.45 Webley


#1

I have a round headstamped “W.R.A.Co. 45 W E B.”. What gun is the .45 Webely round intended for? Its dimensions are not the same as .450 or .455 rounds, Thanks in advance for any info.

If anyone wonders why I’m making all these threads, I have a bag of cartridges to go through.


#2

Altough not identical to the 450 or the 455,the 45 Webley is an american version of the 450 short CF ( Brandt’s opinion).It has a longer case but the bullet is shorter.It was intended for webley and bull dog revolvers.


#3

So can you fire this round in a revolver chambered for .450 CF? The rim looks too thick to be able to chamber it.


#4

Barnes says that “it interchanges in most weapons”.I think that it was intended for american revolvers of Webley-style


#5

I must admit that I don’t know why the “.45 Webley” even exists.

Most publications say that it was the US equivalent of the .450 Short CF but WRACo, USCCo and UMC/Rem-UMC also loaded the .450 Short CF.

According to Barnes (not the most reliable of sources) it was introduced in the mid 1870s


#6

That really is strange. Do you know of a revolver ever turning up that has been marked “.45 Webley”?

A company does not just make cartridges that have no guns to use them in.


#7

Just a couple of points on the beginning of manufacture of the .45 Webley in the USA. Winchester made it quite a bit earlier than 1904. Their first catalog entry for the .45 Webley caliber is their May 1st, 1879 catalog, “adapted to Webley Double-Action Pistol.” It stayed in the Winchester Catalog until the issue of September 23, 1939, where it was only offered in black powder loading. It is not in the price list dated January 2, 1940, so we know within three months of when it was actually discontinued.

Unfortunately, the UMC factory log shows no date for their introduction of this cartridge, but it is listed on a page with three other calibers, with the one below it dated 1894. I think we can assume that is a pretty close year to its introduction at UMC.

Oddly, unlike winchester, for which I can find no entry in a catalog from their first one on for .450 revolver, nor any for .45 or .450 “Expo” including the 1904 and 1905 catalogs, UMC losit the .45o Revolver in February 1889 and the .45 Revolver Smokeless May 4, 1895.

There were few Revolvers made in the U.S. for these calibers. Even the ones marked “Buildog” were more often found in .38 and .41 caliber, as far as I can glean from my library.

It is, truly, a wonder that the .45 Webley was list for so many years in American ammunition catalogs.


#8

John,
I said that Winchester loaded the .45 Short CF from 1904 - I was not saying that they made the 45 Webley starting in 1904.

UMC catalogue for 1880 lists a “.45 Adams”. This according to Howard Hoovestol (I don’t have that catalog myself). There is a gap and then it appears as the “.450 Revolver”.

My dates for Winchester are Shuey Volume 2.

Chris P.


#9

Chris - sorry, I misunderstood you. However, Winchester catalogs from 1904 to at least 1910 do not show any such caliber as “.45 Short CF.” I did not go through the catalogs past 1910 in response to this, but can if you like. Now, I wonder if the “.45 Short CF” by any name was only for export. None of my Winchester catalogs are specifically for foreign sales or not. I don’t know if they published an export catalog differing in content from their domestic ones or not. The only “short .45” shown in any of the catalogs I have is the .45 Webley.

My information came directly from the winchester catalogs, by the way.

Another thought - bear in mind I am just throwing out ideas because I don’t know squat about these old revolver rounds - is that maybe in 1904 they changed the headstamp from .45 Webley to .45 short CF. Is there such a headstamp known? I simply don’t know myself. I don’t know where Shuey’s 1904 date comes in, but of course, he had access to ten times the information on Winchester cartridges I did. It would be nice to find out if there were “Export only” catalogs, or what the source for that date is, though.

I reserached my files on UMC and found that it is possible that the date I gave of the .450 Black Powder as Febray 1889 could be actually 1897. The writing in my notes is poor. There is no entry, however, earlier than that for any .450 revolver cartridge of any name. I am not saying they didn’t make the .450 Adams. I am simply saying that it is not in their log.

Unfortunately, I have not one single UMC catalog, xerox copy or original in my files. I wish I did. It has kept me from helping others in this subject area more than once. I only have an undated (unforturnately) reprint of the UMC part of a Schuyler, Hartley and Graham catalog, which does show the .45o and .45 Webley cartridges, but nothing else in .450 revolver rounds by any other name.


#10

I’ve just had a trawl through ‘Webley Revolvers’ by Bruce & Reinhart and there is no mention of this calibre at any point.

In what way do the dimensions of this cartridge differ from other 0,45" cartridges made for Webley chamberings?

Peter


#11

The first UMC catalog I find the .45 Webley listed in is 1882. This catalog also lists the .45 Adams. The first listing I find for the .450 Revolver is 1901. Rem-UMC continued to list both the .45 Webley (230gr.) and the .450 Revolver (226gr.) until 1937. Neither are in the 1938 catalog.

Here are the pages from the 1910 U.M.C. catalog. Note that it claims BOTH rounds are adopted to the Webley Revolver. Also note that only the .450 was loaded with smokeless. Also note that the .45 Webley had 20 grs. of Black Powder, the .450 used only 13 grs.


#12

What strange codes!What’s the meaning of Lamsoor,Lepturgo etc?Are they fantasy names?

In Italian “lercioso” means “dirty”


#13

these codes were used in the old times to order ctges.
Phone was not very common and they used telegraph for example
jp


#14

John,
Dan Shuey Vol 2 gives 1904 for Winchester’s first loading of the “.45 Expo” (last loaded 1910) but it isn’t until 1918 that he says they started making the .450 Short CF. BTW: I would not expect to see the .45 Expo in a catalogue as it was a special-order item - initially for the Louisiana Purchase Centennial Exposition in St. Louis. Given that Winchester’s rivals were making the “.45 Adams” and then the .450 Revolver well before then, I wonder if Winchester were making it. However, Dan’s info is normally pretty accurate given that it is taken from the factory records. Catalogues, as you know, are a record of availability rather than manufacture - a subtle but significant difference.
The UMC factory ledger is not accurate before the early 1880’s (according to Hoovestol). There is no mention of early production of a “.45 Adams”.

Ron,
Interesting to note that UMC lists the “.45 Adams” in the 1882 catalogue (thanks for checking - can you post a picture of that page, pleeeaaasse!).
The 1880 catalogue lists the 45 Adams as having a 225 grain bullet and 20 grains of powder. UMC production ledger says they started loading the .450 Revolver in Feb 1889 - but with 226-grain bullet and 13 grains of BP.

Gareth,
Apologies - we seem to have hi-jacked your thread about the 45 Webley !

Chris P.


#15

Chris P-Here is the page you requested. It is a little hard to read as it was scanned at only 100dpi and I do not have the original.


#16

Many thanks Ron, I will post the relevant pages from the 1880 catalogue tonight - assuming we don’t get yet another power cut. It lists two different primers for the 45 Webley. I note that the 1882 catalogue also lists a 20 grain charge with the 225 grain bullet for the .45 Adams. The standard charge for the 45 Adams (from a British perspective) was 13 grains which, as you point out, is what UMC reverted to when they loaded the “.450 Revolver” later. I wonder if the charge weight given in the 1880/1882 catalogues was a typo?
Chris P.

correction: ref: “It lists two different primers for the 45 Webley” - Just noticed that the entries are for the 44 Webley and 45 Webley - not two entries for the 45 Webley. I really should use by glasses more often!


#17

Chris - thanks for the added info. I know that the catalogs don’t always reflect everything that has been made. I have a CCI aluminum-cased round in .380/173 British (.38 S&W with British-style bullet) and it was never cataloged, mentioned simply as one example.

I agree 100% that most of Dan’s information is quite complete and accurate.
As I said, he had access to ten times the Winchester material I have. His books are a great tribute to his work on W.R.A. Co. I hope one day someone will take those books on into the succeeding years after the W.R.A.Co,. appellation disappeared (WRA, WW, WESTERN, WIN, etc). I wish I had some of the catalogs after 1980 and before the late 30s for Winchester - it is a big hole in my information on them. It is even hard to get copies of them, all that I really need. I am not a catalog collector.

I would agree that the UMC factory records have real holes in them. Some of the entries seem trivial, while important features identifiable from the cartridges themselves a schanges in design are totally ignored. Still, it is more information than one can get elsewhere on this company’s products. We desparately need our experts on companies like UMC, U.S.C.Co., etc. to write books about them, before all the information that they have gathered is lost. People talk all the time on the Forum about how to recognize this cartridge from that company, and it is great information. It is well past time that that all the good information our major collectors in any given field have be put to paper in books on the various companies. By and large, the volume of information put out by cartridge collectors on their fields is miniscule compared to the work of the gun collectros. Of course, I realize that there are many, many more gun collectors than there are cartridge collectors.


#18

[quote=“JohnMoss”]Chris - thanks for the added info. I know that the catalogs don’t always reflect everything that has been made. I have a CCI aluminum-cased round in .380/173 British (.38 S&W with British-style bullet) and it was never cataloged, mentioned simply as one example.
[/quote]
Please could you send me a picture of this round. Are you sure you don’t mean .380/200?


#19

Falcon,

Yes, .380/200 is probably the correct designation, but it is techically in error for the later loads, that did not have a 200 grain bullet. I believe they had a 173 grain bullet of a peculiar British profile. I will scan both my CCI round and a normal round (British) and post them here (Joe will post them for me when he has time).

The CCI round is headstamped “N CCI R 38 S&W” and has a nickel Berdan primer. The bullet is GM FMJ RN. the case is aluminum. The “NR” stands for “Not Reloadable.” The British round shown has a CN FMJ RN bullet, brass case, brass Berdan-type primer, and purple primer seal. Headstamp is “R^L 41 .380 IIZ”


#20

Chris P–I’m not trying to steal your thunder, but I just found my copy of the 1880 UMC catalog and thought I would save you the trouble of posting it later.