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 Britishicon .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.