All,
Just received this in the mail today, it is a RIC No.1 New Model .476 calibre. If you have the recently released book - Webley Solid Frame Revolvers: Models RIC, MP, & No.5 by Joel Black, Joseph L. Davis, & Roger G. Michaud this revolver appears on page 67. If you are not fortunate enough to own this fine book I have copied the page and attached it to this post, the authors decription of the revolver says it all. Well except for the cylinder lockup & bore condition, both of which are very nice indeed.
Regards, John.
She's a beaut'. 8)
Well Capt., you just showed me me an RIC I don't consider to be butt ugly!
Congrats on your new acquisition.
PJ,
Glad to have won you over! And thanks. Here are a couple of pics. of what I'll be firing in the Webley.
Regards, John.
That should prove a most interesting shoot. ;)
So .45 Schofield brass chambers in a .455? Did you have to trim the length?
PJ,
No, I did nothing to the Schofield brass. The rim diameter of the Schofield and of the .455 are almost exactly the same, and the thickness of the Schofield rim to the .455 is not quite half again as thick. I have already fired this loading in my Webley WG and it worked very well, but I am going to have the same load, but using Triple Seven, made up for the RIC.
Also, thought I should mention that both my RIC and WG are stamped .476, with the WG being .476/.455. So not sure how, or if, this would affect the Schofield round in a .455 only revolver!! I know that the earlier models would fire all the Webley rounds i.e., .476,.455,.450, but can't say about the later models.
John.
John
That's good news re: the Schofield brass! Means I don't have to delve into my hoard of original, unfired Dominion .455 brass.
Will the Schofield brass fit into a Webley shell holder?
Some of my best brass was cut down and trimmed from .45 Colt brass. I've pulled the case heads off Dominion brass a few times.
Figured I might as well weigh in on this discussion. WARNING: Something of a "Treatise" follows, but hopefully it will contain some useful revelations for shooters of these old British service revolvers (and other handguns chambered for the same rounds). At any rate, you may wish to copy the diagrams for future reference.
I would be very surprised if either .45 S&W (aka .45 Schofield) or .45 Colt brass, unaltered, will fit a normal British revolver chambered for any of the .450/.455/.476 family of cartridges, unless the revolver has been altered in some way .... e.g. by having the rear of the rear face of the cylinder dressed off a bit to allow for the thicker rims .... or unless the revolver was a very loose fit in that area to start with.
This composite of the specs of .455 MkI, .45 S&W and .45 Colt cartridges should show why -
(http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i219/GrantRCanada/Cartridges/455_45sw_45colt.jpg)
Both the .45 S&W and the .45 Colt cases are too long for a normal .450/.455/.476 chamber (although admittedly some revolvers have chambers either bored right through, or with the slight "shoulder" far enough forward to accommodate longer cases. Normally, however, the case of either of the mentioned .45's must be shortened .... and in any event, the considerably thicker (.060" as opposed to a maximum of .039") rims of either of these .45 cases normally must be thinned (with the material being taken off the front of the rim, of course) for them to not to hang up between the recoil shield and the rear face of the cylinder .... in much the same way that a high primer will bind things up.
In fact, note that the diagram below (which is based on actual War Department specifications) gives the "acceptable" rim thickness of a .455 service revolver case as between .031" and .036" - even thinner than indicated above! At least in the case of a jam caused by a high primer, you stand a chance of being able to rotate the cylinder with some degree of extra force (thus effectively seating the primer deeper with the pressure of the recoil shield) .... but if an over-thick rim is the problem, you most definitely won't be able to squash it thinner by trying to force the cylinder around!
Now is as good a time as any, I suppose, to trot out my old observation that, despite the revolver and cartridge nomenclature, the British .450, .476 and .455 are all, in fact, really .455's. The following diagram from "The Webley Story" illustrates this fact .... note that the specified outer cartridge-mouth diameter of all of the cases is .475" - .479". Only the .455 Mark I case also shows an inner diameter (.455" - .459") but clearly the others would be essentially the same (subject only to possible very slight variations in case thickness at the mouth .....)
(http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i219/GrantRCanada/Cartridges/wbstryc.jpg)
To further emphasize that all of these cartridges are effectively .455 caliber, here are diagrams (from the same source) giving specs for the various British service revolver bullets. Note that only the Mark III Enfield revolver bullet had any departure from .455" diameter, being a "heeled" bullet with a .455" diameter for most of its length, but swelling briefly to .477" just ahead of the case mouth. And even if you have a .476 Enfield revolver - as I do - good luck trying to find that type of bullet. Like me, you are just going to have to use the same hollowbase .455 bullet as i use in my other revolvers. (Mind you, some years back, Ralph Huffaker had a small run of moulds made for a heeled .476 bullet made, and I got one of them. It was not a copy of the original Mark III bullet - being shorter-nosed and solid-based ..... and since I never did figure out a way of effectively seating and crimping the bullets in a case, I ended up selling that mould to someone, so they could wrestle with the problem.)!
(http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i219/GrantRCanada/Cartridges/wbstrya.jpg)
(http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i219/GrantRCanada/Cartridges/wbstryb.jpg)
RJ is correct, if .45 S&W brass fits then the gun has been "monkeyed" with.
Also, the metal in these is NOT very hard. I had a buddy with an original RIC and the breech face peened something awful. He had to have a recoil plate machined into the breech face. He shot only REAL BP loads as well.
I would defintely call the seller and ask a few questions about the gun's history. ;)
Evening Grant & Fox Creek,
If you have a look at the picture of the cylinder facing in my first post you can see that all the appropriate #'s are there., verifying that it has not been shaved. In fact my WG, which has all the numbers on the face, will accept the .45 Schofield load as well and I fired it last weekend at the local NCOWS shoot. Both of the revolvers cylinder numbers match the rest of the parts, so they are not replacement cylinder's.
I have emailed with Mr. Joel Black on several occasions and he has told to me personally as well as in forum discussions, that out of the hundreds of Webleys he has photographed, or owned, approx. 50% of them would chamber the .45 Colt round. Please read the following post: http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?232525-RIC-in-45-colt
As you can see in the Webley ad posted by hrf they did offer this New Model RIC in .45 Colt, .44-40 and .44 Rusian, further down you can see the remark that I attributed to Mr. Black.
Look forward to hearing back from both of you.
Regards, John.
Let me ask what may appear to be a dumb question: have you loaded the cylinder while it WAS on the gun and tried to rotate the cylinder?
Of these British revolvers I only have experience with a 1916 manufactured Webley Mk VI. It definitely requires rims of approximately .035 to work. If you have a revolver that will accept thicker rims, I guess you could go with it; - BUT BE CAREFUL..
However these British revolvers are all old, and are are of breakopen design, (except the old S&W and Colt NS revolvers chambered in .455 - relatively common here in Canada.) I wouldn't risk any of them with cases of Long Colt or Schofield length. Hornady makes Mk II cases and Fiocchi makes ammo in .450 Adams (.450Corto) and .455 Webley Mk II.
If I were choosing a case to alter I would look for .45 Cowboy Special cases as they would have the proper inside taper. The rims would have to be thinned as required.
Of all the Pards I know, I'd trust RJ as having extensive knowledge and experience loading for the older British designs.
Fox Creek,
Yes, have loaded the RIC cylinder while on the revolver and ha
ve no problem whatsoever rotating a full circle.
Regards, John.
Not having a lathe and having had bad luck with having cases trimmed in the past, I think I'll order some cases from Buffalo Arms at $60 per 100, trimmed to .820. I've ordered obsolete brass from BA before with good results.
I don't have a shortage of Dominion balloon head cases, but I'm told they are becoming increasingly rare. I even have a box of factory ammo which shall not be fired.
I've got the RCBS HB Webley .455 265 gr. mould that casts great bullets at 270 grs before lubing. Lacking a .454/.455 sizer die, I put them thru' a .457 which just lubes. One batch was cast from my rifle alloy, another from soft lead for BP. I've loaded some up with 5 grs of Unique which ought not to stress anything I own, including my Tranter.
I had the cylinder of that gun magnafluxed by an outfit that does automotive and aeronautical testing. It passed with colours flying. They made me promise to bring in the complete gun to show them and it was a hit. Everyone feels they know Colt SAAs from the movies, but Brit guns are a rarity and a mystery to most.
I certainly respect Joel Black's extensive knowledge of British revolvers .... and I suspect he has handled more of them than any three of us are likely to see in our combined lifetimes .... so I have reviewed the Gunboards thread in John's link with considerable interest.
Therein lies at least a partial answer to our apparent "disagreement". The specific post by Joel referred to by John reads as follows (emphasis added by me) -
QuoteAt least half the .476 British revolvers we tested had sufficient rim clearance to work with 45 Colt. The chambers are essentially identical. Rim thickness is the only issue, but manufacturing tolerances very often negate this problem.
Further down the thread, Joel stresses that it is only revolvers specifically chambered for .476 which are likely to accept .45 Colt rounds without having their rims thinned. Another poster in the thread mentioned that he could chamber .45 Colt rounds in his .476 revolver, but there was noticeable resistance in rotating the cylinder. To me, this indicates a range of manufacturing tolerance rather greater than I hitherto expected would be likely with Webley-made revolvers, and that the only Webley you can hope will chamber and function with .45 Colt cases (perhaps a 50/50 chance) will be one specifically chambered for .476.
Having come to that conclusion, I then went and pulled out my .476 Mark II Enfield revolver, ensured that the chambers and rim recesses were spotlessly clean, and then tried to chamber an old DCC .45 Colt factory round .... which from its headstamp I believe dates to the mid 1920's or earlier, and which actually has a very heavy crimp and "narrow" bullet nose, so I am sure there is no untoward chambering interference at that end. Anyway, the round will not fully enter any of the chambers of that revolver.
If you are familiar with the design, the Enfield has a very small gap between the rear cylinder face and the recoil shield, but the rear of the cylinder and the extractor star are actually rebated to accept the cartridge rims, thus permitting the cylinder to turn when the revolver is closed up. A .45 Colt rim (being a smaller diameter than the rims on any of the .450/.476/.455 family of cartridges) has no trouble entering that rebate .... but is much too thick to go in all the way. The cylinder cannot turn past the loading gate with a .45 Colt round chambered. I also tried chambering a round with the revolver broken open, but then it would not close and latch.
Too bad, in one sense .... this rim rebate gave me visions of NWMP constables having been able to use .45 Colt cartridges in their issue Enfield revolvers. Not so, unfortunately ..... I thought that might be possible because my .455 RIC revolver has had a similar rebate machined into the rear of each of its chambers which is just wide enough to accept a .45 Colt rim, but only deep enough that it drops in for just a portion of its thickness .... leaving some of the rim projecting above the cylinder face to the same thickness as the rim of a .455 cartridge. However, a .455 cartridge still positions itself the same as it would had the modification not been done, because its rim diameter is quite a bit greater than that of the .45 Colt and thus handily spans the rebate. Quite a neat modification, really .... which this "cross-sectional" diagram hopefully illustrates somewhat more clearly than my verbal description -
(http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i219/GrantRCanada/Webley%20and%20other%20revolvers/chambermodification.jpg)
This is not something I would have done to the revolver myself, of course, but it came to me that way. At any rate, I wouldn't dream of firing a full .45 Colt load in this revolver. Since they did make RIC's chambered for .45 Colt, I suppose the revolver could be capable of handling it - at least with black powder as the propellant - but I wouldn't want to take that risk. I doubt that it would be a terribly pleasant experience with such loads, anyway! However, it does open up the possibility of using .45 Colt cases to make up loads approximating the.455 Mark I cartridge ....
Todd:
You mention your intention to get some modified .45 Colt cases from Buffalo Arms. Have they relaxed their policy of sending nothing to Canada (.... adopted a few years ago when they apparently got into trouble for willingly sending anything to Canada .... ) or do you have them ship to someone you know on that side of the Medicine Line?
Evening Grant,
I want you to know that I was not trying to be disrespectful of your knowledge, or your advice! I too consider your experience & dealings with English handgun's in general and Webley's in particular top notch, and for the record the pictures you have shown of your collection are what got me started on these firearms in the first place. If my post seemed argumentative I wholeheartedly apologize, that was never my intention.
Regards, John.
Well, that settles it. We all learned something and that is a good thing. ;)
No problem at all, John! ;D
Not owning any .476-chambered Webley revolvers, I was admittedly speaking solely from my experience with my .455 and .455/.450 Webleys (none of which will chamber a .45 Colt round, with the exception of my modified RIC mentioned above) coupled with my awareness that the .476 cartridge case is almost identical to the later .455 Mark I case, and my erroneous assumption that the tolerances in Webley-made revolvers would be narrow enough to preclude a .45 Colt rim fitting the cylinder-face gap. (Mind you, I suppose this fits within my qualification ".... unless the revolver was a very loose fit in that area to start with."
As "they" say we can always learn something new .... which I have just done! (And, as Fox Creek Kid notes, that's a good thing!)
Grant
I've had no trouble ordering anything from BA, including .43 Spanish brass; but that was a year or so back. I get things from them faster than I can get items from Canadian suppliers! Especially "No Sale Sports" who continue to be a disappointment - back ordered, "not at this store", etc.
They recently sold my wife a .452 Lee sizing kit when what I wanted was a Lyman die for my sizer/lubricaror. The sales clerk was not a handloader and asked her no questions. Fortunately, I found a buyer.
I just realized that I have a friend with both a milling machine and a lathe that isn't an incompetent regarding guns and such. He cuts dovetails in custom ML barrels, so I think he'll be able to trim some .45 LC brass for me. What length should I opt for - .820, .850, .870?
The Tranter is bored straight thru' and will chamber .45 Colt full length, so it isn't fussy. I'll also be feeding a MK VI and a Colt NS.
My Webley-Pryse #4 should arrive tomorrow ..... ;>)
Grant,
Thanks very much for accepting my apologie, and yes its a good thing.
I will echo PJ's question from above, only I will be using the Schofield brass instead of the Colt. Which of the lengths would be optimal?
John.
My tongue-in-cheek answer would actually be ... "none of the above" ..... ;)
The acceptable range of OAL for both the .476 Enfield and .455 MkI cases was from .850" to .870" - in other words .860" +/- .010" - so I'd say that the optimum length (assuming that you want to duplicate the original length) would be .860" .....
Although these original WD "List of Changes" entries don't actually contain that case-length specification, perhaps they would be of some interest if you wish to try to come as close as possible to the "period" loads. Note that, although the .455 MkI Webley revolver was adopted in 1887, the Enfield cartridge continued in use with it until 1891.....
(http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i219/GrantRCanada/List%20of%20Changes/LoC3792.jpg)
(http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i219/GrantRCanada/List%20of%20Changes/loc3970.jpg)
(http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i219/GrantRCanada/List%20of%20Changes/LoC6844.jpg)
On the other hand, if you want to try for maximum accuracy with your loads, you may want to experiment with different lengths, starting with the full length .45 Colt case and working down from that. It occurs to me that, if the chambers are deep enough to accommodate the full-length .45 Colt case, better accuracy might be achieved with the longest case, thus minimizing the "bullet jump" to the forcing cone of the bore ....
::)
I've just miked a couple of new unprimed Dominion .455 cases and they average .885 - .886.
Rim thickness : .038
Head diameter: .528 - .529
Case mouth: .470 - .472
Diameter above rim: .475 - .476
Colt .45 *_* (Starline) brass mikes - head diameter .508 - .509, rim thickness .056, diameter above rim .476
Using longer cases might reduce bullet jump to the forcing cone, but then you have the issue of increased case volume and the problems associated with that -light charges and erratic ignition.
Has anyone experience using Trail Boss in .455s?
Y'know .... something was sticking in my mind to the effect that the case specs which I labeled ".455 MkI" in the first diagram I posted in this thread, might actually be the "maximums" for the .455 Colt cartridge which, as I recall, in fact differed slightly from the British .455 Mk I service revolver cartridge of which it was supposed to be a North American commercial version. That would explain the slight variance in specs - particularly OAL - from the .455 MkI specifications given in the diagram I posted rom "The Webley Story". At any rate, I now note that a stand-alone version of that first diagram which I came across in my computer files is actually labeled ".455 Colt/Webley Mk I" .....
Your OAL measurements from the Dominion cases would certainly seem to bear that out ....
One has to standardize at some point .... I've opted for commercial Dominion .455.
If you were to measure a whack of cartridges of ANY calibre, (particularly 'antique' ammo) you'd find no end of dimensional variation.
I often wondered why Dominion ammo boxes were labelled ".455 Colt". Perhaps the intention was to appeal to the greater market - US owners of Colt NS and other revolvers.
I have one Remington ammo box marked - ".455 Webley, MK II" On the bottom is stamped "July 1942 Lot 3". It also has the following:
"These cartridges are adapted to Webley-Fosbery Automatics, and to Webley MK VI, Colt New Service and Smith & Wesson Arms".
The box is in pretty good shape, the printing in Remington green on a buff coloured cardboard.
When did the Brits transition from "18 grs rifle pistol powder'' to using cordite?
I presume that pressures with the cordite load were not deemed to be excessive for BP proved revolvers ..... ?
1894 ....
(http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i219/GrantRCanada/List%20of%20Changes/LoC7608.jpg)
Note that this was the initial transition to the Mark I Cordite cartridge .... i.e. substituting cordite for the R.F.G. black powder propellant in the original MkI-length case. It appears that, by then, R.F.G. was only being loaded in revolver cartridges and the few Snider cartridges that might still be required., since LoC 7684 (24 Nov 1894) provides that the general manufacture of R.F.G. powder was to be discontinued "except when required for filling Snider cartridges."
The substitution of the shorter Mark II cartridge case - it having been discovered that the smokeless propellant performed better in a smaller space - did not follow until 1897. (For some reason, Ian Skennerton missed including the specific entry for the Mark II .455 cartridge in his List of Changes compilations, so I cannot reproduce it here. (Does anyone have a copy of that particular entry, from any other source?)
As you surmise, it appears that there were no immediate concerns with any pressure issues arising from the switch to cordite propellant. The official adoption of the Mark II Webley revolver followed almost immediately (LoC 7816, 1 October 1894) and the Mark III revolver was approved a few years later (LoC 9039, 5 October 1897) .... both without any modifications relating specifically to the potential pressure differences arising from the use of cordite.
It was not until the Mark IV revolver (LoC 9787, 21 July 1899) that some consideration seems to have been given to such issues. The primary differences from the Mark IIi revolver clearly intended to augment strength and durability were detailed as follows:QuoteThe steel used in the manufacture of the barrel, body, cylinder, and cylinder axis is of different quality; .... the ratchet teeth of the extractor are case hardened, and the lifting point pf the pawl water-hardened, to increase their durability.
Thanks, Grant! I should be able to fix that date in what I choose to refer to as my mind.
To answer my own question re: using Trail Boss in .455 ..... I have on my 'bragging wall' a couple of targets shot with my Tranter using hard cast .450 bullets. One load was 5 grs Unique and t'other was 4.5 Trail Boss. Recoil seemed a trifle heavier with TB, so I'll reduce it to an even 4 grs.
The latest Speer manual lists 4.6 TB as max in .44 Spl. For .44 Russian they drop it to 2.9! That sounds rather anemic. They must think every .44 Russian revolver out there is an 'antique'.
Just received word that my 'new' commercial Colt NS .455 has been shipped. I may see it by next Friday. Then I'll post some pics and have an orgy of .455 shooting .... ;>)
Todd, et al ....
Just discovered a typo in my previous post. The date of LoC 6784 announcing the discontinuance of general manufacture of RFG powder was 24 Nov. 1894 (not 1897, as previously stated) .... i.e. only about two months after the new cordite propellant for the .455 Mark I cartridge was announced. (I have amended the post above, but thought I should mention it in separate posting.)
Will look forward to seeing photos of your .455 Colt New Service. Must admit, though, that my N.S. is the least favorite of my various .455 revolvers ... but that is mainly because it doesn't seem to fit my hand well ... so that is a purely personal thing .....
Grant
The poor ergonomics of the Colt NS grip seem to be the chief reason people dislike them. That's why I have a Pachmayr grip adapter on the way. The company that makes the Tyler T-Grip is also coming back on line but currently having problems meeting demand.
The grip issue notwithstanding, the Colt NS has a cachet lacking in many other guns, having a lenthy service career in the military and NWMP/RCMP. Other than that, it's hard not to like a revolver built like a tank. I concede that I prefer the silky double action of S&Ws from the same era compared to the 'stacking up' pressure of the Colt DA.
I recently ran across a picture of Patton's M27 .357 S&W fitted with a grip adapter, so the problem exists with the S&W 'N' frames as well. My own S&W M29 wears Miculek grips for that very reason.