Enfield No2 Mk1* Pistol

[Jim K]

Yes, I am sure both measurements were in psi; the British later used BAR, but not at that time. The official statement just plain does not jibe with the proof marking, which is the normal working pressure of the cartridge. The SAAMI maximum working pressure for the .38 S&W is 14,900 psi, with normal pressure of 14,500 psi.

Another oddity is that I pulled down a round of 1943 ammo and it is loaded with 2.5 grains of an unknown powder resembling Bullseye. Now I use 2.7 grains of Bullseye in .38 Special target loads behind a 148 grain wadcutter for a velocity a bit over 700 fps. Unless the powder in the .380 round had some of Merlin's magic, I fail to see how the .380 could have produced pressure and velocity significantly greater than the .38 S&W at (about) 690 fps.

Maybe the Germans agreed not to wear their greatcoats.

Another puzzling statement is that the bores of .380 revolvers are larger than that of .38 S&W revolvers; I slugged the bores of an Albion Enfield and a Webley Mk IV and they ran .357-358, which is the same as .38 Special and SMALLER than the original spec (.360") for .38 S&W. The bullet of the round I pulled down mikes .357", exactly the same as bullets for the .38 Special.

Jim

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Dave_n]

Jim:

I have a number of both Enfield and Webley's, included in which there is a No2 Mk 1 dated 1942 with the hammer spur and it is not a reworked 1* or 1** when I check against Skennerton's books. I should point out that all are marked as 3.5 tons, square inch, and the M&P 38 Specials with the "broad arrow" that I have from the same era are marked 4 tons square in. Maybe Peter L can give us the actual proof pressures in psi or kgs/square cm or bar so that we can see what the figures translate into. Dave_n

[Alan de Enfield]

If there are 2240 lbs in a ton, then 1 ton PSI (per square inch) would equal 2240 lbs PSI.
Therefore 3.5 tons PSI would equate to 7840 PSI
Therefore 4 tons PSI would equate to 8960 PSI

Either way seems to be a heck of a difference to the SAMMI specs for the 38 S&W (14500 PSI) quoted below.

[Peter Laidler]

Maybe this comment should go onto the Bayonet forum. But another Armourer was speaking to me yeaterday and I commented on this thread regarding the No2 pistol and supposed interchangeability of parts - and what a pig it was.

He corrected me and reminded me that the absolutely WORST item, ever, bar none, was the No7 bayonet. Because it was all held together by 6 rivets of two sizes, none of which were a 'shelf item' (that's a bog standard size item always in stock) and what's more, they were a non standard size in any case. And even worse, ther weren't available as spare parts to repair. So repair, such as they were were just a bodge (that's a bubba repair to you wild untamed colonials and antipodeans.....). The crosspiece rivets were usually loose after the first 20 minutes and you couldn't get to them until you unrivetted the other 4 that held the axis tube in place ........, that weren't available anyway once you unrivetted them! There were loads of spare parts that NEVER wore out, but no spares for the bits that did

The price of the No7 bayonet was more that the price of the Sten

[Jim K]

Hi, Peter,

"Standard"?
"Interchangeable"?

This forum is on British weapons; I don't think those words are in the OED.

Jim

[John Sukey (Deceased)]

British revolvers are like a Rolls Royce, "A triumph of craftsmanship over engineering"

[Mk VII]

British revolvers are like a Rolls Royce, "A triumph of craftsmanship over engineering"

One could say the same about S&W revolvers.
Whereas Colt percussions are a triumph of marketing over engineering.

[Peter Laidler]

That's a GREAT saying John and I am going to use it next time I'm trying to put something over to the designers who seem to congregate at Warminster with crap ideas. Some of them have absolutely no idea whatsoever that sand WILL penetrate anything, even a fxxeskin (that's if you happen to have one....). And they don't believe that sand is as fine as talcum powder as as errosive as a sand blasting machine............ Don't get me going.

We did chuckle about No7 bayonets too.......... So much so, that old time Armourer Geordie XXXX rang me to say that he actually has one in his tool box that has a tight crosspiece AND axis tube!

[John Sukey (Deceased)]

[QUOTE=Peter Laidler;44941]That's a GREAT saying John and I am going to use it next time I'm trying to put something over to the designers who seem to congregate at Warminster with crap ideas. Some of them have absolutely no idea whatsoever that sand WILL penetrate anything, even a fxxeskin (that's if you happen to have one....). And they don't believe that sand is as fine as talcum powder as as errosive as a sand blasting machine............ Don't get me going.

Peter I can't take credit for that saying, It's probably as oled as I am!

While I am at it, even a 178 gr bullet at only 600fps is not going to generate high pressures.
Oh the powder charge was either 4gr of cordite, size 1/05 or 3 gr of nitrocellulose.

Now about that "you can only kill someone so dead" thing. The primary reason for shooting someone is to STOP them from doing what they want to do. If they drop dead AFTER they shoot or stick you, that's not much comfort.
There was a very good reason for the .455. If you shot someone with it, they generaly fell down.

[Dave_n]

Help Folks:

Just picked up my 70th Birthday present to me, a No 2 Mk 1 made in 1939 that Dennis Kroh listed on the Empire Arms email list as I came home on my last day as a 69 year old, so I snapped it up. I need the nut for the grip screw. It literally fell apart when being gently removed (with the aid of Kroil) to clean the pistol. Needless to say, Numrich are out of them. Any ideas as to where I might purchase 1 or 2? Or even the grip screw and nut as a pair? The original walnut grips are on the piece, or any ideas as to a substitute? Cheers, Dave_n