BSA Standard or the Webley Mark 3. Again I am paraphrasing, the book is a great read, so worth it.

I only use SuperDomes in my old vintage 22’s.

[andrewM]

Well you got me reading more about button rifling than I needed to know? Lol He does cover the BSA Standard in his book and says they are the equal of any gun made “today”. On the BSA Airsporter he is very complementary of the gun and it’s design, calling it “the most advanced design on the market”. He does say in testing that he laments that it didn’t come up to the very high standard of the original BSA Standard or the Webley Mark 3. Again I am paraphrasing, the book is a great read, so worth it.

I only use SuperDomes in my old vintage 22’s.

Ah, that is interesting and confirms my thoughts about the BSA Standard; it took a long time to exceed its abilities and one must reflect that it was really a pre-WW1 design.

Ah, so you also use S.domes; that also confirms my thoughts about their abilities in older rifles. See what you think of H&N Sniper Light, if you have the chance.

Did you learn anything of interest about 'button rifling'?

[45flint]

Did you learn anything of interest about 'button rifling'?

Varying opinions, many match guns made with it. Bottom line it was cheaper not necessarily better. Glad my Webley is 1950s just because I like my guns old school. Most say in shooting you will never notice a difference. With my eyes that’s a certainty!

[Geezer]

I have at least two editions of Smith. He should be required reading for older airgun enthusiasts. But don’t rely on his views 100%. He was just a man trying his best at writing a book in an empty field and doing well. Same goes for Wesley. You should read the books, but take some elements with a pinch of hindsight.

For the Webley MkIII, button rifling was introduced in 1969.

As I’ve posted on here before, BTDT’s SAR magazine tested an older .177” MkIII Supertarget in around 1984, and got 22 yard groups as low as 0.30” with Wasps and three other pellets all under 0.5”. On or very near a par with then modern rifles like the FWB Sport. As the Supertarget was introduced in ‘63, the test rifle could have had either type of rifling. My gut feeling is that it doesn’t matter and they had come across a particularly good example of the ST.

[45flint]

I have at least two editions of Smith. He should be required reading for older airgun enthusiasts. But don’t rely on his views 100%. He was just a man trying his best at writing a book in an empty field and doing well. Same goes for Wesley. You should read the books, but take some elements with a pinch of hindsight.

For the Webley MkIII, button rifling was introduced in 1969.

As I’ve posted on here before, BTDT’s SAR magazine tested an older .177” MkIII Supertarget in around 1984, and got 22 yard groups as low as 0.30” with Wasps and three other pellets all under 0.5”. On or very near a par with then modern rifles like the FWB Sport. As the Supertarget was introduced in ‘63, the test rifle could have had either type of rifling. My gut feeling is that it doesn’t matter and they had come across a particularly good example of the ST.

I agree but much rings true with Smith accessments. What you can’t quantify is the joy in shooting the Mark 3. Love the slender walnut stock, just a gem. Similar joy with the BSA Standard just something about it. Wish my Airsporter was the original and not the Mark 2 with the folding sight, just not quite as nice a sight picture? But my old eyes need all the help they can get.

[keith66]

Years ago i picked up a .22 Webley osprey secondhand for £30, it had very low power. I fitted a new spring & pair of PTFE Bronze piston rings to it, think they were from Gerald Cardew. Much improved the power to about 10.5 ft lds, First time out with open sights came back with three bunnies. That rifle was a real tack driver & to this day i regret selling it one day when i was skint.

[andrewM]

This is a fascinating discussion. BTDT's tests also suggest that the Mk3 (albeit a Supertarget in this case) is actually more accurate than has been suggested elsewhere; he presumably used a clamp of some description. Accumulated wisdom says that 1in groups are the norm at 25yds but I think these are more the product of iron sights, a stiff trigger and the tricky handling of this light weight rifle, including the recoil. I am now finding, having got the gist of mine, that 3/4 inch groups are feasible and it might be possible to improve on these.
Another problem is that, as teenagers when these were being sold, we did not understand how to lubricate these rifles and, to be honest, I am still not entirely certain - with knock-on effects for the trajectory.
Once mastered with open sights, it seems far too easy to use a modern springer with a telescope mounted, leave alone a pcp!
Probably, the button rifling introduced consistency. I understand the hand-made rifling took 90 minutes to complete so, possibly, there was a degree of variance - some slightly better and some slightly worse.
I don't have any experience with the old Mk1 and Mk2 Airsporters but I gather some collectors prefer the Mk2s.

[45flint]

This is a fascinating discussion. BTDT's tests also suggest that the Mk3 (albeit a Supertarget in this case) is actually more accurate than has been suggested elsewhere; he presumably used a clamp of some description. Accumulated wisdom says that 1in groups are the norm at 25yds but I think these are more the product of iron sights, a stiff trigger and the tricky handling of this light weight rifle, including the recoil. I am now finding, having got the gist of mine, that 3/4 inch groups are feasible and it might be possible to improve on these.
Another problem is that, as teenagers when these were being sold, we did not understand how to lubricate these rifles and, to be honest, I am still not entirely certain - with knock-on effects for the trajectory.
Once mastered with open sights, it seems far too easy to use a modern springer with a telescope mounted, leave alone a pcp!
Probably, the button rifling introduced consistency. I understand the hand-made rifling took 90 minutes to complete so, possibly, there was a degree of variance - some slightly better and some slightly worse.
I don't have any experience with the old Mk1 and Mk2 Airsporters but I gather some collectors prefer the Mk2s.

Personally I like the sound of 90 minutes for rifling but “handmade”? Lol. Collectors can like the MK2 Airsporter because it has one of your desired upgrades, scope rails.

Secured this very rare photo of the Webley Rifling Room before the button technology.