webley 1892 loads

[Ballistics in Scotland]

That cylinder looks like he has bored rather than reamed. Or perhaps he has a tool short enough to fit in the forcing cone and be guided by the barrel. Either could be a good way of doing it, but there would be no harm in throats a shade over groove diameter, if it removes those toolmarks.

[Outpost75]

Update on progress of my Webley cylinder from Doug Phillips:

"Here are the .4555" throats, and chambers, all polished up with an 800 grit ball hone. A .4555' pin gage goes smoothly and evenly in all the throats, a .456" won't go in any of them. I am quite satisfied with this endeavor, and for sure want to know how well it shoots... I stopped here because I do not want to polish out the pitting to the point where it is too shallow to hold lube, powder residue, and make a seal. I figure it is better to leave it where the residue from firing will have a good chance at sealing.

I could go to .4565" and remove another 80% of what pitting you see that still remains, but I feel the gains in accuracy are going to be less now that we have gotten this far, any improvement from .4555" to .4565" will be minimal at best, although there still would be an improvement. How much, and could it be noticed in the groups? Hard to say. Up to you. I am thinking that at the very worst, if you have 2 chambers that are not shooting to the same point of impact as the others, two things can happen. You could mark them with empty 45 ACP brass that would remain in the chambers, or you could send the cylinder back and see what taking the throats to .4565" does for it.

My thoughts for the best scenario are that you fire the gun enough times to fill in the remaining pits, and determine that it shoots pretty dang good and just roll with it. So I can blue the chambers as you see them here and send it on back and take it from there. I think it will not waste any time in making it's own statement. You should see a tremendous improvement right away. For once, the caliber REALLY IS what the boolits are, and you now truly have a 455 Webley!"

Attachment 181039

Three out of the six chambers cleaned up really well.

The others still have some pitting at .4555, but I agree with Doug not to go any larger unless shooting results indicate otherwise. Plan is to shoot it now and see how it plays.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Update on progress of my Webley cylinder from Doug Phillips:

"Here are the .4555" throats, and chambers, all polished up with an 800 grit ball hone. A .4555' pin gage goes smoothly and evenly in all the throats, a .456" won't go in any of them. I am quite satisfied with this endeavor, and for sure want to know how well it shoots... I stopped here because I do not want to polish out the pitting to the point where it is too shallow to hold lube, powder residue, and make a seal. I figure it is better to leave it where the residue from firing will have a good chance at sealing.

I could go to .4565" and remove another 80% of what pitting you see that still remains, but I feel the gains in accuracy are going to be less now that we have gotten this far, any improvement from .4555" to .4565" will be minimal at best, although there still would be an improvement. How much, and could it be noticed in the groups? Hard to say. Up to you. I am thinking that at the very worst, if you have 2 chambers that are not shooting to the same point of impact as the others, two things can happen. You could mark them with empty 45 ACP brass that would remain in the chambers, or you could send the cylinder back and see what taking the throats to .4565" does for it.

My thoughts for the best scenario are that you fire the gun enough times to fill in the remaining pits, and determine that it shoots pretty dang good and just roll with it. So I can blue the chambers as you see them here and send it on back and take it from there. I think it will not waste any time in making it's own statement. You should see a tremendous improvement right away. For once, the caliber REALLY IS what the boolits are, and you now truly have a 455 Webley!"

Attachment 181039

Three out of the six chambers cleaned up really well.

The others still have some pitting at .4555, but I agree with Doug not to go any larger unless shooting results indicate otherwise. Plan is to shoot it now and see how it plays.

Ah yes, DougGuy has also posted elsewhere on this job, and the job was done by honing. I'm sure he is right, and the amount of metal he removed is all it really needs. But I don't think there would have been any harm in removing enough to make it a shade over groove diameter. As he says, many Webleys have undersized throats, and it doesn't seem to have been the kiss of death to accuracy which many would predict nowadays. I have seen extremely good shooting done with a peacetime-manufacture Webley-Fosbery, which was the flagship of the range at the time, and I measured those throats at .448in. I think it probably derived from the erroneous belief of the designer of the .476 Enfield round, that pressure is built up exclusively in the cylinder. But success with this constriction undoubtedly depended on the hollow based bullets used, and you might or mightn't achieve it with flat-based as long as they were soft.

Actually the marks inside those cylinders looked more like old reaming marks than pitting. I don't know if those who converted them to .45ACP enlarged the throats, though I am sure they should have. Also although this is pure guesswork on my part, it is possible that those still in military stores had a semi-skilled reaming job done on the introduction of the MkVI jacketed bullet in 1939.

[Outpost75]

At .4555 it is now about 0.0015" over groove diameter, which I think is about perfect.

Revolver is in its original .455 caliber, so the circumferential chip gouges are most likely from the original factory reaming and rushed wartime manufacture. There were both tool marks and pitting.