Ramandeep wrote:Baljit wrote:Ramandeep wrote:Personally I feel Webley pistols and revolvers are one of the shittiest ever made lousy an very unappealing,
Ramandeep , what make you think like this?can you explain this for all of us?
Baljit
Firstly Baljit Paaji I would like to state that what i stated above was my personal opinion only rather than anything solely derived from facts and figures. For me the the biggest turn off on a revolver would be the top break mechanism which is almost synonymous with a webley revolver and that would be the biggest deterrent for me to ever buy a Webley. IF we compare the revolvers made in the same era say like colt I believe it was very well crafted and beautifully made and they had far more personality than webleys anyways the webley revolvers were considered reliable and was a standard army issue the mark 4 model. But dont you think a revolver with the right basic mechanism and good quality material would always perform well something which our beloved IOF have achieved by copying the webley. I seriously feel the success of webley was actually driven by expanse of the British Raj than by its own character since it was a standard issue to the British Empire which was virtually present in almost all of the continents at that time.
Now if we talk about the Webley pistols I seriously doubt their reliability. It really doesnt even stand a chance being compared to other pistols of the same era say like Colt which had made one of the finest pistols in the early 20th century which was far more reliable and accurate in its time same was FN browning as it was the same designer, Beretta is another fine example of reliable pistols, Luger(my favourite) is the best pistol that was made in that era I would say till date. So in this extraordinary league I would not even compare a webley pistol which is not at all reliable. The science of accuracy is more prevalent in the pistols than revolvers.
But Webley have made good shotguns true to its nature very english and efficient well crafted I have come across a few webley scott shotguns also own a one couldnt really find a fault at them. I remember having a discussion with a retired army gentleman who was an avid gun enthusiasts as well saying me that Webley Scott has name as a popular firearm manufacturer but it is the shotgun which makes the Webleys desirable.
Raman
Ramandeep, frankly, I can't make out where your reasoning is coming from, nor can I identify the point(s) which you are intending to make.
I would make the following points:
1. The age of a design and the age of manufacture do not necessarily determine the utility of a firearm. Many people are still very interested in buying a Mauser M1898 action rifle (115 years old) a Colt M1911 pistol (a mere 102 years old) or a replica-type revolver based on the Colt Paterson (177 years old). Depending on the use, these guns may be quite serviceable.
2. The quality of finish does not necessarily determine the utility of a firearm. Rifles and handguns made between WW1 and WW2 are often beautifully finished, but their counterparts made during the exigencies of WW2 often operate just as well, even though their finish is ugly.
3. The argument that Webley revolvers are considered good because they were used by the British Empire, which was widespread simply does not hold up to any sort of logical scrutiny. How many people lived in Great Britain compared to the number of people in the British Empire during the times that Webley revolvers were issued -- say, from the 1870s until after WW2? It was vital that the equipment issued to British military forces be able to operate reliably anywhere in their Empire during those times. What would be the point of the richest Empire in the world issuing junk to the relatively sparse military forces? Your attempt to make a point on this basis flies in the face of simple reason and logic.
4. The "top break" or, as it is called in the USA, Schofield action, makes a tremendous amount of sense. When introduced, this kind of action was more than ample to handle the power of black powder cartridges used at the time. Even up to the time of the last Webley action revolver, firing the .38-200, the action is more than strong enough. It is quicker to load and empty than any other sort of common revolver action. Ejection is sure and positive, with the leverage of the barrel providing a much more positive force than pushing the ejector rod on a Colt or Smith & Wesson. For battlefield use, a great deal can be said for this design that cannot apply to designs used by the militaries of other nations.
5. If you have some data showing that the Webley "really doesnt even stand a chance being compared to other pistols of the same era say like Colt which had made one of the finest pistols in the early 20th century which was far more reliable..." I should very much like to see such data, otherwise, I say your statement is completely wrong, for reasons I've stated above. I also appreciate the beauty of Colt revolvers, which is why I own some, and there is no doubt that these revolvers are still, in their advanced age, highly accurate. However, as a battlefield weapon, which the Webley was, gilt-edged accuracy was not a requirement, nor was beauty in the eye of the beholder. These guns were simply meant to function, a task that they performed quite well over many decades of use all around the world.
6. Regarding the quality of IOF products, I cannot comment. I will say I have heard negative things, which I can neither accept or deny, as I have not handled them myself. I will say that current IOF revolvers cannot be compared to the old Webleys directly, as the lockwork on current IOF revolvers differs in significant areas. Again, not having handled IOF revolvers puts me at a disadvantage, both with respect to the design and to the quality of manufacture and of materials. But I will say, the current IOF revolvers are not of the same design, and thus cannot be bunched together with Webleys.
7. Finally, you finish by saying that all that you have offered is your "personal opinion" and no more. I've offered my opinion, but also some pretty solid facts, as well. So where does this leave us?
