Well, they were made by Enfield aniway 
The standard British revolver round in WW2 was the .38/200, which was singularly ineffective. There would still have been some of the big WW1 era .455 revolvers around; they were much better manstoppers.
How do you work that one out? Webley revolvers were made byâŚ
Wait for itâŚ
Wait a bit longerâŚ
WEBLEY.
Enfield revolvers were made by Enfield.
The subtle hint is in the nameâŚ
Not if it was made after 1921, which is when production of this type of revolver was taken over byâŚENFIELD. 
We are talking about two different revolvers here: the Webley 38 and the Enfield number 2. They are not the same.
Indeed, however Enfield did make a number of Webley VI from 1921-23, the Enfield No 2 did not enter production until 1932.
LOL @ your previous post. :lol:
I think his confusion was the colonial era caliber of .455 which was meant as a âman-stopperâ in the same vein that the US .45ACP round was, when dealing with colonial insurgents. But I think after WWI started, the caliber on the Webley was reduced to .380?
What I would like to know is if any of the older heavy caliber, judged too cruel to shoot a fellow European Hun with during WWI, .455 were used in the WWII era as a side arm by officers, NCOs, SAS-types, or police?
And the revolver is really a beautiful weaponâŚ
edit: written before I read this:
Thank you Tony.
I was wrong obviously, the revolvers Enfield and Webley have a similar look but are not the same.
But I need to ad: The comments like above made by Cuts and Man of the Troath have no value for me and I think neither for the forum.
If you dont participate at all in the forum ( like Cuts wich I think is only achievement was the âLos desaparecidosâ topic :roll: ) and started to appear only to âjumpâ on people because they made a simple, mistake,âŚpffff, that is worthless, useless.
For my part you both can go fuck yourselves, even probably my advice comes late, you are doing that already.
Easy PK. Such language!
And both revolvers are obviously based on the same design; presumably on a wartime emergency production basisâŚ
Something that can easily lend itself to confusion.
Everyone here needs to take a step back and forget about the Falklands stuffâŚ
Enfield basically robbed the Webley design, changed the lock work around a bit and called it their own. Webley sued and got a pathetically small settlement.
All the British service World War I revolvers were 455 calibre, the 380/200 came about interwar, and both calibres were widely used in the Second World War.
And PK â I prithee, sally forth and multiply.
Shame you stopped* being a moderator then isnât it ?
If you hadnât you could have deleted any comments that didnât kow-tow to the Googlemeister of South America.
Oh wait a moment, thatâs exactly what you did do as a âmoderator !â
(Incidentally, nice little dig at Man of Stoat there. Be proud.)
Very good Padwan, you have learnt well at the feet of Tinwalt. âWhen in doubt throw in 1 x arenque, (rojo).â
You alone are worthy to take his title.
But as you have introduced this rosy fish, I feel it would be churlish of me not to respond.
As I recall, you were the one that squealed loudest, (and solo,) to have it moved from the Falklands forum, and, as was often the case, the adults gave way to the tantrum.
I have an acquaintance who was living and farming peacefully on the land of his birth when his homeland was invaded.
He has a number of very interesting tales about the interlopers from South America and Los desaparecidos.
I was attempting to convince him that his input as an eye-witness to all the events would be welcomed here on WWIIincolor, but when he saw what he considered to be a very germane part of the story of the conflict was in effect hidden from that particular forum, he decided it wasnât worth the effort.
So well done Panzerknacker, your emulation of Galtieriâs practices was very effective, award yourself a medal.
What you now claim to be a simple mistake was indeed posted in the manner of someone who knows about the subject of which they speak.
Which you donât.
Iâm sure you are a very capable engineer in your chosen field, and as such I should treat any posts you made on that particular subject with the respect they were due.
Many people read these fora, not just WWII buffs but folk who are searching for information about items in use then.
So to expound on the merits of a particular round in relation to itâs effectiveness in the way you did, is not only creating disinformation and fallacy but misleading anyone wholly ignorant of the facts, (such as yourself,) in a reckless and potentially dangerous fashion.
I ask you politely to please desist from spreading such disinformation.
Awwww !
Isnât it sweet when the children use grown up words in a hissy fit ?
- Jumping before being pushed is in certain circles imagined to leave some shred of honour intact.
Cuts, me old mate, I hope this post means weâll be hearing a bit more from you again.
It should RS, although I am reliably informed that I will be away again for a shorter period ere long.
But itâs good to see familiar names again, plus some very welcome new ones.
It actually came as no surprise that there would still be the usual dollop of buffoonery here, but we are a wide church and take in waifs, strays and in this particular case, the disabled. 
Calm it down a bit guys - Iâd rather not have this topic turn into a flamefest, entertaining as it might be.
Oh, and welcome back Cuts
<deleted>
Oi! I told the pair of you to calm it
If I may, a point of order, Mr Moderator.
PKâs self-propagating instruction was directed to Cuts and his bully boyfriend, whoever he may be (Not that I accept, or deny, that Cuts may have a boyfriend, of the dominating type or otherwise. :D).
So, if I may say so, you should have told a trio to calm down rather than just a pair.
Iâm sure youâre grateful to me for raising this point of clarification, so thereâs no need to post thanking me for it.
Okay:
Say Panzerknacker and Cuts had âpistols at six paces.â Each can choose their pistol of choice as long as it is the aforementioned Webley or Enfield .380. Which version is preferable?
Whoâs the bully boyfriend? If he means Stoaty, there is also a Mrs Stoat and a Stoatlet about the place, so does that make 5 of them? 
In the circumstances, I believe the Mess Webley is traditional
Actually it took me a little while to realise that your post was addressed to me.
âButtsâ and Cuts.
Yes, quite inventive.
Hahaha.
Jajaja. (Just to explain.)
Feel proud about yourself again.
Iâm sorry to say I donât know what âbully boyfriendâ is - although Iâm well acquainted with that Fray Bentos delicacy, bully beef.
Is this âbully boyfriendâ thing some quaint gaucho custom ?
As we donât have that sort of thing here Iâd be interested for you to inform us of your varied experiences.
Anyway, enough of your bizarre proclivities, I shall merely address your suggestion that I had âpushed you.â (Hopefully this didnât mean anything to do with your private life.)
Earlier in the thread that the wpns pictured fired a rd that was as âeffective as a .45 acpâ [sic].
This being quite patently not the case I asked how you had worked that out, and adjoined that there was no chance of it being so.
Afterwards, in reply to your contention that the wpns shown were Enfields despite the large lettering of âWebleyâ shown on the grip scale, I posted the following light-hearted photograph.
Do you in all seriousness believe that with ten inoffensive words and one small photograph I have âpushedâ you ?
If so I apologise, I did not realise that you were so fragile.
HoweverâŚ
I myself think that the truth may be somewhat different.
Your volatile outburst is in fact a reaction to the fact that you have again been proven to have been incorrect in your post.
As I pointed out earlier, Iâm sure you are a very capable engineer in your chosen field, and as such I should treat any posts you made on that particular subject with the respect they were due, but to stamp your feet and squeal like a toddler when it is pointed out you have made an incorrect comment on a subject about which you know relatively little is nothing short of ludicrous !
I believe I understood your profane comment the first time you wrote it although I am at a loss as to why you feel the need to reiterate it.
Compensating for a âlackâ maybe ?
I presume that you read my previous post, and had hoped that you would understand it. So why, when I ask you things politely do you insist on behaving in a puerile manner ?
Both to you, and to the moderators here, I must say that I find your reaction most incomprehensible.
Panzerknacker, I am not going to entreat you to any course of action or even to grow a pair as I fear you are either unwilling or incapable of doing so, but perhaps if you took some time in sober reflection of your hysterical outbursts it may cause you to rethink your attitudes to other people and life in general.
It canât always be somebody elseâs fault.
Certainly, not a problem.
I shall endeavour not to use neither profanity nor schoolboy names, but will continue to post in a calm, factual and above all, adult manner.