Webley Mk1 Slant Grip Prototype?

[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?

[RichardH]

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?

[Troubledshooter]

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.

[Jenny Dipple]

I wonder if the clue is in the serial No. Porshe Technician maybe?

[Josie & John]

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

[pnird]

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

[Troubledshooter]

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.

[ggggr]

I just found this on Danny's site today

https://forum.vintageairgunsgallery....war/#post-7569


So at least one was done by an amateur tinkerer.

[Farsight]

I just found this on Danny's site today

https://forum.vintageairgunsgallery....war/#post-7569


So at least one was done by an amateur tinkerer.

Very nicely done indeed ! I noticed that the various parts of the grip frame appear to have been attached not by welding - as the good Dr Gilbart mentioned - but by pinning or rivetting closely fitted joints. I like the grips too. I don't think the label in the box adds anything btw

Atb
Mark

[elanmac]

In the factories that I have worked in the designer would draw any changes that he required. The drawing would be sent to the prototype dept. ( probably consisting of 2 or 3 skilled fitter/ machinists). and complete article would be made. It would be most unusual to modify an existing product. The finished prototype would then do the rounds e.g. testing, costing dept.etc.so would have to look presentable. In my view the pistol shown would not be good enough.
Mac

[Troubledshooter]

Having read through this thread once more, I see someone mentioned the grips were alloy castings; I had a Hurricane factory prototype that also had alloy castings for the grips, with very similar cross hatching, and a very solid forend.

[Diabolical]

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!