Martini-Enfield .303

[houserocker]

What do ya'll know about these. I know they were converted to .303 to use the new smokeless .303 and that some were used by REMF units until WWI at least. Are they safe to fire w/ "modern" .303 stuff? Got one (or shot one)?http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=144986944

 

[GNLaFrance]

Check out these places:

CAS City, go to The Barracks sub forum where the Grand Army of the Frontier hangs out.

The Grand Army of the Frontier, official Web site.

S & S Firearms for parts and information.

Numrich Gun Parts Corp. for more parts.

Yesterday's Weapons forum

The markings and general fit/finish make me believe it's likely the real thing and not a Pakistani copy. It's in very good shape for its age. Talk to some experts, maybe they can say if it's safe for low-power smokeless ammo. There's a Canadian named Rattlesnake Jack on the CAS City site, he knows a great deal about British firearms.

 

[zoostation]

No, I would not fire modern .303 in one. They were not made for modern smokeless powder. While the Brits may have had some of their soldiers use them in that capacity, the Brits also marched their troops standing up into machine gun fire, so I wouldn't be too reassured by that. Add to that, the rifles are now about a hundred years older than when they were already obsolete with modern powder back then. Lastly, I think a lot of the Martinis wound up in the hands of native auxilliary troops after they became outdated, and the Brits cared even less for them than they did their own.

Also, be sure you do not get stuck with a Khyber Pass copy, the Martini is one of the rifles the tribal gunsmiths in Pak/Afghanistan have extensively copied. The one in the auction looks real to me but without seeing it up close it's hard to tell. At 600 bucks its also around 200-250 dollars overpriced, IMHO.

 

[Richardwv]

I was doing a search on ME rifles and came across this posting. While I realize it is old and the original poster has taken action on it, I just can’t let such misinformation stand. Aside from the warning on all the counterfeit Martinis out there, the rest just isn’t true.
The Martin Enfield is more than up to the pressures of modern ammo, which by the way is quite a bit lower in pressure than the original loading. While the actions are indeed over 100 years old, that has little bearing on their ability to withstand use. Metal stress is cumulative, making use and condition much more important than simple age. As single shots, I suspect these fired a lot less ammo than many if not most bolt action military rifles. Further, these do not suffer from the brittle nature of many of the earlier bolt action rifles well past WWI. Further, since they were never frontline rifles in their ME form, they didn’t see the abuse either. A final consideration is the inherent strength of tilting block actions that have far greater bearing area in there knuckle than any common bolt action has in its locking lugs…and of course is complete immune to boltlug shear. While failures through receiver stretch and cracked blocks do occur, I’m unaware of any catastrophic failures….unlike many more “modern” arms half their age. There are sound reasons why many fine sporters using smokeless and BP rounds continue to be built on Martini actions, often approaching 140 years in age.
As to the disparaging remarks on not worrying about the troops, the Brits have had and continue to have some of the most stringent proofing laws in the world, while the US continues to have none. Whether military or civilian, every single firearm is proofed by an independent proving house as a matter of national law when new and whenever it receives major rework, such as a new barrel or being rechambered. Simply put, they were and continue to be subjected to significantly greater quality control and assurance throughout their life than just about any other nation’s firearms.
As to the comment on mass charges into machine guns, that was a common tactical error by all sides, including the US (over the top frontal assaults were dumb then and dumb today….so what). Does that make Lee Enfields, M98 Mausers, M1917 and 03 Springfields, Mosins, etc. unsafe? Bad tactics have little bearing on the quality of the arms carried. Arguably the Lee-Enfield carried by the Brits was the best battle rifle of WWI.
Any ME rifle in good condition is as safe as any used firearm in similar condition, with the same cautions called for. It was designed for ammo of higher pressure than today’s loadings and continues to be widely used in their military form as well as high quality sporters. Now personally I prefer to shoot lower power cast loads because of cost and shoulder abuse....not because of the rifle's ability to take it.

 

[Mr Oni]

I was doing a search on ME rifles and came across this posting. While I realize it is old and the original poster has taken action on it, I just can’t let such misinformation stand. Aside from the warning on all the counterfeit Martinis out there, the rest just isn’t true.
The Martin Enfield is more than up to the pressures of modern ammo, which by the way is quite a bit lower in pressure than the original loading. While the actions are indeed over 100 years old, that has little bearing on their ability to withstand use. Metal stress is cumulative, making use and condition much more important than simple age. As single shots, I suspect these fired a lot less ammo than many if not most bolt action military rifles. Further, these do not suffer from the brittle nature of many of the earlier bolt action rifles well past WWI. Further, since they were never frontline rifles in their ME form, they didn’t see the abuse either. A final consideration is the inherent strength of tilting block actions that have far greater bearing area in there knuckle than any common bolt action has in its locking lugs…and of course is complete immune to boltlug shear. While failures through receiver stretch and cracked blocks do occur, I’m unaware of any catastrophic failures….unlike many more “modern” arms half their age. There are sound reasons why many fine sporters using smokeless and BP rounds continue to be built on Martini actions, often approaching 140 years in age.
As to the disparaging remarks on not worrying about the troops, the Brits have had and continue to have some of the most stringent proofing laws in the world, while the US continues to have none. Whether military or civilian, every single firearm is proofed by an independent proving house as a matter of national law when new and whenever it receives major rework, such as a new barrel or being rechambered. Simply put, they were and continue to be subjected to significantly greater quality control and assurance throughout their life than just about any other nation’s firearms.
As to the comment on mass charges into machine guns, that was a common tactical error by all sides, including the US (over the top frontal assaults were dumb then and dumb today….so what). Does that make Lee Enfields, M98 Mausers, M1917 and 03 Springfields, Mosins, etc. unsafe? Bad tactics have little bearing on the quality of the arms carried. Arguably the Lee-Enfield carried by the Brits was the best battle rifle of WWI.
Any ME rifle in good condition is as safe as any used firearm in similar condition, with the same cautions called for. It was designed for ammo of higher pressure than today’s loadings and continues to be widely used in their military form as well as high quality sporters. Now personally I prefer to shoot lower power cast loads because of cost and shoulder abuse....not because of the rifle's ability to take it.

Good day to you sir! I have just aquired an Martini Enfield 303 and because it has some rust in the barrel that I can see I took to Arundel firearms to have them clean and test it the same thing I did with my Brazilian 1908 as a precaution not that I doubt it's durability. I fully intend to shoot off the shelf 303s in it. It satisfies my zulu fantasies at a fraction of a cost of the martini henry. It says bsa 1903 on the side.

 

[GNLaFrance]

Well, I never! And just where are we supposed to end up if we start researching to find the facts before we post here? Hmm?

Welcome, Richard. Good first post. Come on over to the Introductions forum and tell us a bit about yourself.

 

[Threeband]

Yes, welcome Richard. That was a great post. I hope you'll stick around and be a regular here!



Mr Oni, try Wipe Out in you Martini (instead of an olive), and post some pictures.

 

[mbz300sdl]

Yes, welcome Richard. That was a great post. I hope you'll stick around and be a regular here!



Mr Oni, try Wipe Out in you Martini (instead of an olive), and post some pictures.

I was a good looking rifle.

 

[Mr Oni]

yes it is a good looking rifle the wood is good on it there is some minor rust around the trigger and inside the barrel. sorry for not posting pics i need to get a camera im just lazy on that.

 

[Richardwv]

Good day to you sir! I have just aquired an Martini Enfield 303 and because it has some rust in the barrel that I can see I took to Arundel firearms to have them clean and test it the same thing I did with my Brazilian 1908 as a precaution not that I doubt it's durability. I fully intend to shoot off the shelf 303s in it. It satisfies my zulu fantasies at a fraction of a cost of the martini henry. It says bsa 1903 on the side.

As long as it is a real ME and not one of the fakes recently marketed by SOG and other less than reputable dealers, it should check out just fine and give many years of service. On the fake ME rifles, they used to be rather crude and easily spotted. Many of the current ones are not so easily identified. One quick check is that with very few exceptions (mainly in museums), all the Brit military ME rifles were conversions of MH rifles. The MH markings appear on the right side of the receiver, the new ME markings are on the left. ME markings on the right is a huge red flag. Also, the good queen Victory died in Jan 01. Many of the fakes are dated after that time, but still carry Victoria's royal cypher (crown over V.R.). Any rifle dated 1901 with her cypher is suspicious; anything dated later with V.R. is a fake.

The reason I emphasize the above is the comment concerning cost. A common ME in today’s market costs about the same as a comparable MH. Any ME priced significantly cheaper would be very suspicious to me. With the imports from Nepal driving MH prices down below $400 for a good restorable one, the main difference in cost these days is the cost of reloading. Thankfully .303 remains over the counter ammo. 577/450 is either a custom loader or handloading proposition that costs much more.

 

[Mr Oni]

As long as it is a real ME and not one of the fakes recently marketed by SOG and other less than reputable dealers, it should check out just fine and give many years of service. On the fake ME rifles, they used to be rather crude and easily spotted. Many of the current ones are not so easily identified. One quick check is that with very few exceptions (mainly in museums), all the Brit military ME rifles were conversions of MH rifles. The MH markings appear on the right side of the receiver, the new ME markings are on the left. ME markings on the right is a huge red flag. Also, the good queen Victory died in Jan 01. Many of the fakes are dated after that time, but still carry Victoria's royal cypher (crown over V.R.). Any rifle dated 1901 with her cypher is suspicious; anything dated later with V.R. is a fake.

The reason I emphasize the above is the comment concerning cost. A common ME in today’s market costs about the same as a comparable MH. Any ME priced significantly cheaper would be very suspicious to me. With the imports from Nepal driving MH prices down below $400 for a good restorable one, the main difference in cost these days is the cost of reloading. Thankfully .303 remains over the counter ammo. 577/450 is either a custom loader or handloading proposition that costs much more.

I think there is a crown there its at the gunshop right now so as soon I get it back i'll check thatout.