.38 Webley Mk. IV problem.

[Bionicback321]

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?

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.

[Patrick Chadwick]

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.

[Peter Laidler]

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........?

[browningautorifle]

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...

[Bionicback321]

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.

[WarPig1976]

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

[Peter Laidler]

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.

[Bionicback321]

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.:


Here is mine:


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?

[WarPig1976]

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.

[Patrick Chadwick]

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.