Here are some pics of a Nice Webley owned by Le Fusil

That's about the nicest Webley and Scott I have seen. Similar forend shape to some Westley Richards guns and even Remington for that matter.

It's Webley's "Proprietary" Hammerless Ejector Model, Grade 1. There is an illustration of this same gun in Webley's 1922 catalogue. Serial number in the 97,000 range would indicate a date of roughly 1923. The proof marks are 1904 rule Birmingham, which fits. However, I don't see the crossed sword date code mark that Brum started in 1921. That would give the date of proof. Nice gun.

Pretty near the top of the Screw Grip food chain! Nice gun. Like to oak leaf fences!! Anyone care to speculate as to why they didn't use interceptors?

Dunno. No mention of intercepting sears being available on that model. This wasn't the best of the screw grips. The best boxlock was the A & W 51 Model. The best sidelock screw grip was the W & R 1st.

400 NE - what model to think this one is? A&W 52?

Rocketman:

This isn't an A & W. Different model altogether. This model was call the "'Proprietary' Hammless Ejector" Model. It's the top grade of that model.

Sure looks like an A&W to me. So, what is the difference of this one from an A&W?

Thanks for posting the pictures Ross. I have no idea what grade this Webley is. I thought it looked alot like the Webley 701 that Champlin Arms had on their website a couple weeks ago. Almost the same engraving pattern (except for the oak leaf motif on my gun and the scroll work on the barrel breeches), the sculpted top lever, the "knuckles" carved into the forend wood, etc. The gun at Champlins was made in the late 60's if I recall and my gun was made somewhere around 1927 I think. I was looking very hard at the EJ Churchill BLE at Hill Rod and Gun, and then I found this at a local shop. The Churchill and this Webley are built on the same (similar?) action and this Webley is a little nicer I think. I like everything about this Webley, it just "does it" for me.

Dustin

Engraving looks to be Germanic in style and work - not your usual English motif.

It IS a screw grip, but not all Webley screw grips are A & W Models. The "Proprietary" Hammerless Model shown in the photos above uses a straight extension. The A & W used a spade shaped doll's head extension and, in the better grades, intercepting sears. Also I THINK the A & W shotgun actions had a slightly longer action bar than the non-A & W models did, but I'm not certain (I've researched the Webley doubles for years, but I'm a double rifle guy). That was the case with Webley's screw grip double rifle actions for sure.

I'm not savvy enough to post links, but if you want to see what an A & W C ("C" is for Cordite. This is the double rifle action but it will serve for illustration purposes) looks like, go over to the Double Rifle Forum at accuratereloading.com to the thread "Another Newbie Question" posted by 375 hnh and click on the link to the Army & Navy .470. This is an A & W C 2nd.

The dolls head of the A & W shotty action was very slightly different in shape. If you want to see what it looks like, there is a William Evans SLE for sale at champlinarms.com in the New and Featured Gun List. This is a Webley W & R model that uses the same dolls head as the A & W.

Don't be confused by "Army & Navy" and "William Evans". These are Webley built guns, with Webley serial numbers on them, retailed by other gunmakers.

In the case of Wm.Evans, maybe Webley's raw stock.
Its all in the fit and finish anyway, and there's the rub.
How stupid these men were to pay 5 to 10 times the going rate of the Webley for a Wm.Evans!

Dustin, you need to get a copy of Webley & Scott's 1922 catalogue. Reprints were done some years ago and are still available around the web. Your EXACT gun is illustrated at the top of page 7, '"Proprietary" Hammerless Ejector Guns'. Same model gun, same carved oak leaf fences, same treatment of the fore-end wood, same engraving pattern on action body, etc. The only differences between the illustrated gun and the photos of yours are that the engraving wedge on the barrels is a little smaller in the catalogue, and the makers name is in an oval in the center of the action bar instead of across the top of the bar. Otherwise, your gun is absolutely identical. The illustration is of "Grade 1". There is no doubt about the Model and grade.



Brown shows 1923 for that number. Also, your proof marks don't show case length, which became a required mark under the new rules of 1925, so the 1923 date is more likely to be correct than 1927.

400 NE, I agree with you on the dating of Dustin's gun. Does your catalog specify that that particular gun is a screwgrip? I have a couple photos of screwgrips, and both have the word "patent" around the screw through the top lever--and they both also have a small screw set into the rear of the large, spindle screw. Without being able to see whether the spindle on Dustin's gun is threaded, (Dustin, you should be able to see the threads in the slot in the standing breech), from the photos at least, it looks as if it could be just a standard Scott spindle with a 3rd bite. Looking down on the receiver from the top, the top levers on my Army & Navy pair (made by Scott in 1933) don't look any different than on this gun. But mine have Greener crossbolts, definitely not screwgrip guns.

I have been looking at a Webley & Scott from the same era, albeit a lower grade gun. The one I have been looking at has a straight extension, not a doll's head, but it does not look like the one above. It has an angled notch cut into the extension, rather than the "shelf?" in the one above. This gun does have a locking screw set into the main top lever screw, but I cannot see any screw threads in the spindle. Are all of these guns screw grips? Were there different versions of the screw grip action? I have heard reference to Model 400s and 500s.

Yes, it does. Like I said, I don't pay nearly as much attention to the shotguns, and I haven't handled that model in a while, but I don't recall it having visible machine threads on the spindle. The catalogue describes it as a screw grip.



While I have no wish whatsoever to start an endless controversy here, your above para pretty much outlines the crux of a very popular misconception about these. The term "screw-grip" is commonly used today as a nick-name for some screw grip models that have machine threads on the spindle that are visible through the standing breech. That definition is a modern invention, and one that I can find no evidence that Webley ever used.

In doublegun nomenclature, a "screw grip" is a fastening system used in three different ways. The first was Henry Jones's screw grip from 1859, which fastens the barrels to the action via a T shaped screw head which engages angled slots in the underlug. Turning the underlever tightens the "screw". Wilkinson Sword's Screw Grip Fore-end Fastener of 1866 (the side-swinging lever type seen on the Army & Navy rifle above) is a direct crib on the Henry. The lever bears against an angled cut on the loop, "screwing" the fore-end iron tightly into place as it turns. Webley & Brain's 1882 Screw-Grip Top Fastener works in exactly the same way - an angled extension on the spindle engages a matching cut on the rib extension and turning the toplever "screws" the barrels down tightly. The term "screw grip" is a description of how the fastening system works, not of a specific characteristic of a few models of the type.



After the merger in 1897, the P. Webley and W & C Scott lines remained more or less separate, even in the catalogues, until the Scott line was dropped in 1935. The screw grips were Webley models and the crossbolt guns were specific Scott models.

Webley made 7 versions that I'm aware of.

No, it isn't, and there's the rub.

Webley never numbered their actions. When they assigned a number to a gun they built for the trade, the number was stamped on the barrels, not on the action. This Evans is a readily identifiable Webley model and their number is on the barrels. In other words, it left Webley as a proven barreled action in the white, at a minimum. However, research into these Webley trade guns in recent years indicates that this was rarely done, and that most left Webley complete.

William Evans was largely a retailer back then, and famously retailed a LOT of Webley guns. Few in the trade believe that Evans was stocking and finishing the guns they were buying in from the trade in those days. I've had doubles like this from Evans, Holland, Rigby, etc., right next to guns of the same model that Webley built for no-name retailers that were absolutely identical - sometimes right down to the exact same engraving. No difference in quality of finish whatsoever. I see this regularly, because I'm taking notes on the guns, and writing down both serial numbers for my research.

According to the Evans records, this gun was built in 1929. According to the Webley & Scott serial number table that Nigel Brown published, the Webley number on the loop is also from 1929. Imagine that.

As a comparison between highest and lowest, here are two pictures of my grade 3 (lowest grade) "Proprietary"-gun, made by W&S for Army & Navy C.S.L. Sold 1921.





And a link to a Webley & Scott 1914 catalogue in pdf. Click on the link on the top of the page.

http://huntershouse.dk/index.php?kat=191

First-off, I cast a weary eye to the men, who go after the London trade with such intensity.
Boxlock, or best gun - are we on the same page?
We know that the most famous Birmingham maker of all, Westley Richards, had what few best Sle guns made for them by AA Brown.
So, the most famous of all, could not complete their best Sle gun.
It is also known that raw stock from B'ham was finished in London for their guns. Now, as to complete guns?
Maybe their 2nd and 3rd quality came whole from B'ham without the London craftsmen touching them.
I think your selling the men who knew best guns, shot the estates and had the money somewhat short.

We know that WR made some of the finest guns in the world, both shotguns and double rifles, of course they could make SLE's if they wanted to. Just because they didn't make them does not mean thay couldn't make them. Perhaps their own best craftsmen concentrated on their best BLE's and drop locks, and the small numbers of SLE's ordered would have meant that customers had to wait longer (perhaps too long) to get their guns? The easiest and fastest way was of course to order finished guns from the Birmingham trade.

Scott seems to have used an heavy oak leaf motif from time to time on some of their fancy stuff.

From the above it would seem that my Lefevers, Baker & even the old J Stevens I used to have are all "Screw Grips". I had always been under the impression that Larry's description was the proper one for a "Screw Grip" Scott.

400 NE, if you pull up the link that cloffe posted back on P. 2, to a catalog from 1914, you'll find the company's description of the Webley screw grip. The accompanying drawing clearly shows that the spindle is threaded. (See Side 5.) Likewise, Ron Forsyth's article in Shooting Sportsman (The Ubiquitous Screw-Grip, Sept/Oct 02) includes an even clearer drawing of the Webley-Brain patent of 1882. That drawing also shows, quite clearly, a threaded spindle.

A big Thank you for all of the helpful information and comments. I wil look around for a copy of the 1922 Webley catalog. Larry, yes the spindle is threaded, you can see it plain as day :-) The gun is at Gunter Pfrommers work shop getting a once over and new "Silvers" pad installed, cant wait to get it back!

Dustin

Thanks, Dustin. Neat gun, for sure, and with that clarification there's no doubt it's a screw grip.

Could be Rocketman, but isn't the oakleaf motif usually carried thru-out the gun. I'd say by the action's typical Birmingham engraving, the fences were done-up as an aftermarket thing.

Cloffe, Westley made many more rough guns than best quality.
The old Westley Richards Agency was just down the road from me, and I looked at a plenty, and passed on all but one double rifle.
A very spartan double rifle, right out of India.
No doubt a loaner of the Raj!
I did add a workingman's Westley 12b sometime later on - it was no gem.

Your very nice W.&S. is their model 500 "Proprietary" grade made from 1924-1950 [See picture on page 29, in "The history of W&C.
Scott]. The model 701 made in later years, was of the same high quality, but lacked the oak leaf engraving on the fences.

I have seen the same style engraved fences on a model 701, sold in a blue-lined case a couple of years back at Holt's . Made £2000.

I've read over the years, in places I can't remember, that the 700 was not the quality of the 500. Changes in manufacturing, and materials, quality of finish, experience of workmen at the time, etc. Would like someone in the know to elaborate.
Best,
Ted

The following show three BLE's for comparison: an 1894 Woodward, an 1897 Army&Navy recorded as a A&W 52, and a 1910 Woodward recorded as a W&S. The A&N and the 1910 JW have the threaded spindle (photo #2) while the 1894 JW does not (photo #3). The '94 JW and the A&N have doll's heads while the 1910 JW has a straight extension. Only the A&N has "Patent" on the top lever.

Do you think the '94 JW is a London built gun or a Scott? What model is the 1910 JW?

In my opinion the engraving is as English as the Oak trees that stood in Windsor great park...
I have recut a few of these Joe Brown/Walter Howe engraved W&S actions and they are all fairly similar.
Joe Brown was one of the most highly regarded engravers in England, the chief engraver for Webley Scott and an instructor at Aston technical school in Brummie town.

BLH and/or other enrgavers - Per this photo of the Woodward by W&S, the monogram is not of the original purchaser. Do you suppose the "panel" where the monogram is located was blank and this monorgam just took advantage of the blank space? The original monogram should have been SSO. Does this monogram look French/Belgian? Any thoughts as to the rest of the engraving being London or Birmingham?

Rocketman, why the reference Army and Navy with Webley Scott, please? I value highly my 12ga A&N circa 1913 boxlock IC/IM because I shoot well with it but couldn't imagine it in such illustrious company as W&S.

K B - there is a very high probability that your A&N was built by W&S; A&N retailed a lot of W&S Screw Grip guns. The one pictured above surely was. In the A&N book it is noted as a A&W 52, the second quality grade Screw Grip. Further, in case I didn't make my point clear, it is a very close sibling to the 1910 Woodward shown, the Woodward being noted as W&S in the Woodward books.

Rocketman, here is a picture of my A&N C.S.L. (W&S made "proprietary" grade 3) The design looks just like your 1910 Woodward. Disc set strikers, the bridge is a bit lower than the flats, they have the same screw grip and the pins on the side of the bar seems to be the same as well.
I think mine was built just before WW1 and it was sold by A&N in 1921.

Have any of you Webley owners ever had problems with wear in the hinge pin?
I have read somewhere that this fault is the achilles heel of Webley actions.
Apparently due to the configuration of the hinge.
I have never had any trouble.
Opinions please.

Salopian,
What would make the W&S hinge pin any different from any other hinge pin? I have never heard of any gun being known to have a faulty hinge pin. (I have heard of "soft" hinge pins, pins that were not round due to over zealous filing, and pins that were harder than the lumps causing excessive wear, all of these thing being created by less than professional refinishing techniques). Very curious.

Dustin

Perhaps it´s because most W&S boxlocks have got "integrated" hinge pins, and not removable ones. When the hinge pin gets worn, and all hinge pins do, it's a more complex and expensive affair to repair it than on guns with removable ones.

The issue with Webley 700s ahooting loose is often attributed to the hingepin. It is not so in my experience. It is more often because the hook is quite delicate and this is generally where the wear occurs.

The other issue with the Webley 700 is the two retaining pins (screws) on eirher side of the action that hold the cocking levers. They are threaded into a thin section of action wall and often strip. The solution is to tap-in a holding pin from underneath the bar - can be done invisibly and costs around £60.

I just bought a webley built Army & Navy almost identical to Rocketman's Woodward - dated it to between 1892 - 1896. In the process of fixing it up - it has been neglected but was a quality gun in its time - very fine engraving and beautiful wood. Also has the screw-grip and disc-set strikers.

most hinge pins are usually harder than the barrel lumps - any action that is hardened usually also includes the pin. I have never come across or heard of any manufacturer who removes the hingepin for case hardening and then replaces it. The only time you will regularly come across a softer hingepin is when it has been replaced after excessive wear, or sometimes on a monoblock action when the lumps etc are of a different grade steel to the barrels.

Jonty