The Webley Hawk Mk3 is one of the guns that is commonly slagged off. I am not saying it is a brilliant gun , but think some of the criticism is unfair OR is it?
The Hawk Mk1 had the cam release interchangable barrels, a stupid rearsight that would break if you tried to adjust it, a terrible trigger and a DANGEROUS safety.
The Hawk Mk2 had the screw in barrel and a better rearsight, but from memory, an automatic safety?
The Hawk Mk3 has a non changable barrel, the same rearsight and (I think) a manual safety.
All the safetys are made from something appoaching biscuit tin and tend to break.
The trigger housings are spot welded onto the cylinder and can break (theme here
)
The rear stock screw is a tri lobal something or other self tapping screw that goes into a hole that is punched (I think) into the bottom of the trigger housings and only catches on a few threads. The front stock screws are the same sort but have a decent amount of metal to go into.
Hawk Mk3's can be made better by fitting an O ring into the front groove of the piston, fitting a Meteor mainspring, sorting a guide, doing away with the safety and using a sear spring from a Victor.
But the thing that gets me, is that people sing the praises of the Vulcan, when it is more or less a Hawk Mk3 with a bigger diameter cylinder and a mainspring guide? So apart form being a full power gun, why do people praise the |Vulcan and slag off the Hawk Mk3?