Talk:.455 Webley

How can it be

How can it be introduced only in 1891, if England adopted .455 Webley revolver in 1887?--Историк2010 (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

S&W revolver?

Wasn't there a Smith & Wesson revolver also chambered for this cartridge?

There was, yes- Colt also made a .455 calibre pistol chambered in .455 Webley as well. The cartridge was sometimes sold commercially in the US as ".455 Eley" or ."455 Colt", FWIW. --Commander Zulu 14:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Revolver and automatic

The .455 Webley refers to two different cartridges. One is the .455 Webley Automatic (which currently is a redirect to this article. The other is the .455 Revolver MK I or .455 Colt which is what this article talks about. Shall we make a different page for the auto, and rename this one appropriately, or handle both on one page with judicious redirects to catch searchers? Arthurrh 23:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd put them both on the one page; .455 Webley Automatic is too uncommon to warrant a page of its own, IMHO. --Commander Zulu 23:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Should there also be "See Also" links to the other similar and contemporary cartridges? ---tom 11:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

At this point the article has no mention of the .455 Automatic at all. On a tangent, there's a shot of a Colt 1911 in .455 Webley here, and a .455 Mark 1 Automatic here. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The .455 Webley Austomatic is totally unrelated to the .455 Webley. They have nothing in common other than (nominal) caliber and company of origin. Putting them together in one article makes about as much sense as combining the .38 Long Colt and .38 ACP articles would. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The .455 automatic used different ammunition. The .455 Webley which this article is about was actually of .441in calibre, whereas the Pistol, self-loading, Webley & Scott, .455in ammunition was actually .456in. The automatic's ammunition would chamber in the revolvers and if fired, destroy the weapon, as the automatic's .455in used a fast-burning 7 grain charge which caused excessive pressures in the revolver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.249.112 (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Mention of the Thompson-LaGarde Tests

"The .455 Webley cartridge was rated superior to the .45 Colt in stopping power in the famous Thompson-LaGarde Tests"

This line would seem to state that the .455 Webley is more powerful than the .45 Colt. Whether or not that's true, reading the article on the Thompson-LaGarde Tests reveals that the tests were highly unscientific and unreliable. Thus, pointing to those tests as proof of the .455's power seems dubious. I'm removing that line. --Schwern 06:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If the tests rated the .455 Webley cartridge as superior etc, then the article should state that; this does not mean that the article endorses the result of those tests, it is just conveying information. I shall put it back, with a link to Thompson-LaGarde Tests (which starts off by noting that the tests were unscientific, although it is a very poor article). Rock over London, rock on Chicago. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The article also states "The result was a cartridge and handgun combination with relatively mild recoil, but with good penetration and excellent stopping power." Seeing as the Thompson-LaGarde tests were obviously a complete joke, and the Webley round has around two thirds the muzzle velocity and well under half the muzzle energy of the .45 LC, I can't really see that there's anything to back up the claim of "excellent" stopping power. Not that it isn't true, I've never shot anybody with it...but the only evidence included in the article says otherwise. JDS2005 (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty of anecdotal evidence that the .455 Webley has impressive stopping power- the cartridge was used for 75 years and was very popular in Africa and India- but I'll have to have a look through some of my reference texts for a primary source regarding the .455 Webley's stopping power.Commander Zulu (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm not directly contradicting the claim that it has "impressive stopping power", but I don't really see the case for it....455 Webley may have been popular and long-lived, but you could say the same for the .38 Special and 9x19 Para (both used for 106 years and still going strong, both used worldwide), and everybody knows they have all the stopping power of a moldy pencil. JDS2005 (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

There are documented cases of the revolver stopping a charging rhinocerous - that's stopping power. The striking energy figures for the .455 and .38 are 248ft/pounds and 187ft/pounds respectively. 50ft/pounds is generally accepted as enough to knock someone over. IIRC, some civilian flat-nosed .455 Mark 4 'Manstopper' cartridges found their way into some officer's guns on the Western Front in 1914. The Germans captured some of these men and threatened to execute any British officers captured found carrying the ammunition. The Mark 3 and Mark 4 'Manstopper' were not issued to troops as they had been banned by the Hague Convention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.249.112 (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Complete and utter nonsense from the beginning to the end. --84.163.206.121 (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Even though it has a lower velocity than .45 colt I would think in a combat situation .455 webley would be just as effective as the .45 LC if not more so. The light powder load would ensure lighter recoil and a lower velocity would prevent it from over penetrating and allowing the would to heal up. But in fairness the .45 LC has a higher penetration and range. To tell the absolute truth I'm sure it would be a horrible experience to be shot with either one, or a .38 special, or a 9 X 19mm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.134.222 (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

IIRC there is actually a photo somewhere of a British colonial officer kneeling by the body of a rhinoceros he shot with a .455 Webley after it attacked him and wouldn't go away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Stopping power is not the same as the theoretical force delivered by the round. A lower-powered round may have greater stopping power than a higher-powered round. This is because it is more likely to stop in the body of the target and dispel all its energy there, the target absorbing the whole lot, while a higher-powered round may blow straight through and keep flying. The round that blows straight through is obviously still carrying a good deal of energy, all of it wasted. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

.476 Enfield

There appear to be some discrepancies between this article and that for the .476 Enfield concerning loadings for the former (I am not expert in such matters.) — Robert Greer (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

.455 Marks II - V

There is a bit of confusion with the .455 cartridges from about 1899 to 1915. The .455 Mark II was the service cartridge in 1897 but the Mark III (Manstopper) was developed in an attempt to increase the effectiveness of the cartridge. The Hague Convention of 1899 banned such ammunition and the Mark II was returned to service. In 1912 another attempt was made to improve the cartridge's effectiveness but with the hcascsopes of complying with the Hague Convention. Two attempts were made with a 220gr flat-nosed 'wadcutter' type bullet - the Mark IV and the Mark V. The difference was in the lead alloy used - the Mark IV used the traditional 12:1 lead-tin while the Mark V used 99:1 lead-antimony. As far as I can tell these were issued concurrently with the Mark IV appearing in 1912 and the Mark V in 1914. Both were removed from service as it was decided they were not in compliance with the Hague Convention. Once more the Mark II cartridge returned to service. It remained in British service until the Mark VI was adopted in 1939 but was still loaded into the 1960's with military headstamps. I believe these were foreign contracts for British interests but I need to do more research before I can confirm it. — Drake00 20:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)