TOPIC:

I am the historian for a collectors society. Recently I came into possession of a Webley revolver Q141. The Webley Mark IV in 455 was made between 1899 and 1901, inspected by the Sparkbrook Factory inspector and proofed. Service marks in and out Serial numbers on Cylinder and frame match.
My Theory is Q 141 denotes the regiment part of the 4th Imperial Bushmen's Regiment in the Boer War Queensland Thought and info appreciated.

Your Pictures.......

Mike

Rockwood
In the past, examples of Colonial Queensland arms I have encountered were marked quite clearly with the usual "Q-arrow-G" stamp. I had not observed any with just the "Q - number" marking. Shortly before the recent outage of this site, I contacted a knowledgeable local collector and dealer in things such as that very nice Webley .455" Mk.IV you illustrated and asked his opinion about ownership. He commented that he had seen several arms of different patterns marked with just "Q" and that had been taken as having the same meaning as "Q-arrow-G".
The attribution of the illustrated revolver to a specific unit, however is another matter. The various Imperial Bushmen contingents were raised at the request of the Imperial Government - and Murray tells us that clothing and equipment for all IB contingents were paid for by the Imperial Government as well. Like many Contingents. the 4QIB were issued rifles and bayonets upon arrival in SA. However IB officers were required to supply their own sidearm of Imperial pattern and it had to take Government ammunition. Standard procedure in those days.
I think it would be pretty hard for anyone to definitely say that your .455" Mk.IV Webley was issued to the 4QIB - unless there was anecdotal evidence or it came from the estate of a veteran. As a matter of interest, some time ago I was shown a revolver similar to yours which definitely did see active service during the late stages of the ABW; clearly marked "Aus. Com. H' on it's butt strap. All the owner knew was that a distant relative had owned it and he was very pleased that his unit could be identified.
Best regards
IL.

Defiantly no Q^G anywhere on the revolver but i agree it is possible and may be likely has the same meaning of Q^G. . I agree the revolver would have been a private purchase. The revolver is the correct age etc and unusual because of the Sparkbrook proof as well. I have also spoken to Ian Skennerton He suggested 141 it was a rack number but again no records are available. It does seem odd or just a coincidence that there was the 141 regiment. I have not had any results with AWM or QLD archives. May be it will have to be a mystery. It is unfortunate that previous owners of these types of guns do not do their research. I am the historical rep for Australian Arms, Militaria & Munitions Historical Society. www.qldcollectors.org if any members are interested in joining. These forums are a pretty valuable source of info for collectors.