Pre and post war Enfield tanker revolver Mk2

Been offered a mint tanker Enfield revolver. Normal these revolvers are marked with a date but this one seems to have markings but no date, just wondering if this is a post war made pistol as these were made till 1957. is there any way to identify a post war one by modification or were these pistols the same throughout production run. Thought Ian Skennerton done a booklet in the series about the Enfield revolver but it seems the Webleys, there is another book but the prices are a bit more than i would pay for.

Should be a date on top of the barrel assembly

What would make it a 'tanker' revolver? What makes it different from other Enfield Mk2 revolvers?

A tanker Enfield usually has a spurless hammer so its only double action. The idea is that the hammer spur doesn't catch on anything inside the tank.

The "tanker" designation of the No.2Mk.1* and No.2Mk.1** revolvers is pure mythology. The Army requirement was for a simplified D/A only revolver and has nothing to do with tank crews. It seems to be a myth that will continue forever. The original Army docs that were at HQ, SASC in Warminster completely refute it. A friend who used to work there was always a bit dismayed that the folks who write this stuff and put it in books would never get an appointment to visit and get the actual facts during their research.

So where did the tanker myth come from. I though it a bit strange that cutting the spur of the hammer off would make all the difference snagging inside a tank, did seem a load of tosh. I used to shoot my S&W mod 27 double action which was very accurate, thumb cocking a revolver made you move your grip every time, of course i had plenty of ammo to practice the DA method with unlike a service man with limited rounds per man.

Sales gimmick?

Just like Jungle carbine for the No5.

or..........................the buried Spitfires in Burma......Brian is absolutely right, would love to meet those who thrive on misinformation or in the belief THEY have brought something new to the Milsurps table diverse sales tactics nothing more:madsmile:

Tanker or no tanker lets get back to the question of pre, wartime and post war models, where there changes even slight ones to identify the period the pistol was made, like finish, wartime machining short cuts, was the spurles hammer only a wartime requirement etc or was there no change to end of production.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Topfmine

Thought Ian Skennerton done a booklet in the series about the Enfield revolver but it seems the Webleys, there is another book but the prices are a bit more than i would pay for.

---

Ian Skennerton did write a hardback book with Mark Stamps on the Enfield .38-200 Revolvers. I believe that it was originally published in 1993 or so which is about when I bought mine. It gives a pretty good treatment of this series of revolvers. I don't know if it is still in print or not but is likely available on the secondary market.

Charlie

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...97484913-1.jpg

The spurless one lasted until the end of production. The proof date on top of the bbl identifies the approx date of manufacture - unless it's been replaced.

I doubt there was much new production after 1945. Apparently some 6000 were produced for Pakistan in 1956/7. Some figures I found in the Public Records Office

https://www.milsurps.com/attachment....31&cid=1&stc=1

Post war production was all Mk1*.

The 'tanker' myth came about because when the tank corps were asked whether the deletion of the hammer spur would unduly affect their use in tanks or during their training, they replied that the hammer spur played no part in their use inside the tanks or in training as the tankies were never taught to use the hammer in any case. It was redundant.