Talk:Webley Revolver

Webleys on Titanic

It's been long documented that the firearms issued to the senior officers of the Titanic were Webleys, though I'm not sure exactly what model. I'm not sure if this should be included or not (I'm still a newbie editor) and thought I would mention it, if anyone else believes it should be. Considering the fame of the shipwreck, I wanted to throw it out there. Thanks! SLWatson 22:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This would probably be considered trivia and might be worth mentioning in the article on the Titanic. Webley revolvers were EVERYWHERE so listing where they were is certainly a Quixotic endeavor. --Asams10 22:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay! Just thought I would mention it on the offchance anyone thought it was noteworthy. Thanks for taking the time to answer! SLWatson 18:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Current Usage

Webley revolvers in both .455 and .38/200 are still used in fairly substantial numbers in India and Pakistan by police and guard units. During a recent trip to that part of the world, I saw quite a few of them, and discussed them with a local policeman. He told me that they were preferred because of their reliability.

12.96.65.14 13:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

They were a prestige weapon in Sudan until the 1980s. They are still used there because of the same factors given above.--Jackkalpakian 16:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I fired one in the early eighties in an Irish reserve unit. I believe we were the last unit in the Irish Defence Forces with it. There was no shortage of ammo and I saw no misfires. Sir smellybeard (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Webly Machine Gun?

Webley Machine gun? never heard of it. A Google search gives no result and this description is vauge enough to suggest the author might have been guessing what a Webley was.

Having read many books on WW1, and being in a WW1 re-enactemnt group, "Webley" universally refers to the Webley revolver. Introduced in 1915 the MKV1 Webley in .455 calibre was the standard sidearm for British and Commonwealth troops for the remainder of the war. Issued to Officers, Airmen, trench raiders, Machinegun and Tank crews, it proved a very reliable weapon. The Webley went on to British service in WW2, although was rechambered for the .38 calibre round.

http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg91-e.htm http://hem.bredband.net/b102212/wbymkVI.html

erroneous statement

The line "Firing the .455 Webley cartridge, the Webley service revolvers are the most powerful of the top-break revolvers ever produced." is simply incorrect. Barnes' "Cartridges of the World" lists the Smith and Wesson 44 Russian, also a top-break revolver, as being considerably more powerful.

12.96.65.14 20:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Which Edition? I don't have a copy of "Cartridges of The World" handy, but it's my understanding that .455 Webley is slightly more powerful than .45 Long Colt, which is itself more powerful than .44 Russian. Bear in mind these cartridges were all originally black powder loads, not smokeless powder.--Commander Zulu 23:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The 1977 Edition lists .44 Russian as more powerful. I agree however that variations between smokeless and black powder loads exist, which can lead to conflicting ideas as to which is the more powerful. Rather than make a blanket statement that the Webly is "the most powerful...", we'd be better to state that it is "one of the most powerful". That way, it cannot be disputed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.96.65.14 (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

move/name change

Since the guns in military service were always called Revolver No etc, I've change the name to title case. GraemeLeggett 15:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Webley Revolvers used in WWII were NOT rechambered- they were new production from Webley & Scott. Remember, the Enfield No 2 MK I revolver was just a knock-off of the .38/200 Webley Mk IV. Some places- notably New Zealand and Australia- still used the .455 Webley throughout the war, as well as the Enfield and whatever else they could get. Commander Zulu 03:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

---

"Some call the creation of Webleys by Enfield, the Webley War." Really? Who? I've never heard this term used by anyone before. RSAF Enfield manufactured Webley Mk VI revolvers from 1923-1926 under licence from Webley & Scott, before the Enfield No 2 Mk I was even a sketch on an engineer's doodle-pad.Commander Zulu 10:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Type (infobox)

Shouldn't the type rather be "revolver"... or maybe wikilink "service" to service pistol and "revolver" to revolver, like so: Service Revolver? Personally I would prefer revolver or semi-automatic pistol over service pistol (and similarly assault rifle or battle rifle instead of service rifle)? --Deon Steyn 09:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted and implemented ;-) --Commander Zulu 09:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Two infoboxes

I don't think both infoboxes are needed. Almost all other weapons use the most prominant version in the infobox and list others in the "variants" field.

Since the different versions already have their own sections, may I suggest instead that the statistics for the weapons be listed within them in a brief format where the numbers have changed from the previous model? Oberiko 15:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep the two infoboxes, since the .455 Webley revolvers and the .38/200 Webleys really are entirely different kettles of fish- they just look similar. ;-) --Commander Zulu 15:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Issues at large

I'm not content with this article. I think the major breaches of encyclopedic and fair policy have been reverted, e.g. comments about "natives" and imperialist epithets, but a great deal doesn't sit right with me. I appreciate that I am certainly no military expert—on that note, I would equally appreciate it if someone could find a good source for the comment that the firearm (or its variants) are used or sanctioned by the police forces of any country. I could only find one site that made a claim sufficiently to this effect, and while it has a bibliography, I've no means of knowing whether the claim stems from those sources or not. Thanks. Alyoshenka 10:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The Ordnance Factory Board of India still make .308" Mk IIz Revolver Cartridge ammo, with the 178gr FMJ projectile- which is only suitable for military use. They wouldn't make it if someone wasn't still using the old Webley, Enfield, or British S&W Victory revolvers in an official capacity, and there's obviously enough someones out there to make it worth their while to produce the cartridge. I've also seen news footage and photos of police officers or reservce/auxiliary units in India, Pakistan, and Africa carrying what appear to be Enfield No 2 Mk I or Webley Mk IV revolvers, so they're still out there and in use. --Commander Zulu 07:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Mess Webley

Someone added a section on "Mess Webley", albeit one that didn't make a lot of sense (LWF kindly reverted it). I've done a bit of a google search, and it appears that the idea or concept of a "Mess Webley" (providing those who have made embarrassing and social/career ruining fax pas, or are stuck in difficult and dishonourable situations, with a "way out", so to speak) does exist- but I've been unable to find any citeable references to the fact that British Army Messes actually had a Webley Revolver available for such a use, if that makes sense. The Ripping Yarns episode "Roger of the Raj" has an extensive scene whereby a number of characters make exaggerated use of the "Mess Webley" for daring to speak their minds or disagreeing with the Commanding Officer- but the series is a comedy, and I'm not sure that (in real life) the "Mess Webley" is/was anything more than a concept, rather than an actual item. I'm doing more research into the matter, and if anything comes up (or if anyone has any information themselves), I'll add it to the article once an appropriate citation can be sourced. --Commander Zulu 04:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Two minor things ...

There is a couple of pieces of information that might be interesting to add.

First, many (perhaps most) of the Webley VI revolvers imported to the US were converted to .45 ACP. We might want to make mention of it.

This one is kind of a trivia section item, but I seem to recall Dr. Watson in the Sherlock Holmes stories carried a Mark II.

Just some thoughts. Thanks. 66.191.19.217 23:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've heard that most of the .455 Webleys imported into the US were converted to .45 ACP or .45 Auto Rim, but I've been unable to come up with any hard, citeable facts to the effect- it's one of those things most collectors and shooters know, but can't actually WikiProve, if that makes sense. If someone can find a reputable gun website as a cite though, the information would probably warrant inclusion in the article. As for Dr. Watsons' revolver- I don't believe it's ever stated by Mr. Conan-Doyle as to exactly what make/model it is. I always felt it was a Beaumont-Adams Revolver (which was the service revolver during the time Watson was in Afghanistan), but it could also have been a Tranter (another popular service revolver at the time), a Webley Bulldog (or maybe an RIC), or even an Enfield Mk I/Mk II. Given that the later Holmes stories suggest Watson was still alive when WWII kicked off, it's more than likely Watson had a Webley II or IV at some point as well. Firearms historians have been arguing over Watson's pistol for years, FWIW, and I don't think anyone's ever going to come up with a definitive answer anytime soon. --Commander Zulu 14:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind reply. I will do some research regarding the .45 ACP conversions. I do know for a fact it was done, but agree that we need to have WikiProve evidence.

I know in one of the Sherlock Holmes stories (The Speckled Band), Watson had a Ely, No. 2 revolver and not a Webley. I just seem to recall there was a reference to a Webley too, but I could certainly be wrong. Thanks again. 68.116.99.184 22:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Eley was a British cartridge manufacturer, and so the reference to an Eley No. 2 revolver is more likely a reference to the cartridge, which would be either .450 Adams or .476 Enfield, IIRC. --Commander Zulu 04:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you. Here is a link that may be of some interest. [1] 68.116.99.184 16:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Guns & Ammo magazine, November 2007 has an article entitled "The Guns of Sherlock Holmes." I'll post more after studying it. 68.118.72.115 19:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• I am in the US and own a Webley Mark IV that was converted for import to .45 AutoRim that also uses the .45 ACP in "moon clips." I shoot it in Black Powder Cartridge and Vintage Military matches. The barrel is stamped "ENGLAND" which I believe was required for import purposes. I have also come across at least one Mark VI Webley still in original .455 caliber. .455 ammo is quite rare so the importers often converted .455 Webley revolvers to .45 ACP or AutoRim for sales appeal. Whether some, many or most of the Webley .455 were converted I can't say but I have found them in both.Naaman Brown (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

We still need a cite for it. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Service Lenght?

Under the cetegory "Service History" it says that the revolver was only in service from 1887 to 1947, but in the line under it is typed that it was used under the Korean War and last time I check that wasnt in 1947. Does somebody know whow long is revolver has been in service and staighten it up. --Sorry for my bad language I am from Norway-- Hauk123 16:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

They were officially in service until 1947, but there were many floating around in Commonwealth service until well after that- I see someone has edited the service periods to reflect this, however, which is a sensible idea. --Commander Zulu 08:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

in various marks,

The first paragraph: "The Webley Revolver (also known as the Webley Break-Top Revolver or Webley Self-Extracting Revolver) was, in various marks, the standard issue service pistol for the armed forces of the United Kingdom, the British Empire, and the Commonwealth from 1887 until 1963."

Is it supposed to say "in various makes,"??? Wanderer57 01:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I had the same thought when I first read that sentence, but I believe mark is used in the sense of Mark (designation), "a common way to name a product in a production line, similar in meaning to 'Type'". Think of it in terms of an M16 rifle and other weapons (the "M" meaning "mark). - auburnpilot talk 01:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I was stumped too. I added the wikilink. Learned something new today. Dincher 02:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Fiasco

Since this is a featured article today, can we protect it until it's no longer featured. It seems everybody and their brother is vandalizing it now. Can we protect the last RVV version so we know it's good? --Asams10 14:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in reading WP:NOPRO, which discusses when and if the main page featured article can/will be protected. Thus far, I think the vandalism rate has been fairly mild. - auburnpilot talk 15:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Read and disagree with the WP:NOPRO page. It's far too liberal a policy, IMNTBHO. The President of the US does not go out in public without the Secret Service and a bullet-proof vest, correct? So why put a featured article up to this much scrutiny in public and protect it? Yeah, this is the wrong place for this discussion... just my .02 cents. --Asams10 16:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

But of course, Wikipedia represents itself as the "Encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Bush doesn't exactly represent himself as "The President that anyone can shoot to kill". Then again, I tend to agree with NOPRO, so yeah, "this is the wrong place for this discussion". - auburnpilot talk 17:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe what a mess the article turned into... Some idiot (or some idiot's bot) replaced every mention of the word "Revolver" with the word "Pistol", completely destroying the article's encyclopaedic credibility! I honestly thought the articles were given automatic protection as soon as they got featured on the front page- I've had to go through and do a near complete revert to the way the article was just before it went on the front page, which has probably removed a couple of valid and worthwhile edits from the article in the process. For the record, having read WP:NOPRO, and strongly agree with Asams10. I know, I know, wrong place for this discussion etc. Still, I'm glad an article I worked so hard on was able to be featured on the front page! It's a shame I can't put it on my resume :-P --Commander Zulu 11:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the particular vandal that changed revolver to pistol was user:66.232.118.159, who requested unblock, claiming innocence, but was clearly aware of what he was doing. That was for another article though. It appears that no one caught the pistol vandalism until quite recently. Unfortunately, although I was curious about it, I didn't act on that curiousity.--LWF 13:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Why lack of ammo?

This lack of ammunition was instrumental in keeping the Enfield and Webley Pistols in use so long: they were not wearing out because they were not being used.

Article needs to state why there was a lack of ammunition. The only information about it is the above line, and a joke preceding it that doesn't state why. 72.254.12.177 23:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There's something to that effect in Stamps & Skennerton's reference text .380 Enfield No. 2 Revolver, but it's purely the personal lighthearted observation of a British military armourer- although what he says is something I've heard repeated anecdotally by guys who were in the British military at the time (the late '60s), but that's the only reputable print cite I've been able to find. --Commander Zulu 10:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of World War I / First World War

In British official histories it appears as First World War and writing "the First World War" flows better, to my ear, than "World War One". The National Curriculum uses First World War, and as this article is generally written in British English including idiom - the blanket assertion that trying to use First World War is vandalism smacks over overenthusiasm for procedure. GraemeLeggett 16:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said "trying to use First World War]] is vandalism." You might have inferred that from my reversion of these edits, however knowing what the standard Wikipedia usage is and then making edits to the contrary after you've been informed of same IS vandalism. If you'd like the standard changed, rename the "World War II" article first. If that sticks, feel free to go through and change all these articles. --Asams10 13:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No its not vandalism - it's just an edit. "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." It may be an ill-advised change but "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." I quote from wikipedia policy.GraemeLeggett 13:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's not good faith when you know there's a difference in opinion and the edit is contested. By Wikipedia rules, we're to revert the edit (back to World War II) and then discuss it until a concensus is reached. Without a concensus, it stays with the status quo. Once again, feel free to take up this discussion ON THE World War II PAGE and get it changed. This is no the proper forum for this discussion and I'm reverting it back, by WP policy, to World War II. Keep it there, fight the fight on the World War II page. --Asams10 17:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen both uses here in Australia, but I've got no strong preferences either way. If First World War is how it's written in the official UK histories etc, then I'd agree that's how it should be in the article. --Commander Zulu 00:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Every official history in the Commonwealth uses "First World War" - British, Australian, New Zealand, Canadian, South African and Indian. Asams10 keeps referring to WP policy but has not shown a link to it. I therefore think he is making a bad faith argument.139.48.25.60 18:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet, the Wikipedia articles on World War I and World War II say that, not First World War, not Second World War, not Great Patriotic War, and not The Great War, and not The War to End All Wars. Status quo stays until you get a concencus. And so the broken record skips. --Asams10 18:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're getting confused by the difference between the article name (which is World War I) and its other names which in the case of WWI are stated in the first sentence as "also known as the First World War, the Great War". The choice of "World War I" or "First World War" in a sentence becomes a stylistic choice. The ability to pipe wikilinks makes alternate names usable without use of a redirected link. GraemeLeggett 15:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

He is getting confused; well stated. He obviously hasn't read the articles he just cited, and worse, he falsely stated that he is carrying out WP policy when in fact, he is not. He is also contravening the standard practice laid out by the Military History Project. There is no contest here.Michael Dorosh^Talk 23:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and since we're citing WP as a source (which is against WP policy, by the way, when discussing on talk pages), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I#Other_names - another part of that article ASams10 never read, where it discusses official titles of the conflicts.Michael Dorosh^Talk 23:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Guys, there is a very simple way to fix this without all the angst....you go back and find the first useage. The first useage of World War X/X World War was 'First World War' so use that. Seems simple to me. Personally I use both terms interchangeably so, can't say it overly fusses me though, World War Two does look odd and World War 2 looks a little.....unencyclopedic for some reason (perhaps while I use it, I am used to seing Second World War in books) Narson (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Revert war

We need to stop this argy-bargy. Especially the question of bad faith edits, as opposed to choice of style edits. I recommend all contributors read Wikipedia:Assume good faith especially the bit on others of bad faith] and then we can take a deep breath and move forward by establishing some consensus or getting extra opinions. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Let us all hold off from changes to WW1 etc until we get this issue sorted. I relaise that this means leaving it as WW1 for the moment but this is for the purpose of stability not a position of accepting it as inviolate. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Starting again

Now, today's featured article uses "First World War" and "Second World War" in section headers as well as the text. This suggests that the form is legitimate. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, Second World War/First World War style does appear to be the first variant used in the article (going by the standard way of differentiating between commonwealth and American English). I am not sure how much google searches etc will help us simply due to sheer numbers that will use both (Plus, typing in 'World War Two' or 'Second World War' into a search engine is a bit like typing in 'Boobs', you will be swamped...only, you know, with tanks rather than boobs, far less satisfying). The style I am noticing looking at my history books is that when it is referred to as a title or on its own, it is called 'The Second World War' though when it is something in the war inside the book, it will use 'Armoured Ferret Paratroops of World War Two/2'. I will start digging through Martin Gilbert's 'Second World War' in a moment, see if there is any pattern. Narson (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Still in service

Webley revolvers are still used in many parts of India by the police forces like Calcutta Police & West Bengal Police. Thats why Indian Ordiance Factory manufactures their cartridges. Though it would be worth mentioning.Shovon 13:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of apparently unnecessary template

Have removed the template requesting inline citations from the References section. The article itself has ample inline refs. (which I take for granted are perfectly in keeping with Wiki guidelines) and I don't see the point in sticking that particular template on the References section itself. Am I missing anything? Please discuss/explain.--Technopat (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

.32

Why are Webley's(Mark IV) chambered for .32 S&W long not mentioned in the article.Zoravar (talk) 06:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

FAR

The prose and sourcing for this article are nowhere near the standard required of a featured article. I just corrected an obvious prose error in the lead, and it was immediately reverted. If this sort of silliness continues to damage attempts to improve the quality of the article, then the article should be nominated for a featured article review, and, failing improvement, delisted. DrKiernan (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

For example, "another impact on British culture is the exaggerated use of a "Mess Webley", kept in a British officer's mess, for use if they disgraced themselves." - I can tell that the revolver's supposed to be used to commit suicide rather than face a court martial, but most people are going to be confused by this. Is it used to clean soiled trousers, what? The Cultural Impact section doesn't have any references at all. "Webley Revolvers often serve as a stereotypical British revolver in film and television" - such as The Bill? Eastenders? What kind of films? Period films? That's better. "...in period films and television shows". 91.125.50.254 (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

That's the most sence anyone's said so far on this talk page. I do, however, think that a revised version of the 'Mess Webley' factoid might be in order- it's quite a common cultural whatsit. 86.134.157.43 (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)