British "Mark" System Question: Webley Mk IV. . . vs. the Webley Mk IV?

[Bigslug]

This is a bit of British revolver lore that I never have figured out the details of.

The large bore Webleys ran from Mk. I to Mk. VI. The revolver of the Boer War period was the .455 Mk. IV.

The standard revolver of WWII was the smaller-framed .38/200 Mk. IV.

So that's two very different revolvers designated Mk. IV running around, and I'm not aware of any Mk. I to Mk. III designations for the smaller frame and caliber.

Anybody familiar with the details of that?

(I've often thought it's too bad the British never had any kings named Mark. You could have the Mk. III rifle shooting Mk. VII ammo with an additional stamp denoting manufacture under the reign of Mk. XII. Any time Parliament imposed significant limitations on the monarch's powers that "Mark" could have gotten a "Star" suffixed to his name. As if it's not confusing enough as it is :veryconfu)

[Der Gebirgsjager]

I believe it's kind of like our situation with the M1 rifle and the M1 carbine. Then there was the M16 rifle, but where are the in between Ms? They did exist as developmental prototypes, just never put into production, the M14 being the exception, and the M15 being a modified M14.

There's a long, somewhat complicated story about the development of the Webley Mk. IV. They dawdled around with development of the revolver for years and never produced something the British military deemed satisfactory, so the Enfield Arsenal was given the job and borrowed extensively from the Webley design, with the end design being the double action only Enfield, quite similar in design but with no hammer spur. Actually, some were made early on with the hammer spur as found on the Webley, but (so the story goes...) the hammer spur was eliminated at the request of tankers who complained about it catching on the edges of the hatch when climbing in or out.

When I was active in gunsmithing I once had a customer come in with a Webley Mk. IV that had a worn out hammer. I tried all the parts sources without luck, but did obtain an Enfield hammer from Canada. I clamped the two hammers together and filed everything off the Enfield hammer that overlapped the Webley hammer, then installed it into the Webley. It worked just fine, but was now a double action only Webley.

DG

[rintinglen]

Webley and Scott made several "small" caliber revolvers, including the Mk III, which was the immediate predecessor of the 38/200 Mk IV, in the years before and right after WW I. Persons of a certain age may recall Diana Rigg posing with a nickeled 32 Mk III at the start of "The Adventurers" TV show. Truth to tell, I have never seen nor read of a "Mk I" or "Mk II" small caliber revolver being made by W & S, but there was a nifty looking hammerless top break resembling the S&W Lemon Squeezer 32's and 38's made in the 1st quarter of the 20th century.

[challenger_i]

The Dianna Rigg reference hurts! I'm going to get you for that!

[beemer]

I firmly believe that the requirement for understand British nomenclature regarding firearms and tools you must be a British subject and loyal to the King.

[Hick]

The Webley Mark system is not all that different from the US 1911 system: How many different 1911's do you see around today? (many calibers, different grip safeties, frame differences, bushing barrels and bushingless, etc, etc, etc)

[rintinglen]

Actually, If you get a TM 9-1005-211-34, you'll only find the 1911A1. If you get the FM23-35, you'll find the 1911 and the 1911A1. That is a far cry from the Mk I-VI, and various "stars" of the Brits.

That civilian manufacturers have taken the design and run with it does not change that the U.S. Army had only two official variants.