Talk:Martini–Henry

message: I have heard more than one British veteran say that a few .303 Martini Enfields were issued to Home Guard Units during WWII.  This is evidenced (but not proven) by WWII style inspection stamps I've seen on a few actions. It is also just as likely that a few were refurbished "just in case" but never actually issued.
12.96.65.14 13:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WWII Usage as Home Guard Weapon

message: It should be mentioned that the Martini action is still in use by some club small-bore (.22) target rifles. Whether any are still being made I'm not sure.
----
SAF Lithgow in Australia were still making them well into the 1950s. I'm not aware of anyone making modern reproductions, but original Martini action rifles are very easy to come by in Australia and New Zealand. --Commander Zulu 06:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   

message: The service ammunition for the Martini-Henry is not called ".577/.450". This is a civilianized moniker attached to this cartridge in later years. The correct designation is the ".450 Martini-Henry", or also, "Short-Chamber Boxer-Henry .450". —the preceding unsigned comment is by 165.196.69.242 (talk • contribs) 
:You need to provide a reference.  Cartridges of the World, 9th Edition, for example, doesn't mention either designation you provide. -- Mike Wilson 23:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOT CALLED .577/.450!!! 

message: It appears the Snider-Enfield link is the same as Snider Rifle but I'll let someone who knows make the edit. -- Mike Wilson 00:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snider-Enfield 

message: Nowhere in the British L.o.C. does "577/450" appear as a description for the Martini-Henry's ammuntion. As mentioned above, this was indeed a civilian name hung onto the cartridge. The proper designation, while a trifle long, is: "Cartridge, Small Arm, Boxer-Henry .45 inch, Martini-Henry Rifle...". The pattern, or "Mark" of the particular cartridge would have been at the end. For reference, please see pages 85-95 of "The Boxer Cartridge in the British Service" by noted British Arms expert Barry A. Temple,  
: This seems to be correct. The British Army did not use the .577/.450 designation, which was adopted by the manufacturer Kynoch in the 20th century when the cartridge was used for big-game shooting. It's descriptive, though not historically proper. In Army service the wrapper on a pack of cartridges would normally read "Cartridges S.A. Ball, Martini-Henry Rifle, Rolled Case, Mark III" plus year of manufacture. However, the wrapper on some Eley-made cartridges carried the line, "577 Bore Reduced to 450 Bore." (The Martini-Henry Rifle, Stephen Manning, Osprey, Oxford, 2013, ISBN 978 1 78096 507 9, p.10.) But, although I fired Martini-Henrys quite a lot once upon a time, they were BSA-built examples Morris-tubed down to .22 calibre, and firing the full-house military Boxer-Henry .45 with its noise, smoke and recoil, and its horrible effect on anyone standing in the way (even at Isandlwana more Zulus than Imperial troops were killed and Cetewayo regarded it as a Pyrrhic victory: "An assegai has been thrust into the belly of the nation... There are not enough tears to mourn for the dead," Manning op. cit. p.46, citing Morris, Washing of the Spears, 1965, p.387), would be a very different proposition. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct Cartridge designation... 

message: Didn't Martini also build cars?  Trekphiler 08:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Martini isn't a brand, it's the action. There's no such company as "Martini Small Arms". The name "Martini-Henry" refers to "Martini Action, Henry Rifling". --Commander Zulu 08:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still think so?  Trekphiler 13:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I do. The car company was founded by the son of the guy who invented the Martini rifle action, and has nothing to do with making firearms. I probably should have been clearer in my previous comment, I was referring to Martini not being a brand of firearm (such as Colt, Winchester, Mauser, et al). I'm aware there are other "Martini" products (including Vermouth), and the car brand, they're not related to the gun. For the record, the only manufacturers of Martini-Henry rifles were RSAF Enfield, BSA, London Small Arms, Henry Rifle Barrel Co, Blenheim Engineering, and National Arms & Ammunition. (According to Ian Skennerton's text Small Arms Identification Series No. 15: .450 & 303 Martini Rifles and Carbines) The Nepalese also made some licence-built versions as well, IIRC, and they were (and still are, apparently) popular guns for Khyber Pass gunsmiths to make as well. But there is not, to the best of my knowledge, never has been a "Martini Small Arms" company, or any other "Martini"-brand company devoted to the manufacture of the Martini-Henry or Martini-Enfield rifle.--Commander Zulu 05:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shootin' safari

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: This article states that the action of this rifle is falling block. However I think it fits in the category of tilting block, as is clearly visible from the schema (although even the mentioned article puts it in the wrong category). J. Lugs in Ruční palné zbraně (czech) also puts it in the tilting block category ("kývavý blokový závěr klouzavý").
Am I overlooking something?
MarK (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here to ask the same question, but someone beat me to it.  An anon edited British military rifles stating the rifle was a tilting block not a falling block.  I thought it was dubious, but it seems to be correct.  I am not an expert, so I'll invite comment here until I am sure.--Dmol (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breech action 

message: Took the uncited sentence out about the M/H being partly responsible for the defeat at Islandhwana. It worked perfectly well at Rorke's Drift 24 hrs later. The rifles kept up sustained fire for over 12 hrs. There was gross overheating and ammunition cook off, and issues with the cartridge base tearing off when ejecting, but the weapons were still usable. if they hadnt have been, the station would have been overrun, especially during the night action. By that point the M/Hs had been firing for hours, and continuously. Islandhwana was a tactics/logistics (ammo supply to firing line) failure. Not at all the M/H.
I think the author is getting mixed up with the Westley Richards carbine, which was issued to Col.Anthony Durnfords Natal Native Contingent. That falling - block weapon definitely had major issues during the battle. In fact the rate of Jamming was such that the N.N.C lost cohesion and were broken through by the Zulu left (?) horn, precipatating the Zulus rapid advance to the main British line. See The Washing Of The Spears- Donald R. Morris, for a good description of the N.N.C's plight. Irondome (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rifle blamed for defeat at Islandhwana sentence removed. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Martini–Henry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080213225105/http://www.antiquestopic.com/martini-metford-mkiv-1886/ to http://www.antiquestopic.com/martini-metford-mkiv-1886/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)