Interesting piece, it’s possible it was protyped to take various grip styles and angles for testing?
Serial number would be right period and if you only wanted to trial different grips and angles it would be an unstamped lashup?
Some great points made, some that I have mused over myself before posting. The question regarding the bolts lead me to look up the history of hex drive (Allen) bolts, as although I knew that they have been around a long time I didn't know just how long. Well surprisingly, William Allen patented in 1910 the process for cold forming a hex head on a screw with manufacturing starting soon after. I would need to cut down (not enough clearance) some imperial Allen keys to check that they are indeed pre-metric! On the point that they would never have commercially produced a grip design with two bolts at the rear and a pin at the front, we will never know. It could have just been made to give an overall impression of what a slant-gripped pistol could look like. With the grips on, the join at the rear of the frame is virtually invisible, and the keyed-in front trigger guard is a very close tolerance fit. As a showpiece, this is all that would have mattered. A new single piece lower trigger/grip frame is also a stronger design than just trying to add a slant grip frame to an existing full trigger guard of a Mk1. Why an aluminium grip rather than a wood grip could they have been thinking of going down the route of cast aluminium for production?. I keep thinking of the four coincidences that took place on this pistol if it was a home engineered project. The late serial number, no other markings (and no evidence of any having been removed), a skilfully machined and fitted part, and a uniform patination across the two parts suggesting steel of the same age and stock. I would love to know for sure one way or the other but this may well never happen!
Interesting piece, it’s possible it was protyped to take various grip styles and angles for testing?
Serial number would be right period and if you only wanted to trial different grips and angles it would be an unstamped lashup?
A man can always use more alcohol, tobacco and firearms.
It may well have been an early experimental pattern for the slant grip, and the lack of stampings on the body suggest it could have been removed from the bin before stamping, but as there is no one around who worked at the factory at the time, we will probably never know it's true origin.
I wonder if the clue is in the serial No. Porshe Technician maybe?
Sorry I missed you and the opportunity of handling this pistol at Kempton last week. I know you showed it to some of my Bisley club mates.
I'm still not convinced this is a factory prototype but it is interesting to see several noted Webley experts have not completely discounted the possibility of this being a genuine factory modification.
It is very hard to be certain without provenance.
Kind regards,
John M
If the pistol had been earmarked by Webley's for "chopping about", why would they go to the trouble of putting patent markings on it, surely the frame and bits would have gone straight up to the design shop in a fairly unfinished format. That might also explain why the safety catch block is missing ( or it was removed as being surplus to requirements ( or maybe by this time in the designing process, webley had already made the decision to lose the safety catch?) The thing that bothers me, is why the barrel catch has been redesigned in such a crude way. If Webley was testing the feasibility of a new grip shape, they would have just used a standard barrel catch wouldn't they, since there would have been thousands on hand at the factory ?
Either way, an unusual pistol to have in your collection.
I would agree that the barrel catch was not produced by Webley, as it is not as well made - and why do it when they could have reached into a parts bin and pull one out? Likely explanation is that this was a home-engineered part made by an owner at some point in the 80 years that have passed. The missing safety catch could have just been removed by an owner, or indeed deliberately ommitted as part of the trial design work IF it was a prototype......
Something else came to mind. Those safety catches are difficult enough to use with a straight grip, with the grips being well clear of the catch. With those grips coming close to to the catch it would have been very difficult to use.
I still think if it was a factory prototype that it would have had wooden grips. They might have painted them silver but why make those alloy grips?
Cooler than Mace Windu with a FRO, walking into Members Only and saying "Bitches, be cool"
I have been mulling this over for a while and have come to a conclusion. Webley used their own special thread screws on all their pistols. If the screws holding this together are a known thread type eg BSF. BA. ME etc. then it is an amateur built piece. If they conform to Webley series standards, it was built by them as there is no chance that an amateur would possess the correct taps and dies.
Webley stampings are often not that deep and I have seen them mostly obliterated by a refinishing job.
The screws are the key as I can't see Webley engineers deviating from their normal working practices, even for a prototype.
Personally, I think its amateur, but would love to be proved wrong.
Good morning all!
Many years ago, I bought a similar pistol from a shop in York. It was a Mark II Target model; the original handle had been sawn off and replaced with a wooden one, itself fitted with normal slant-type grips. It looked exactly like the one shown in the photographs, except for the flat surface at the rear (i.e. no screwed plug). I restored the poor thing to the original shape, with as much care as possible, and it now looks very much like the other two Mk II's that I own. I'll try to dig out the photographs of the before and after stages, but it has been so long, I may not be able to find them.
John
Cooler than Mace Windu with a FRO, walking into Members Only and saying "Bitches, be cool"
Agreed. But that gun was not built in the Webley factory. Webley grip screws are a very fine thread and have a slightly raised head. The grip screws shown in the photographs are standard countersunk screws with a much coarser thread than I have ever seen on any Webley.
I am now firm in the belief It is a home built (or Saturday engineering shop ) Modification by someone reasonably proficient at engineering and at the time of modification, it was polished and refinished so all the parts match. I do have a full set of Guns Review bound volumes from 1968 until it ceased publication. I remember the article mentioned earlier and will dig them out. It will be interesting to compare serial numbers.
Last edited by WebleyWombler; 15-10-2019 at 09:04 AM. Reason: spelling
The strange thing for me about even genuine prototypes is that although I find them fascinating, I'm really only interested in owning examples from production runs, especially if these were limited.
Weird ?
Brian
Nothing weird about that Brian, as IMO production models and prototypes are two separate collecting fields and have different types of appeal. Prototypes are more of an acquired taste and tend to appeal to the collector with strong interests in the development and mechanics of airguns. Production gun collectors tend to be shooters with an eye for the aesthetics of an airgun. Of course, many collectors fall into both camps (guilty as charged!).
Your comment also makes the valid point that just because you have a keen interest in a field does automatically mean that you will have the urge to collect from that field. For example, I am very interested in both rifles and pistols but have no desire to collect rifles, apart from keeping a handful of representative classics.
Cheers
John
Having looked closely at the photographs, all I will say is that if, when I was training for metalwork and Oxy Acetylene welding, and I produced such a join between two pieces of metal, it would have been thrown in the bin and I would have received a bollocking and told to go and do a proper job, where the join was all but invisible, so I can't see a professional owning up to such a piece of work.
From an amateur it would probably be an acceptable piece of work, which I suspect is what it is.
It might even have been a junior apprentice piece.