.38 Webley Mk. IV problem.

I recently purchased a 1942 (based on the serial #) .38 Webley Mk. 4. The next weekend I had a chance to fire it at a local range and its doing something rather odd. When fired in single action the cylinder rotates fully and the weapon fires and a bullet is sent down range. However, when fired in double action the cylinder does not fully rotate and the firing pin strikes the seam between the primer and the case, and does not fire. I would have to finish rotating the cylinder by hand in order for the weapon to fire. With the weapon broke open I cycled the trigger/hammer thru both in single and double action and I noticed that the part labeled the pawl/hand only went about 2/3 of the way up in the slot when the hammer was pulled back (D/A) but all the way up when the trigger was pulled (S/A). If I understood how the internal parts interacted with each other I might be able to get it working properly. For all I know the previous owner may have disassembled it and then reassembled incorrectly. Anyone have any ideas?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bionicback321

the pawl/hand only went about 2/3 of the way up in the slot when the hammer was pulled back (D/A) but all the way up when the trigger was pulled (S/A).

---

Your description of SA/DA confused me a bit, so I just checked this on my own Webley, with the revolver open:

1) If the hammer is pulled fully back and cocked, the pawl rises up to almost the very end of the slot in the recoil shield.
Please note: this is SINGLE ACTION, i.e. the trigger only releases the hammer.
2) If the hammer is not cocked, but you slowly depress the trigger, the hammer will be forced back and then released. The hammer does not travel as far back as if it were cocked for SA, so the pawl does not rise up so far in the slot. On my revolver, it releases when the pawl is about 1/16" below the top.
Please note: this is DOUBLE ACTION, i.e. the trigger performs two actions - rotating the cylinder and operating the hammer.

I hazard a guess that it is the second case (double action) that is causing you trouble, and the most likely explanation is that the pawl has worn short OR has become very rounded at the tip, so that the cylinder is not rotated far enough for correct DA operation. Check out the 2 points above, and if you see a gap of more than about 1/32" in SA, and much more than about 3/32" in DA, then that would confirm my suspicion.

You probably need a new pawl (heaven knows from where!) or the old pawl needs a rebuilt tip (not a beginner's job).

If, on the other hand, the pawl is long enough, but the hammer is not going back far enough in the SA (hand cocked) position, then maybe someone has fiddled around with the cocking notch. In which case, it is even less of a beginner's job!

Assuming that you are unlikely to find a Webley specialist pistolsmith around the corner, take it to a gunsmith who is familiar with other topbreak revolvers (e.g. S&W). The working principles are similar enough that he will know what to do.

Talking of single and double actions, while we were apprentices we often had unfathomable discussions about the meaning of these terms. Many, including some of the instructors said that DOUBLE action meant one squeeze of the trigger did TWO jobs....., the correct definition of DOUBLE action because it rotated the cylinder AND fired the weapon.
And likewise with single action, where the user, using an outside force (his hand/thumb) MECHANICALLY cocked the weapon and rotated the cylinder. Then in one single action, he squeezed the trigger and fired the weapon.

Many books, including the old EMER use this terminology but it was accepted that there were different schools of thought. A bit like so-called API in sub machine guns (it's nothing of the sort. It is simply a by-product of having a fixed firing pin!). But it made exams and trade test answers a bit fraught. However, all accepted that there was room for discussion and debate - a bit like a forum really - and providing you elaborated on your answer, all was well. One examiner, the affable Mr Amto (who was a Japanese prisoner, put to work in the Singapore dockyard and was pleased that the poms did so little sabotage before we surrendered) used to say that the easy answer was to add at the end of the answer you gave '........I call this action the single phase of action of the mechanism' or something similar/relevant, all was well and would satisfy the merking board.

Have I gone off at a large enough tangent yet........?

The worst part was to have to describe the action of API during the mech class on the sub-machine gun C1 during leadership training course...when it wasn't an issue at all.

There, now we're off topic...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick

If, on the other hand, the pawl is long enough

---

Which it seems to be. I'll leave the SA/DA discussion for another time and just say that with the hammer down and pulling the trigger all the way through till the hammer rises and then falls, the pawl rotates the cylinder all the way until it locks in place and the weapon fires. If I pull the hammer back ( with my thumb ) till it locks, the pawl does not completely rotated the cylinder ( it only comes up about 2/3 of the way in the slot ) and I must finish rotating the cylinder by hand ( about an 1/8th of a turn or so ) before pulling the trigger. Everything works ok as long as I don't pull the hammer back first. I hope this description is a little clearer then the first.

https://www.milsurps.com/vbpgimage.p...0&d=1383511605

The picture on the left is the position of the pawl when the hammer is pulled back by hand. On the right is the position of the pawl when the trigger is pulled all the way through until the hammer falls.

I think you need to disassemble the revolver and see what's going on INSIDE. Watching the action will tell you everything...

Tep........, warpig has it in one. You need to strip and reassemble the revolver but it would/might seem as though the hammer is not actuating the trigger, upon which the PAWL, cylinder is mounted, correctly. The trouble with the Webleys is that there isn't a side plate to remove like our old Enfields but the principle is the same.

After building a jig to hold the trigger and hammer in the correct orientation, I noticed that the point of contact where the trigger holds the hammer ( after cocking it manually ) seems to have been filed back a small amount. The arrow is pointing at it in the picture of my hammer.

Here is Tatanka's from his post in Aug.:
https://www.milsurps.com/vbpgimage.p...1&d=1383524797

Here is mine:
https://www.milsurps.com/vbpgimage.p...2&d=1383524978

To my eye the overhang ( where the arrow is pointing on my hammer ) seem to shorter on mine then on Tatanka's, and is releasing the hammer before the pawl can reach the top of its travel. When firing the weapon using the trigger only, the trigger seems to act upon a different part of the hammer and it works correctly. I think I need to add some metal to what I'm calling the overhang ( I apologize for not knowing what its called ). Does that sound like crazy talk?

Your referring to the "sear" it sounds like an enthusiastic amateur tried to lighten the the trigger and really messed up big time. One can't just add metal to the sear, your only safe option is to replace the hammer.

Let me add, you should be very carful with this revolver until you replace the hammer because there is a very real danger of an accidental discharge in SA if in fact it was filed.

Attachment 46914To put it quite plainly, I was right
- the pawl is too short
AND I was right
- Bubba has been playing with the cocking notch/sear arrangement - and who knows what else!!!.

To back up that extravagant claim, here are some photos I have just taken of my Webley:

Let's look first at my Webley in DA. Very hard to take this photo with only 2 hands!
Attachment 46913

Just before release, the pawl is nearly as high as for SA-cocking. About 1/8" below the top of the slot. And looking at the "object under investigation (right-hand photo):
Attachment 46914

The pawl is somewhat lower. It does manage to align the cylinder and fire the cartridge, but I suspect that the action is marginal, because the pawl appears to be too short - but I will return to that later.

Now let's compare things in SA (hand-cocking):
Attachment 46911

Note that in the hand-cocked position, the hammer on my Webley goes very far back, to less than 1/8" above the frame.

The pawl is correspondingly high up, about 2mm (3/32) below the top of the slot. Slightly higher than for DA.
Attachment 46912

Compare with the "object under investigation" - left-hand photo:
Attachment 46914

A big difference, no?? The pawl position, which was marginal for DA, is even lower. So low that, as reported, the striker cannot ignite the primer. And the fact that the max. height is lower than for DA (but higher on my non-Bubba-ed Webley) is the indication that the cocking notch/sear position has been spoilt, as was indeed revealed to be the case.

So we have 1) a probably short pawl and 2) a definitely spoilt cocking notch/sear setup.
But there is another fly in this particular soup: that little sprung lever hanging off the front of the hammer. It is known as the hammer strut, and in DA, the trigger does not go so far back that the single-action cocking notch is used, but trips on the tip of the strut instead (which is why the release for DA may be a little earlier than for SA). It may be that the pawl is OK, but 3) the hammer strut has been shortened.

I fear the answer is possibly a mix of all 3, and as has been recommended, you should not fire this revolver anymore until it has been fixed by a competent person. It is impossible to tell at a distance what else may be wrong with this revolver.

Oooooops, something went wrong here!

Off the subject a bit but safety is not at issue here because one of the mechanical safetys of the revolver/pistol is that it CANNOT fire unless the cylinder stop is engaged with the cylinder. It is only in this position, with the cylinder stop in the frame bridge (the part below the cylinder) protruding upwards, and engaging into the recess in the cylinder that the primer is aligned with the striker. There is a tiny amount of leeway here and this is catered for with a set of gauges called 'the pokering set'.

In short, regardless of the principal problem as pointed out by Patrick, the pistol is 'safe' by definition.

And Patrick is also absolutely correct about the length of throw of the hammer. On single action, (action hand cocked) the pistol fires off the trigger bent of the hammer and the hammer is at full throw. On double action firing (trigger rotates cylinder and fires weapon) the weapon is fired off the spring loaded CATCH, hammer and hammer does not reach full throw.

I hope that this is close enough to the Webley as I have only got a skeletonised Enfield handy to shake up the memory buds on my brain

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bionicback321

However, when fired in double action the cylinder does not fully rotate and the firing pin strikes the seam between the primer and the case, and does not fire.?

---

But the timing is out and it is firing. Just a knats ball hair more and Bionic would have a very bad day. I don't have a Webly so I can't break one down and understand the mechanics fully but I'd start swapping parts...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

I hope that this is close enough to the Webley as I have only got a skeletonised Enfield handy to shake up the memory buds on my brain

---

Thanks Peter. They are the same basic mechanism, which goes way back into the 19th century and the Beaumont-Adams (?). Even in the Colt DA revolvers (from which I got the term "hammer strut" for what you refer to as "catch, hammer", not knowing what to call it!) it is the same principle, although buried in a lot of other gadgetry. See Kuhnhausen "The Colt Double Action Revolvers" Vol I p.94 Fig. 125 and 126 for a good illustration and explanation of the principle of operation. In the case under discussion, Bubba has obviously played around to the extent that one should completely dismantle the revolver and check everything. Bubba has the tendency to file one thing, mess up the gun, then file something else in a disastrous attempt to cure the first bodge, thereby making things even worse.

Ah, but it's NOT firing War-pig! That is the mechanical safety feature coming into play. Be warned against exchanging parts too because these pistols and the little Enfields were made in the era of fine hand fitting and stoning. With these, and the No8 rifle as I recall, the mere notion of swopping parts was a forlorn hope. If you were allocated a pile of revolvers, you earned you money that week, believe me. Some were good with them, others, like me, were absolute crap! But I persevered and usually eventually got there.

I vividly remember one Mk1* that simply wouldn't, well, it just wouldn't do anything.......... It was taking hours and into the next day to just get it to poker and then something else would fail and then an axis pin wouln't match the cover plate and......and...... Wilf Attrill, our kindly and fatherly old Armourer Sergeant came over and had a chat about it. looked at it, rubbed his chin and scratched his neck. Then he put the frame into the vice, twisted it slightly, pressed down on something and said '......ZF it. Distorted frame'. And that was the end of that.

Incidentally, does anyone still own a 2 groove barrel on their Mk1* Enfield. They were obsolescent and then obsolete by 1962 but we still used to see them for years afterwards.

No....., just fitting new parts was just the start of a long day at the bench

As a side note, 25 some odd years ago I had a nice looking, post-war Webley Mk IV that did the same thing. I couldn't find a new pawl and a gunsmith offered to make one if I left it with him for a month. The month came and went, I go back to see how we were going only to be told that the gun had grown legs when he had the shop re-painted.

Oh, he replaced it alright - with one he owned with a lovely "WAR FINISH" stamping along the frame.


Coincidence? We wonder, don't we?

Notice first he says it's happening in DA then he changes it to it happening in SA. How can the pawl be too short in SA but not in DA if it rides higher in SA?
After looking at schematics for the VI I ask myself how can the hammer fall and strike between the primer and case "in either action" without the cylinder being locked in place by the cylinder catch and most important the cylinder lock on the trigger engaged. I know it can't but that's what BIO said. If that's happening NO the gun is not safe.

Does the pawl complete the cylinder rotation just before the hammer falls? If so and BIO's hammer is dropping before that I'd say its a sear issue be it the DA hammer catch or if in SA the cocking notch/sear on the hammer. Because if the hammer drops before the pawl can complete rotation then the pawls not to short.

I'm not arguing, I'm discussing...:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarPig1976

Notice first he says it's happening in DA then he changes it to it happening in SA. How can the pawl be too short in SA but not in DA if it rides higher in SA? After looking at schematics for the VI I ask myself how can the hammer fall and strike between the primer and case "in either action" without the cylinder being locked in place by the cylinder catch and most important the cylinder lock on the trigger engaged. I know it can't but that's what BIO said. If that's happening NO the gun is not safe. Does the pawl complete the cylinder rotation just before the hammer falls? If so and BIO's hammer is dropping before that I'd say its a sear issue be it the DA hammer catch or if in SA the cocking notch/sear on the hammer. Because if the hammer drops before the pawl can complete rotation then the pawls not to short. I'm not arguing, I'm discussing...

---

In short, you are as puzzled as I am. About the only thing of which we can be fairly sure, without actually having the gun in pieces before us, is that it is obviously FUBAR. Hence my comment:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick

In the case under discussion, Bubba has obviously played around to the extent that one should completely dismantle the revolver and check everything.

---

First off let me apologize for all the confusion that I caused with my novice description of single action and double action :o live and learn. The Webley did indeed fire correctly in double action. The cylinder was fully rotated and locked in place and the firing pin struck the primer dead center. Single action was another story. As shown in the photo of the hammer, the sear had been filed on by non other then Bubba himself. I ordered a replacement hammer from our good friends at Numrich for the princely sum of $35 plus shipping. It did not come with the firing pin so I removed it from the original and installed in on the replacement ( I also swapped the hammer catch as it was affecting double action by not allowing the hammer to completely reset ). This Webley Mk IV is now functioning flawlessly in both SA and DA. Thank you all for your input and gentle guidance. :super:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bionicback321

First off let me apologize for all the confusion that I caused with my novice description of single action and double action :o live and learn. The Webley did indeed fire correctly in double action. The cylinder was fully rotated and locked in place and the firing pin struck the primer dead center. Single action was another story. As shown in the photo of the hammer, the sear had been filed on by non other then Bubba himself. I ordered a replacement hammer from our good friends at Numrich for the princely sum of $35 plus shipping. It did not come with the firing pin so I removed it from the original and installed in on the replacement ( I also swapped the hammer catch as it was affecting double action by not allowing the hammer to completely reset ). This Webley Mk IV is now functioning flawlessly in both SA and DA. Thank you all for your input and gentle guidance. :super:

---

Good deal.!! Happy shooting...

Thanks for the end result, most times we never hear how it ended...

I agree with BAR. Always nice when someone comes back with a result. Makes you realise that you're doing/saying something useful

I just bought a Webley IV .38 myself. It is a war time gun, evidently.

To cut to the chase, how hard is it to replace the pawl with one from a parts house and have the gun work properly?

I'm somewhat mechanically inclined, but I've never pulled apart and reassembled a revolver.

With my pistol the cylinder does not quite lock up when cocked for single action. We're talking a millimetre or less of rotation to get it the rest of the way. If the hammer is held back and the trigger pulled then it will advance that little extra bit and lock up. Looking at it the tip of the pawl appears to be worn, with a slight step or notch in it.

I'm supposed to be getting an RMA replacement from the dealer, but he has stopped responding to emails, so I am exploring the option of fixing it myself if he leaves me hanging.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark-II

I just bought a Webley IV .38 myself. It is a war time gun, evidently.

To cut to the chase, how hard is it to replace the pawl with one from a parts house and have the gun work properly?

I'm somewhat mechanically inclined, but I've never pulled apart and reassembled a revolver.

With my pistol the cylinder does not quite lock up when cocked for single action. We're talking a millimetre or less of rotation to get it the rest of the way. If the hammer is held back and the trigger pulled then it will advance that little extra bit and lock up. Looking at it the tip of the pawl appears to be worn, with a slight step or notch in it.

I'm supposed to be getting an RMA replacement from the dealer, but he has stopped responding to emails, so I am exploring the option of fixing it myself if he leaves me hanging.

---

I would suggest watching some YouTube videos, I'm sure there's at least one on there of a fellow showing how to break one down. That'll give you an idea if it's something you want to tackle yourself. I would think it's a simple swap job. It's good to do anyway with a new Milsurp firearm to give a good cleaning and inspect all your parts.

Take your time, take pictures as you go if you have to "so you can put it back"
and whatever you do,, don't start filing on stuff...;)