Most nostalgic hand gun

Kaiser_Sma

Don't know about you, but no gun visually strikes me like the mauser C96.

Hagar

Peter the Painter FTW.

babybundy

isn't that the one with a hard holster that can be used as a butt to make it like a riffle

SpitfireIV

Peter the Painter is a Luger, right? Babybundy, the C96 was the one that could be fitted with a buttstock which also doubled as a holster, the Luger also had such a buttpiece and longer barrel for artillary units, a snail drum was availibe too.

Me personally, I like the blunt, tough, solid Webley

Like the Lee Enfield it seen the British Empire and many other forces through 2 World Wars and beyond. What need for tricky German engineering when you can have a simple bit of British steel?

pucan

boneless

Hi-Power BAP... real nostalgia involved for me with this weapon... nights on guard duty etc.

Clare gunner

Peter the painter is the C96.So called as it was used by a Russian anarchist [Peytor,cant remember his 2nd name, but was either an artist or house painter]who was involved with a bunch of Irish anarchists in London in the last centuary.After a bank raid,where he shot a Bobby, with a C96 they ended up in a siege where the British Bobbies and concerned British subjects armed themselves and shot said group inc Peytor.Since he was helping Irish ,we adapted the nickname of Peter the painter for the C96. It is also along with the Thompson SMG the most symbolic gun of Ireland.Considering that just about every major chacter in the rising and independance war used or owned one. Dev and Pearse,are two that spring to mind.

Ashdown

CroppyBoy1798 wrote:

Peter the Painter is a Luger, right? Babybundy, the C96 was the one that could be fitted with a buttstock which also doubled as a holster, the Luger also had such a buttpiece and longer barrel for artillary units, a snail drum was availibe too.

Me personally, I like the blunt, tough, solid Webley

Like the Lee Enfield it seen the British Empire and many other forces through 2 World Wars and beyond. What need for tricky German engineering when you can have a simple bit of British steel?

CroppyBoy, That is the exact pistol that entered my mind upon seeing the title of this here post. Reloading the Webley necessitates splitting the pistol in two and lowering the front half of the pistol forward and down on a hinge (only a rambunctious American would reload from “the side”). Plus the pistol has an extra super nostalgic ring on the base of the handle. With this the pistol can be safely secured to a gentleman’s belt by means of a sturdy rope or string. This presumably was to ensure that some “wog” from “the colonies” did not try to “shangai” it.

However I feel the need to make a special mention of the Ruger Standard. The definitive pistol of the 1960s; it invokes memories of the man from Uncle and Joe 90. It is the paramilitary equivalent of Flares, but it will always have a special place in my heart as the gun that shot Carmin Falcone.

Manic Moran

"'God created all men', it is said, 'but Samuel Colt made them all equal"

The Peacemaker... AKA Army Single Action.



NTM

spooiirt!!

Dis yoke hear.

coyote6

The Smith & Wesson Model 1917 .45 ACP revolver and the Smith & Wesson Model 10 "Victory Model" .38 caliber revolver come to mind.

Schuhart

Clare gunner wrote:

Considering that just about every major chacter in the rising and independance war used or owned one.

You might be right, but I thought they only had a half dozen of them.

They have Countess Markiewicz’s Mauser on display in the National Museum, complete with the holster/shoulder rest accessory. Every fashion conscious revolutionary should have one.

I saw it recently in a 1916 exhibition they had in the Collins Barracks branch. Normally it’s in the 1916 room in Kildare Street. Poor old Con Colbert, by comparison, only had some wee thing like those derringers that poke out of a saloon gal’s garter in old Westerns. You can imagine him complaining ‘who did that slapper ride to get the Mauser?”

SpitfireIV

Ashdown wrote:

CroppyBoy, That is the exact pistol that entered my mind upon seeing the title of this here post. Reloading the Webley necessitates splitting the pistol in two and lowering the front half of the pistol forward and down on a hinge (only a rambunctious American would reload from “the side”). Plus the pistol has an extra super nostalgic ring on the base of the handle. With this the pistol can be safely secured to a gentleman’s belt by means of a sturdy rope or string. This presumably was to ensure that some “wog” from “the colonies” did not try to “shangai” it.

The Webley is a nice gun alright, I've never had the pleasure of actually firing one, but I have held one, and the thing is a beast, so solid and heavy. A nice little feature to being that when you split it to reload an arm pushes out the spent cartidges so you dont have to turn the gun upside down to empty them out.

Schuhart wrote:

Poor old Con Colbert, by comparison, only had some wee thing like those derringers that poke out of a saloon gal’s garter in old Westerns

Mick Collins personal gun during the war of independance was a little silver plated Derringer, he probably never fired the thing, but best have it just in case. Ironically he gave the same pistol to Erskine Childers before the treaty talks, during the Civil War Childers was caught and being found with this gun in his posession was put to death. As well as his personal side arm, Collins also had a derringer revolver in a leather purse in his touring car the day he was shot, the pistol was removed from the car the following day and is now in Clonakilty muesum.

Manic Moran

CroppyBoy1798 wrote:

The Webley is a nice gun alright, I've never had the pleasure of actually firing one, but I have held one, and the thing is a beast, so solid and heavy.

We confiscated one in Iraq. I was rather surprised.

NTM

Mick86

Ashdown wrote:

Plus the pistol has an extra super nostalgic ring on the base of the handle. With this the pistol can be safely secured to a gentleman’s belt by means of a sturdy rope or string. This presumably was to ensure that some “wog” from “the colonies” did not try to “shangai” it.

The sturdy rope is a lanyard. A necessity for all pistol users as I discovered one day whilst leopard crawling across the gentle fields of Kilworth. After a few minutes I discovered the empty holster at my hip and had to do a panicked leopard crawl back to find my weapon.:D Thereafter I acquired a lanyard. It would be even more of a necessity for a man on horseback of course.

But my nostalgic weapon is

SpitfireIV

Mick86 wrote:

But my nostalgic weapon is

Betcha' thats a replica....:D (allbeit a good replica)

Mick86

CroppyBoy1798 wrote:

Betcha' thats a replica....:D (allbeit a good replica)

That's just a net pic. My (decommissioned) one is real.:D

And I've just copped the Thread Title. The Lee Enfield isn't strictly a hand gun. I fancy the Luger for some reason.

Mick86

Manic Moran wrote:

We confiscated one in Iraq. I was rather surprised.

NTM

Probably there since 1918.

SpitfireIV

Mick86 wrote:

That's just a net pic. My (decommissioned) one is real.:D

And I've just copped the Thread Title. The Lee Enfield isn't strictly a hand gun. I fancy the Luger for some reason.

Yeah that one is defo a replica, they make pretty good ones now......but to the trained eye you can still tell it from the real thing....(I'm a self confessed Enfield nutter )

So what have you got then? A No1, No4..........or No5?

Mick86

CroppyBoy1798 wrote:

So what have you got then? A No1, No4..........or No5?

No 1. Made 1917 but didn't pass military standard so it was probably sold as a hunting rifle. Ended up in IRA hands for the War of Independence and Civil War.

SpitfireIV

Mick86 wrote:

No 1. Made 1917 but didn't pass military standard so it was probably sold as a hunting rifle. Ended up in IRA hands for the War of Independence and Civil War.

Sounds like it had an interesting history Mick! Great piece to have. Strange that it didnt pass the standards though, which manufacturer made it? Theres not much that can go wrong with the Enfield that cant be fixed (apart from a soft or deformed recieved), and even then the parts would be reused or the rifle itself used for DP.

Ashdown

Mick86 wrote:

That's just a net pic. My (decommissioned) one is real.:D

The Lee Enfield isn't strictly a hand gun.

That really depends on how drunk you are.

Mick86

CroppyBoy1798 wrote:

Sounds like it had an interesting history Mick! Great piece to have. Strange that it didnt pass the standards though, which manufacturer made it? Theres not much that can go wrong with the Enfield that cant be fixed (apart from a soft or deformed recieved), and even then the parts would be reused or the rifle itself used for DP.

It's been a few years since I researched that but a letter to Enfield Small Arms describing the markings on the weapon elicited the information. You seem to know a lot more than me so I'll take a few pics of the rifle and send them on. You might be able to tell me more. I'll try and find the letter too.

SpitfireIV

I'd love to see some pics Mick and help with any marking etc, they are a fasinating rifle, for all we know still being made in India! Examples turned up for sale in the US last year with a manufacture year of 1988!! These were made from scratch, not re-furbed examples. Previously it had been thought the late 70's were the final production years. Not bad for a rifle designed at the turn of the 20th century!

Sgt. Sensible

The Nagant.

Mick86

CroppyBoy1798 wrote:

I'd love to see some pics Mick and help with any marking etc, they are a fasinating rifle, for all we know still being made in India! Examples turned up for sale in the US last year with a manufacture year of 1988!! These were made from scratch, not re-furbed examples. Previously it had been thought the late 70's were the final production years. Not bad for a rifle designed at the turn of the 20th century!

Since the subject raised it's head, I did a little research myself. The markings are pretty standard. A good site here

http://enfieldrifles.profusehost.net/



The weapon ID mark and year of manufacture. Actually 1918 not 1917 as I thought.



The Proof and Inspection marks as well as the Factory ID- EFD- Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield.

The letter I got from the manufacturer suggested that the 5 serial number of the weapon meant it wasn'ta military rifle but the site above says different. The markings on the weapon suggest it was proofed and passed inspection.

Mick86

HV SC stamped on the barrel under backsight. The letters stand for High Velocity Short Cone and indicate that the weapon has been adapted for MK 7ammunition.



Markings stamped ito the wood behind the triggerguard. EFD70 appears and what looks like anotehr inspection mark.

SpitfireIV

Cheers for the pics Mick86! You have a nice No1 there!

The first pic:
The fact that there is no manufactures name present ie: BSA Co, LSA Co, ENFIELD, LITHGOW or ISHAPORE (and given the year 1918) means that your No1 was made by SSA.

SSA stands for 'Standard Small Arms', SSA took over from NRF (National Rifle Factory) in early 1918 if memory serves me right. NRF was a goverment funded establishment to increase production of desperately needed SMLE's, it worked on what was known as a 'peddled scheme', ie NRF produced the receivers, trigger guards, magazines etc, while a number of other private manufactures produced the other components, all these part were then sent to RSAF Enfield (Royal Small Arms Factory Enfield of 'EFD') to be assembled, proffed etc.

NRF fell behind and wasnt preforming its best so in late 1917 the company management was changed and renamed SSA.

If you look at the rear of the reciever, left hand side by the opening where the bolt goes in there should in most cases be the letter SSA stamped.


The III* means that it was a simplified version of the MKIII, ie the volley sights, magazine cutoff, piling swivel and in some cases the unit identity disc was removed to speed up production. In some cases the * was lined out after the war and some of the deleted items re-installed.

I'm a little weary of the present of black paint.....I dont want to rain on your parade (you say this rifle was used during the civil war etc?), but remnants of poorly applied gloss black paint in most cases indicate Indian service and was a common feature post 1940's. Either that or someone has applied the paint themselves years back while in private ownership. I have to see more photos for indications of Indian service.


Hope thats of some help to you, any questions just shout, I'd be only too happy to help

Edit: Do all the serial numbers match? On the rear of the bolt handle, reciever ring, underside of rear sight leaf, nosecap bayonet boss and the forearm timber. Is there a serial # stapmed on the rear or bottom face of the magazine?

Mick86

CroppyBoy1798 wrote:

Cheers for the pics Mick86! You have a nice No1 there!...

There are BSA inspection marks there though. There's one beside the proof mark in one of the photos and I found another on the magazine platform.

The serial numbers all match though I cannot find one on the bayonet boss.

I'm pretty confident that the weapon was used in the Civil War.

SpitfireIV

Mick86 wrote:

There are BSA inspection marks there though. There's one beside the proof mark in one of the photos and I found another on the magazine platform.

The serial numbers all match though I cannot find one on the bayonet boss.

I'm pretty confident that the weapon was used in the Civil War.

It possible the rifle passed through BSA post war, the mag could have been from another rifle, happens alot, over the years parts get mixed and matched. Its definately an SSA 'peddled scheme' No1 anyway, that in no ways means that its of lesser quality, as I mentioned these were assembled and proofed by Enfield so well up to standard. They are more desirable for collectors as NRF/SSA only existed from 1916-1918, and made fewer SMLE's than the major manufactures like BSA or LSA.