"Enfield" Mark VI, A prefix, three numbers

[Dave_n]

Browsing through a very nice gun store in Athens Ga earlier today, I picked up what I originally thought was a "cut" 0.455 Webley Mk VI. However, the markings were not what I was used to, nor was the numbering. Then on more careful inspection prior to purchase, it was a 1921 Enfield Mk VI. Though cut for 0.45 ACP I will use it for 0.45 Autorim but using 0.454 lead heads. However, though I know of these pistols, I cannot find out much about them. I realize that Webley & Scott must have continued production of the commercial Mk VI as I have one that is uncut from the South African shipment in the middle 1930s. It will reach my home in SE PA in a little while as though purchased on a C&R, it will be shipped to my friendly local 01 FFL for much cheaper than it being sent to me via Next Day Fedex or UPS, and I do not have to deal with the hassles at Atlanta and Philadelphia airports while shipping a gun in my checked baggage. Even cheaper than my checking one bag, let alone buying a hard case/lock combo in addition.

So can any kind soul point me to a "treatise" on this variation please? Internet searching leads to Enfield No 2 Mk 1-1** (which I also have a number of in all variations, so those I know fairly well). Cheers, Dave_n

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.

[smellie]

What you have, friend, is solid evidence of plain, old-fashioned government parsimonyand political correctness, 1920s style.

During the Great War, Webley & Scott made Webley revolvers.

Vickers, Sons & Maxim made Vickers Guns.

BSA and Savage made Lewis Guns.

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

When the War ended, everything not wrecked was taken home again and things went back to peacetime. There was a lot of ill-feeling at the time regarding "war profiteers" (very much whipped-up by a headline-seeking mass media), so the next nasty step was politically expedient in the terms of the time.

Government got up on its moral high horse and announced that none of THEM had had anything to do with war profiteering (liars!) and that they had come up with a Grand Solution to the terrible problem of profiting from a war: the Government would repair, develop and manufacture EVERYTHING it needed.

So the Gummint moved everythning to Enfield and Enfield, despite limited facilities, was awarded all this work which they hadn't asked for. So the BSA Lewis Guns were rebuilt and new parts made.... at Enfield. And the Savage Lewises were rebuilt and parts made.... at Enfield. And all the Vickers Guns were rebuilt and new parts and complete new guns were made.... at Enfield. And all the Webley revolvers were rebuilt and new parts were made and even a limited-production run of complete guns was made..... at Enfield. (This is where your gun comes into the tale!)

And this all kept on. The Army wanted a new revolver, so Webley & Scott did almost the entire design on the thing.... and Enfield made it. THIS really rankled, but W&S got even a few years later even after the court cheated them out of half the development costs for the gun they were not allowed to make. The Lanchester was copied from the German MP-28, but Enfield had to make it. The Bren was developed, but Enfield had to make it. The Oerlikon was adopted, but Enfield had to make it. The Hispano was adopted, but Enfield was supposed to make that also.

So that nice Mister Hitler put a few million of his heavily-armed buddies into Poland and then into France and the army had to pull out at Dunkirk and the Navy needed small arms and the RAF REALLY needed a whole huge pile of Brownings and Vickers Guns and Hispanos and the Army had hardly any reserve weapons because the peacenik politicians had been destroying freshly-rebuilt rifles up until about 4 years previously and Enfield was only partway set-up to make the Number 4 and didn't have the machines to build the SMLE any longer and the small shop just could not handle the fantastic demands and war production very nearly stopped entirely, right when it was needed most desperately.

In the end, everything worked out. BSA built lots of SMLEs and the majority of Number 4s and even set up a factory for the Bren and Oerlikons were built in one place and Hispanos in another, Vickers made Vickers Guns and Stens were made wherever there was a tinsmith shop (almost) and Webley & Scott were handed a huge contact to make their little Mark IV .38 which they had offered to the Army 10 or 12 years previously, only to have it rejected, but the guns were to be made as fast as possible and to Hades with the finish. So Webley & Scott got their revenge at last: they marked each revolver prominently with the words "WAR FINISH", just in case anyone might have thought that they did finishing THAT sloppy as part of their regular job!

DO have fun with your revolver. It is a solid reminder of one of the worst Government screw-ups in history. Great gun, though! Mine is a 1916 with Navy markings; I'm still looking for one like yours!

Enjoy!
.

[Dave_n]

Thanks Smellie: I knew a fair amount about the screw-ups at Enfield but not the 20 mm stuff. Now the "Enfield Mk VI" is sitting with its half sisters (1916, 1917 and 1918 in 0.45 ACP) and one from the 1930s in 0.455. Dave_n

[barbarossa]

Smellie, a few words anent to contretemp between RSAF Enfield and Webley&Scott over who exactly designed the Enfield No.2 revolver and who owed who what. The judge's ruling in this notable case was indeed the correct decision when he awarded Webley&Scott a very modest settlement in the development of this handgun. I'm continually amazed at the number of collectors who buy into the 'Webley got screwed' line of thought.

The simplest explanation for the judge's decision boils down to a quick look at the internal mechanism of the Webley Mark IV revolver in comparison with the finalized RSAF Enfield design. The Enfield mechanism is really a rather brilliant marriage of the best features of the combat proven Colt and Smith&Wesson revolver lock works. The double action lockwork and removable sideplate are pulled straight out of the Colt system, while the cylinder locking bolt is a simplified and improved version of the Smith&Wesson's design. If anything, EVERYONE owes a debt of gratitude to the Schmidt Galand system dating from the latter part of the 19th century as their source of inspiration. Captain Boy's revolver design did an excellent job of eliminating a goodly number of the Webley service revolver's design flaws ,which W&S had done little to address over the years and did not improve upon during the entire manufacture period of the Webley Mark IV. If you examine a Webley of any pattern, please note the vast number of screws (or pins) in the mechanism, the overall difficulty in complete disassembly of the Webley Mark IV .380 revolver's internal mechanism for servicing and the total inability of the armorer to observe the mechanism in situ when adjusting it for proper function. The Boy's design certainly solved most of these problem areas and is thus different enough from the Webley parent to be considered as a separate and distinct entity unto itself.

In truth, any dispassionate observer without a dog in the fight would have to concede Webley&Scott got what they legally deserved-- which was damned little. And like other well entrenched institutions who'd long been sole suppliers to the military services for decades and consider it to be their birthright, they sadly continued to manufacture their handguns for the commercial without ever seriously considering updating the design throughout the course of manufacture. IF Webley HAD designed the internal mechanism as adopted in the Enfield .380 revolver, why didn't they bother to either a. patent their design and thus make it legally speaking their intellectual property or b. adopt Captain Boy's obvious design improvements for their own line of military and police revolvers during the interwar period? Can you say "Colonel Blimp Mentality"?

This sort of hidebound managerial shortsightedness, coupled with an institutionalized inability and/or willingness to adapt to a changing marketplace, are a couple of the most salient reasons Webley&Scott is no longer in the business of manufacturing revolvers.