Mk3 accuracy - seems to vary wildly

[andrewM]

Testing, as I have, two Webley Mk3 from the '60s, I was hard pressed to obtain 2 inch groups at 25 yds, using a selection of pellets - including old .22 (5.6mm) pellets. This was very disappointing.

Fortunately, my own two Mk3s both produce tight 3/4 inch groups at 25 yds (S.domes) - which is pleasing given that open sights are used.

I think it was Lakey, here, who advised me that 'button rifling' was introduced by Webley in the late '60s or early '70s. Given my Mk3s are late production, this tends to suggest that the later rifles benefitted from the improved barrels.

What about the earlier Mk3s? Are they accurate? Or is it a hit and miss situation, depending upon the production performance/skill on the day of manufacture?

I had been toying with the idea of adding an early Mk3 to my collection but it seems that accuracy is something of a lottery that cannot be depended upon. It seems that quality control in the factory, in this particular respect, was not at all good and this is surprising given the superb quality of the general appearance.

Despite cost cutting elsewhere, the last years of production do seem to have the benefit of good accuracy and perhaps these later products should attract a premium, if I am correct in my observations.

I am wondering what other owners have experienced.

Rgds to all Mk3 devotees!

A

[laverdabru]

That is an interesting point. I've got an early '60s Mk 3 in near mint condition, which is beautifully made & a pleasure to use. But not nearly as accurate as my early '70's one in similar condition.
I've found the same with my AirSporters of similar eras - the later one, although costcutting is evident, is far more accurate. But I think my early A/S has had a hard life.

[slug-gun]

No tap loader can ever be truly accurate due to the pellet having to 'jump' from the tap into the barrel. If you are lucky and you have a rifle where the tap and barrel line up exactly it will be better than one where it doesn't but that's about as good as it gets.
For this reason contemporary break barrels were often more accurate than underlevers. Until the advent of the sliding breech which moved things on hugely.

[Geezer]

Interesting.

I think it’s more complicated than you suggest.

A lot is down to the fitmet of the tap (better early, less good later).

Some may be ammo (5.6 nominal v 5.5).

And MkIIIs are old. Anything from 43-72 years: a lot can have happened (or not) in those years, varying from nothing at all (cue old solidifying grease) to various levels of use/abuse or poor servicing.

[andrewM]

Hmmm - some equally interesting replies.

Not least, laverdabru has reached the same conclusion. I think I am on to something here; the rifling changed and, with it, the accuracy improved. I wonder if anyone else has noticed this.

Can it be said for certain that the tap alignment deteriorated? I am not sure it did. One of the members here was involved in the factory and explained the method of aligning the tap which, due to its complexity rather passed me by but I don't think the method changed.

On the general point of tap loaders, my BSA Standards perform well - far better than the '60s Mk3s - and one is 97 years old.

[Farsight]

Have you checked for leaks ? Not only at the tap but the screws that attach the stock bracket to the receiver. Also check the leather piston washer for fit and condition . It's fixing screw which can also back out and become damaged.

Apologies if you've done all this already

Atb Mark

[slug-gun]

You're not getting the point here I think. It doesn't matter how brilliantly the tap was fitted etc, the design is inherently poor in terms of achieving really good accuracy. In their advertising Webley claimed that the MK.3 in .177 would group into 1.25" at 40 yards.

This level of accuracy is poor, and actually worse than could be achieved by a good shot. Ergo the shooter can never attain or achieve his/her true level of ability because the gun is not 'good' enough to allow him to do it!

A modern rifle, ie a pre charged or top quality (tuned) springer can shoot into 1/4" at 40 yards, (5 shots) when handled by aforementioned good shot. You could use a tap loader for ever and not get anywhere near this.

In 1988 Theoben improved the potential of the underlever greatly with the advent of the superb SLR88. Though this was a breech loader type design, it refined this system by adopting a loading probe which seated the pellet SQUARELY into the breech, and the same distance into the barrel also, both huge benefits in terms of good accuracy.

Further the probe was hollow and therefore the blast of air was centred into the back of the pellet for maximum efficiency. Coupled with a superb Anschutz barrel this was one accurate gun, probably the most accurate recoiling piston rifle ever made.

Even with pre charged rifles, they are more accurate when using a single shot loader, as like the SLR88, the pellet is entered square into the breech, to the same distance. Using the mag will reduce ultimate accuracy, especially if the mag is spring loaded as the spring can cause the pellet to be slightly twisted as it enters the breech/barrel initially at a slight angle.

Don't get me wrong I love Mk.3's and have owned dozens of them. They will last for ever, and are fun to shoot but can never be truly accurate.

[andrewM]

Thanks Slug-gun.

Was this Webley advertising from the '70s, I wonder, or prior to that? Certainly, there seems to have been an improvement in accuracy in the '70s and I would attribute this to the improvement in the rifling in the barrels.

I accept all that you say about the weaknesses of tap-loaders but my point and theory is that the earlier Webleys were even poorer in accuracy, due to poorer/inconsistent barrels at the time.

One might note that open sights do add to the complication in that they are less accurate than modern scopes.

Mark, yes, I checked all these points; the rifle was a friend's and I cleaned out and re-lubricated the piston, spring and leather washer.

[slug-gun]

Have a look at Page 61 of "Webley Air Rifles.." - 1956 catalogue pictured therein gives the group size I mentioned. In .22 it is even worse @ 1.75" at 40 yards!

Webley repeated these figures in a 1970's literature also.

It is more likely that Webley barrels were BETTER in the 1950's, given that the Mark 3 was 'cheapened' over the course of its manufacture in order to save manufacturing costs, and that 'cheapening' may well have applied to the barrel as well?

Personally I think a Mk.3 of whatever vintage made to the correct spec will shoot as well (or badly) as any other. There is absolutely no evidence, other than anecdotal, to demonstrate that Webley barrels were inferior at an earlier age.

[bill57]

Webley claimed that the MK.3 in .177 would group into 1.25" at 40 yards.

I'm sure they would be achieving this with open or aperture sights, scopes on air rifles were uncommon back then, and the scope rail on a Mk.3 is dubious at best. Also consider the pellets, compared to modern offerings?

I think you're unfairly maligning tap loaders. While I agree that if the tap alignment is not perfect accuracy will suffer, if the alignment is perfect then I don't see why they should be less accurate. It's a simple matter to capture and inspect fired pellets, and an examination of the rifling imprint will show whether they are clipping or not.

Apart from hunting, I shoot tap loaders almost exclusively these days, and I get better results with them than any other guns. I also suspect that shooting a 1/4" group at forty yards with a springer takes a bit more than just a "good shot".

[Geezer]

The groups in the 1956 ad were shot back then, with contemporary (usually not great) pellets, and back when shooters had no idea what a springer/“artillery” hold was, and held their air rifles just as tightly as they did their 12 bores, or their .303” during National Service.

I’m not saying the MkIII is a tack-driver. It isn’t. For all its build quality and finish it’s a mediocre design with (excepting the fragile early “double pull” trigger) a poor trigger pull and at most average sights. But a decent one with good ammo definitely makes a head shot on pests at sensible farmyard open sight ranges.

For what it’s worth, BTDT’s 1984 tests for SAR of a MkIII Supertarget in .177” recorded smallest groups of 0.3” at 22 yards with Eley Wasp, which was tighter than his results with a Mercury (0.71” best), Anschutz 335 (0.32”), and only slightly bigger than the FWB124 or Mastersport 124 (both 0.29”).

[andrewM]

Well, there is something to this discussion and I am not the only one here who has detected poor accuracy in the 1960s models but far better accuracy in the '70s models. By then the barrels had certainly changed, as a look down the rifling confirms. In the absence of other information, I can only attribute this to the progression to 'button rifling'.

Perhaps the same applied to BSAs even although, like the Mk3, production costs were reduced for the Airsporters after the Mk1 and Mk2.

Perhaps rather greater care was given to the Mk3 production in the earlier days - ie late '40s-50s. However, all the rifling was hand-cut in those days, until the last few years of production. Possibly some hand-cut production (which used a hand-pulled cutting device of some nature) was sensitive to error, although I am not familiar with the process.

We need a greater degree of input from other Mk3 owners in terms of their rifles' capabilities. What sort of groups can they obtain at, say, 25yds? Do they, like Laverdabru above, have later models by which to compare and contrast, which would be helpful?

The BTDT figures are noteworthy for one would never have expected such a performance from the Mk3. It would be interesting to know if the rifle tested was from the last years of production. I gather the target rifles' barrels were, in any event, superior but perhaps only in weight.

I am pleased with the grouping I can achieve; the biggest obstacles to overcome are the open sights (not as good as those of the old BSA Standard), the trigger and the recoil for this light rifle. If these things can be mastered - which is easily possible - it is most satisfying.

[laverdabru]

Just a couple of thoughts that occured to me whilst reading some of the comments...

1) Obviously, an early Mk3 will have had many years more wear & tear, even if it looks mint.

2) On an airgun site, there was an article from a 'boys' magazine (Meccano?) of the 50's or early '60's. This mentioned the final stages of barrel manufacture at the Webley factory - which was done by eye inspection, looking down the bore, & physical straightening of the barrel. After this, the final inspection was again done by eye. Possibly this went out when button rifling was introduced, hence the later ones being a bit more consistent/accurate?

As I said. just some thoughts on the matter. My early '60.s Mk3 would be the last rifle I would sell, if I had to. Closely followed by my '70's A/Sporter.

[Steve Zodiac]

If wager its the shooter more often than not that's not very accurate at anything + 25 yards with a MK 3 .

[Geezer]

On an airgun site, there was an article from a 'boys' magazine (Meccano?) of the 50's or early '60's. This mentioned the final stages of barrel manufacture at the Webley factory - which was done by eye inspection, looking down the bore, & physical straightening of the barrel. After this, the final inspection was again done by eye. Possibly this went out when button rifling was introduced, hence the later ones being a bit more consistent/accurate?.

Or perhaps the reverse?