<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: You know what would be awesome?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gunnuts.net/2009/05/04/you-know-what-would-be-awesome/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gunnuts.net/2009/05/04/you-know-what-would-be-awesome/</link>
	<description>Gun info by shooters, for shooters</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 08:45:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Abhijeet</title>
		<link>http://gunnuts.net/2009/05/04/you-know-what-would-be-awesome/#comment-9192</link>
		<dc:creator>Abhijeet</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2009 15:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gunnuts.net/?p=3276#comment-9192</guid>
		<description>Someone does make one, in India... err, not an exact replica but one based around the Enfield revolver, which itself was based on the Webley design. There&#039;s a couple of other minor details to consider - it&#039;s available only in .32 S&amp;W Long, and it is made by a government owned monopolist so it costs a a bit more than the original, in fact it costs helluva lot more than the original - about US$ 1,400/- at current exchange rates.

More information on the following thread - http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&amp;t=2298

Cheers!
Abhijeet

P.S. Did I mention that the build quality leaves a lot to be desired?

P.P.S. Also there is no way to legally export an example out of India!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Someone does make one, in India&#8230; err, not an exact replica but one based around the Enfield revolver, which itself was based on the Webley design. There&#8217;s a couple of other minor details to consider &#8211; it&#8217;s available only in .32 S&amp;W Long, and it is made by a government owned monopolist so it costs a a bit more than the original, in fact it costs helluva lot more than the original &#8211; about US$ 1,400/- at current exchange rates.</p>
<p>More information on the following thread &#8211; <a href="http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&#038;t=2298" rel="nofollow">http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&#038;t=2298</a></p>
<p>Cheers!<br />
Abhijeet</p>
<p>P.S. Did I mention that the build quality leaves a lot to be desired?</p>
<p>P.P.S. Also there is no way to legally export an example out of India!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: shawn</title>
		<link>http://gunnuts.net/2009/05/04/you-know-what-would-be-awesome/#comment-9186</link>
		<dc:creator>shawn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2009 01:58:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gunnuts.net/?p=3276#comment-9186</guid>
		<description>About 30 years ago Jeff Cooper had the same thought about the Smith and Wesson Scofield/Russian, also a top break revolver.  Then about 20 years ago he made the observation that the Krag rifle was the smoothest bolt action he&#039;d tried.  
In both cases the problem was late 20th century powders were way more powerful then the 19th century design and metal  could stand up to.  The Krag uses a single locking lug.  His suggestion was to put the metalurgist &#039;s to work.  
The suggestion still stand.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>About 30 years ago Jeff Cooper had the same thought about the Smith and Wesson Scofield/Russian, also a top break revolver.  Then about 20 years ago he made the observation that the Krag rifle was the smoothest bolt action he&#8217;d tried.<br />
In both cases the problem was late 20th century powders were way more powerful then the 19th century design and metal  could stand up to.  The Krag uses a single locking lug.  His suggestion was to put the metalurgist &#8216;s to work.<br />
The suggestion still stand.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: xdtke</title>
		<link>http://gunnuts.net/2009/05/04/you-know-what-would-be-awesome/#comment-9176</link>
		<dc:creator>xdtke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 16:56:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gunnuts.net/?p=3276#comment-9176</guid>
		<description>The idea sounds cool. However me thinks I will wait for the real thing. Webley Mark IV. However I probably would feen guilty about shooting it. Probably would have to take up reloading to feed it though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The idea sounds cool. However me thinks I will wait for the real thing. Webley Mark IV. However I probably would feen guilty about shooting it. Probably would have to take up reloading to feed it though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Commander</title>
		<link>http://gunnuts.net/2009/05/04/you-know-what-would-be-awesome/#comment-9158</link>
		<dc:creator>The Commander</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 12:57:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gunnuts.net/?p=3276#comment-9158</guid>
		<description>As did everything in .45 LC...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As did everything in .45 LC&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Commander</title>
		<link>http://gunnuts.net/2009/05/04/you-know-what-would-be-awesome/#comment-9157</link>
		<dc:creator>The Commander</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 12:56:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gunnuts.net/?p=3276#comment-9157</guid>
		<description>What&#039;s wrong with fat,slow bullets?

The 1911 does well with them too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What&#8217;s wrong with fat,slow bullets?</p>
<p>The 1911 does well with them too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bunnyman</title>
		<link>http://gunnuts.net/2009/05/04/you-know-what-would-be-awesome/#comment-9149</link>
		<dc:creator>Bunnyman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 07:03:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gunnuts.net/?p=3276#comment-9149</guid>
		<description>Wow, this came up at work today.  Someone asked if my Webley No.1 Mk.1 was a replica.  Response: &quot;Hell yeah, so I could shoot it more.&quot;

Fixed firing pin = new hammer if it breaks.  Not my idea of a good time.

I saw a scary kB! pic of a MkVI firing standard pressure .45 ACP on a British militaria forum.  I suppose you could keep a moon clip or two of standard pressure DPX around for the nightstand and cook up something warmish for shooting.  If you&#039;re enough of a nerd to own a Webley, surely you are enough of a nerd to reload.  Trail Boss, methinks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, this came up at work today.  Someone asked if my Webley No.1 Mk.1 was a replica.  Response: &#8220;Hell yeah, so I could shoot it more.&#8221;</p>
<p>Fixed firing pin = new hammer if it breaks.  Not my idea of a good time.</p>
<p>I saw a scary kB! pic of a MkVI firing standard pressure .45 ACP on a British militaria forum.  I suppose you could keep a moon clip or two of standard pressure DPX around for the nightstand and cook up something warmish for shooting.  If you&#8217;re enough of a nerd to own a Webley, surely you are enough of a nerd to reload.  Trail Boss, methinks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TJP</title>
		<link>http://gunnuts.net/2009/05/04/you-know-what-would-be-awesome/#comment-9139</link>
		<dc:creator>TJP</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 21:15:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gunnuts.net/?p=3276#comment-9139</guid>
		<description>&quot;Sure, it’s an ugly British gun...&quot;

Heretic! But I also think the Ruger SRH is a good looking weapon, and I guess that&#039;s unusual too.

The path of least resistance would be 45 auto rim, but people are stupid, and they&#039;ll load it to 45 ACP pressures and beyond. (This is assuming new build out of modern materials, not rechambering.)

It would be cool, though, to have a Mk VI and not worry about getting replacement parts--say, if you accidentally drop it and it hits the steel bed frame instead of the yellow comforter, for example.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Sure, it’s an ugly British gun&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>Heretic! But I also think the Ruger SRH is a good looking weapon, and I guess that&#8217;s unusual too.</p>
<p>The path of least resistance would be 45 auto rim, but people are stupid, and they&#8217;ll load it to 45 ACP pressures and beyond. (This is assuming new build out of modern materials, not rechambering.)</p>
<p>It would be cool, though, to have a Mk VI and not worry about getting replacement parts&#8211;say, if you accidentally drop it and it hits the steel bed frame instead of the yellow comforter, for example.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Owen</title>
		<link>http://gunnuts.net/2009/05/04/you-know-what-would-be-awesome/#comment-9117</link>
		<dc:creator>Owen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 03:43:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gunnuts.net/?p=3276#comment-9117</guid>
		<description>I would so buy one of those, i&#039;m working really hard to not to go buy a webley in .38 s&amp;w that&#039;s sitting in the local shop.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would so buy one of those, i&#8217;m working really hard to not to go buy a webley in .38 s&amp;w that&#8217;s sitting in the local shop.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael in CT</title>
		<link>http://gunnuts.net/2009/05/04/you-know-what-would-be-awesome/#comment-9110</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael in CT</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2009 22:29:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gunnuts.net/?p=3276#comment-9110</guid>
		<description>FYI, there was a discussion sometime ago about shooting .45 ACP in a Webley and there was some question about whether a Webley  was strong enough to handle factory .45 ACP on a continuing basis</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>FYI, there was a discussion sometime ago about shooting .45 ACP in a Webley and there was some question about whether a Webley  was strong enough to handle factory .45 ACP on a continuing basis</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A.G.Morgan</title>
		<link>http://gunnuts.net/2009/05/04/you-know-what-would-be-awesome/#comment-9109</link>
		<dc:creator>A.G.Morgan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2009 21:42:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gunnuts.net/?p=3276#comment-9109</guid>
		<description>I have never understood what is so ugly about the Webley. At least it doesn&#039;t look like a S&amp;W like every other revolver made since the turn of the century, last century that is.

Labor to expensive? I hear tell the Indians still make copies in .32. Or even better, machine the pieces and let me put them together myself. Cut out the assembly labor completely.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have never understood what is so ugly about the Webley. At least it doesn&#8217;t look like a S&amp;W like every other revolver made since the turn of the century, last century that is.</p>
<p>Labor to expensive? I hear tell the Indians still make copies in .32. Or even better, machine the pieces and let me put them together myself. Cut out the assembly labor completely.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

