ForgottenWeapons
patreon
How the No2 Revolver Lost its Hammer Spur (A Correction & A Story) (ad-free)
🕑 Added 2022-12-06 12:00:07 +0000 UTCIn my previous video on the Albion-production No2 revolvers, I said that the removal of the single action capability and hammer spur from the design was done because of problems armored vehicle crews had with the hammers catching on hatches. That was wrong, and today I want to correct it and also explain the interesting series of circumstances that led to that story being commonly accepted.
Thanks to viewer Thomas for not simply correcting me in the previous video, but having the specific documented evidence to explain the error. That is how scholarship improves!
There is a kernel of truth at the tank crew theory, and that is that the armored corps did specifically request a hammerless version of the No2 in 1936. However, when testing of this pattern was done in 1938, it was not adopted because of anything having to do with tank hatches. Instead, as List of Changes item B2289 from June 1938 explains, it was primarily a matter of simplified handling and simplified training combined with a minimal difference in practical effectiveness that led to the DAO model being adopted.
My original source for my video was the book ".380 Enfield No.2 Revolver" by Mark Stamps and Ian Skennerton. This was published in 1993, and during its writing the tank crew explanation was apparently confirmed by Pattern Room curator Herb Woodend. It is hard to blame the authors for accepting him as a trustworthy authority on the subject, although we can see now that they should have dug deeper. That sort of digging is made a bit more difficult int he case of British small arms by the fact that the List of Changes is under Crown Copyright, which makes it less accessible to researchers than documents form other countries.
As for myself, I used the open-topped tanker holster as a reason to accept the tanker explanation, but I should not have. Actually testing the fit of the revolver in that holster would have shown me that despite being open-topped it completely covers the hammer. That should have been my sign to investigate the question further!
Comments
Brian Ross
My Dad was issued one of these to go with the BREN carrier that they rode in. He said that the holster caught on the hatch going in or out. The issue guns were carefully oiled, wrapped and stayed in the tool box. SMG was the prefered PDW. Dad also had a personal S&W 5 shot which nominally used the same ammo as the Enfield revolver. That stayed beneath the battle dress in a holster made by the unit cobbler.
John S Wren
Loads more information can be found in Ordnance Board memo no 85 dated 6 May 1938 which describes the rationale behind the change and the results of the tests that took place comparing the two types back in December 1936. The really good news is that the Vickers MG Collection and Research Association have scanned this and thousands of other Ordnance boards/Small Arms committee memos and have made them available to Patrons. There's even an index!
Oliver Gilkes
The idea was to provide a point blank self defence weapon which took the minimum training and effort to use. I think it was the first double action pistol widely used since the days of Tranter and clones sixty years previously. Odd perhaps but hardly dumb. Not sure the .455s were underpowered by any great degree.
Thomas Batha
Great story. Typically dumb British revolver: unreliably underpowered. Revolvers DA/SA may all be fired DA only. You are not required to fire the first shot SA. All US revolvers since the M1892 have been DA/SA without problems. (yes the M1892 was underpowered, we found out the hard way but the Brits apparently didn't believe us) Keep up the good work Ian.
Mrgunsngear
Good info; no sense in knowingly passing along false info. Hopefully this video will now be the defacto info source on the topic.
Paul Beck
Today professor Ian will take us through an exercise in the game of telephone!! ๐ค ๐
Hahahahaha! Yes, indeed! :D
Forgotten Weapons
How meta is that? It was Jonathan Ferguson who told me they were copyrighted...
Crown copyright on things like the LoC expired 50 years from publication :) https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/crown-copyright-flowchart.pdf
John Dallman
Ian Skemmerton published quite a lot of the List of Changes in six small yellow volumes, I think in the 1990s. They may not have been widely circulated. I could try to find you copies if you like.
Alembik_1212
If anybody ever wondered why so many people love Forgotten Weapons, it's little nerdy nuggets like this in combination with the willingness to go back, call out and correct mistakes which inevitably happen. Also, the community that has grown around the channel is a treasure in its own right!
It's great to see your humility and efforts in historical research/accuracy. Yes, it is how our state of knowledge improves. Thank you.
