1940 Enfield No. 2 Mk. 1*

[majspud]

The stars were aligned just right for this; something that almost never happens for me. I'm due, I think. I missed this one on GunBoards by about a half hour. I posted "Nuts, missed it. What was the asking price?" since the add had been marked $spf. I got an email from the buyer if I was interested. This was an impulse buy - he already had four - and would pass this one to me at cost (and he hadn't told his wife yet). I jumped on it for a very good price as I had been searching the web for the last couple of months.


I have finally filled the British sidearm slot in my collection. As I had by chance backed into the .38S/W cartridge, this made sense over the .455 Webley. We have a nearly perfect 1940 Enfield No. 2 Mk. 1*. The Enfield No. 2, for those who don't know is an identical copy of the Webley #4, save the parts are not interchangeable between the two. Finish is nearly perfect, numbers match, and bore is mirror bright. The revolver had several prominent "D"s on it, which I've read indicate Australian use. The pistol has no import marks. This is my 22nd handgun and is the best fit to my hand of any of them. I can't wait to try the top-break action. As it has a similar profile to my S/W Victory, this one will get a lot of carry time.

T

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.

[mmppres]

very nice looking side arm

[scoobsean]

The Mk1* should be double action only and not have the hammer spur. Has it been converted back to SA/DA or just had the hammer changed?

[majspud]

Have no idea; patina on hammer matches rest of the revolver.

T

[Peter Laidler]

The letter D you mention is in fact a stytlised/interwoven EFD for Enfield of course. Picture 3, top of body, is that a FTR - MA - year mark? If so it it indicates that it was FTR'd at Lithgow in that year. I ask this because it is marked as a Mk1* but it has a hammer spur - which a Mk1* didn't have. In UK service (and I suspect Aust service,) we never(?*) retro-modified our kit to an earlier pattern so I'd say that this pistol has been in some other foreign Country where it has been done. There was a bit more to converting a Mk1* or 1** to a Mk1 than a simple hammer swop!
?* we did, but I can only think of one example of it being done

[barbarossa]

It is also worthy of mention this revolver was not surplussed off by the Brits, as there are none of the requisite post release commercial proofs on the pistol. My suspicion is this revolver was shipped to one of England's European allies following WWII, where it was modified to its present appearance for purposes unknown. After all, a Mark I SA/DA pattern hammer has been added and the reeded Mark I grips have been modified to incorporate a brass marking disc. All distinctly non-standard but an interesting pistol nonetheless.

[Peter Laidler]

It isn't necessary to commercial proof UK Military weapons on disposal to anyone because the UK Military have their own proof and are exempt from the proof regulations required by commercial undertakings. So the absence of that mark isn't necessarily an indicator.
Don't quite understand the point about the marking disc in the early low-top straight reeded grips. I have a similar set here!

Reverting it back to Mk1 spec is a bit strange!