Enfield "*" Models - Is There An Official Reason Why The Spur Was Removed?

Chaps, there's a lively discussion on Facebook (of all places) regarding the Enfield Revolver No.2 and why the hammer spur was removed (or why they were made without them).

Is there a definitive reason anyone has come across? I've read these pages and got little gems of info but is there a proper guide?

Some say it's the "Tankies" only version and that infantry officers had something else. Some say that others had them but Tankies had nothing else.

Can anyone assist? I appreciate this is a basic question but it's a pretty basic argument.

Thanks.

The 'tankies didn't want it' was a complete fallacy according to the official reports. It's true, they didn't NEED it as they weren't taught to use the spurred hammer during their training. The fact was that by the time it came to review the pistol, the modern training concept decreed that nobody utilised the spurred hammer. A Mr HC Boys (he of Boys Rifle fame, or INfamy....) told the Ord Board that the spurred hammer was a very expensive, materially wasteful* and time consuming part to make. The Ordnance Board decided that it was 'superflous frippery and redundant' (where do they get these quaint words from I ask.....?) and decided to delete it from future production.

This horse manure that the spur got caught on the insides of tanks is just that. Pure horse shi........, er......... manure!

* If you don't believe this, just take a look at one. Except for the actual spur part the whole of the Mk1 hammer has to be reduced in width to almost half. A lso no partial hardening of the trigger bent either.

Added a bit later: The whole story of this upgrade from Mk1 to Mk1* and 1** was explained in a display cabinet at the Small Arms School including the last trials and first production pistol. All types including skeletonised variants and explanations too. The spur really was a left-over from the original .38 Webley design that was a remnant of the old No1 .455 revolver.

The No2 with no spur was a general issue sidearm, not just to "tankies". I have 2 with "RAF" stamps for example.

Thanks Peter for the explanation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

no partial hardening of the trigger bent either.

---

Found that out when I had one and tried to smooth the trigger up a bit. Found out it was just made of the finest beer cans and bailing wire. They have to be used as is...

Thanks chaps. Here is a little of the conversation which took place, following someone advertising and Enfield No.2 Mk.I* as a pistol for 'tankies':


T: Just for clarification, but these aren't 'Tankies' spec. They were the officially adopted British .38 pistol, for use by all officers and men permitted to carry them.

This may sound pedantic, but I don't want people thinking you can't use them if you don't portray tank crew.


J: Just to correct your clarification.... But this is indeed a "tankie . 38" enfield. I'm sure I don't need to point out the fact that the spur is missing!!!

It was not the standard . 38 enfield or webley for that matter due to the fact that it is a spurless hammer.
Highly favoured and designed for tank crews!! So how in the world..... Would this enfield not be classed as a "tankie specification"?

Correct you can use for other impressions but the chap who is selling the item has quite correctly listed the item.

T: No, I'm sorry, but no. The hammer spur is missing but it isn't a "tankie's" pistol. It's the standard Enfield .38" service pistol. The fact that the hammer spur is missing has very little to do with tank crew and more to do with advancing pistol training during the war. The actual reason is now accepted as being to speed up manufacture and training, saving both money and time.

The tankies get mentioned because they were the first (but not last and by no means had the loudest voice) who said that they only ever really used it for double action only shooting and that the hammer spur aspect was wasted on them and, likely, others. This was primarily because the Tank Corps were trained to shoot this way.

The hammer spur catching on the inside of the tank argument is regarded as bull....

J: WHAT???? Haha listen I've spoke to several members of tank crews from ww2 all of which have held my 1942 number 2 mk1* and every one.... I REPEAT.... EVERY ONE of them have all said "oh it's the tankie one without the hammer" (relating to the spurless hammer). So your telling me that your correct...... And about 10 + guys who actually served in theses tin cans during ww2 are all wrong? If they say it's a tankies pistol variant then they are indeed correct and as someone who portrays a member of a tank crew I whole heartedly agree.





Make of the above what you will.

I know it's going to sound awful, but what I'm going to tell you is as I see/hear it. I used to speak to groups of WW2 soldiers who used to visit us at the School of Infantry weapons collection and some of the pure horse manure that I was told, especially about the Sten gun and Bren gun was just so fanciful that I couldn't believe my ears.......... I used to say something like ........... anyway, I used to stop them in their tracks and tell them the facts. Even if it meant throwing a Sten gun on the floor outside, loaded with a blank. Or strip a Bren in front of them and ask then to TELL and SHOW me how this horse manure occurred.

Apologies again but............

On the other hand, you could ask J (above) to come and read this forum or phone me. I'll be a straight talking with him as the others........

Peter, have you ever seen official documents calling it the Tankers Model? I've read that this term was coined by the American Arms dealers of the late 40s and 50s who were selling off surplus British arms and wanted to give the Mk1* some sex appeal as they believed (and probably quite rightly) that the Mk1* would not sell, after all who wants a DA only revolver when you can get a Smith or a Colt.

Same story as the Jungle Carbine really, all a sales ploy.

And if there was an issue of snagging a spur hammer on a tank interior, I'm sure the flap holster would have worked a treat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brit plumber

And if there was an issue of snagging a spur hammer on a tank interior, I'm sure the flap holster would have worked a treat.

---

I've been wondering how long it would be before someone mentioned holsters.

The trouble with the holster version is that there already was an open top holster available that would expose the hammer spur. What I would say though is that if this 'catch on the internal tank mechanism of the tank' horse manure was correct, then they obviously haven't been in the rear of a loaded up APC. There's a lot of kit to catch a hammer in there, believe me as someone who'se been thrown around in the back of one............ Annanuvverfing........... If it really WAS a tankie thing, why do tankies have hammer exposed Brownings.

It's another of these urban myth things, like much of the Sten gun horse shixx. Been passed down from so often it's become folk-lore! Like the delisle........... Quiet, but not as quiet as a truly silenced Sten gun

Another thing to bear in mind is that during WWII, the British were desperately, chronically short of handguns. Why do you think they were buying handguns from the USA by the Liberty Ship-load? The Webley Mk IV was used in large quantities, as were the various marks of Enfield, but mind-boggling numbers of S&W "Victory" revolvers (in both .38/200 and .38 Special) were acquired, as were various other American revolvers including Colts, Iver Johnsons, and many others. Webley Mk VI , Colt New Service and S&W Triple Lock revolvers were pressed back into service, along with Mauser Broomhandles, various .32 and .380ACP pocket pistols, and pretty much any other handgun that could be mustered.
Is it really likely that the UK Ministry of Defence - even in peacetime - listened to one corps of the armed forces and made a fairly significant design change to the official service pistol to suit them and no-one else? Or is more likely the MoD looked at the balance sheets and the number of man hours required to make a service pistol domestically and said "How can we do this faster and for less money?"

Even if the story about the tank corps thinking the hammers were a catching issue was true (and it's not) - you'd think the issue would be just as valid in the confines of a Hurricane or a Spitfire or a Lancaster or a Hudson, yet there's no reports of RAF/RCAF/RAAF/RNZAF aircrews complaining about the hammer spurs on their revolvers. And, as Mr Laidler says, the tank crews were among the first to get the Browning Hi-Power pistols when they were available, and they have an exposed hammer as well.

Personally, I agree the "Tanker's Issue" thing was a marketing ploy developed post-war to sell a DAO revolver in a market full of conventional double-action military surplus handguns - clearly an effective ploy, since people almost instinctively call the No 2 Mk I* a "Tanker's revolver" despite the fact it was the standard issue pistol and made in far larger quantities than the standard, spurred-hammer No 2 Mk I revolver.