Martini Henry MK IV HELP!

[gmac1986]

Hey guys,

I'm not really sure where else to post this and i know its far from WW2 but here it goes.

I bought this 1886 MKIV this summer for 100$ I considered it a great buy seeing as the nepaleese versions are pulling something like 400$

I just have 2 questions.

1. What parts am I missing? It clearly didn't work when I bought it and after opening it I immediately realized its not all there. I know I can buy the parts from IMA but I am far from a firearms expert.

2.Is there anywhere I can research the #'s or stamps on the buttstock? I know one is the enfield armory stamp but i cant make out the other and the #3025 is just as confusing.

So if anyone has any input or can point me in the right direction I would be very grateful.

Full picture:
http://i1305.photobucket.com/albums/...6/DSC04115.jpg

Buttstock stamps:
http://i1305.photobucket.com/albums/...6/DSC04119.jpg

Pieces:
http://i1305.photobucket.com/albums/...6/DSC04120.jpg

[paul kennedy]

Martini Henry

It has a Fort William Arsenal stamp on the butt stock.
Fort William Arsenal was in Calcutta.

[gmac1986]

cool, thanks, I did some research and realized I need a trigger tumbler and an extractor.

[Seigfried]

cool, thanks, I did some research and realized I need a trigger tumbler and an extractor.

Try these two excellent websites:

http://britishmilitariaforums.yuku.com/

www.martinihenry.com


I have a MH MkII - yours was a bargain. They quite often have spares on ebay.

[gmac1986]

thanks for the info, I've decided to buy from IMA, the extractor and tumbler wont cost me more than 60.00 including shipping and they're fairly close to me.

After doing a little digging i found out I actually have a converted MK1 as is stated on martinihenry.com

"Although the Mark IV was produced from 1888 to 1889, some examples are seen with 1886 and 1887 dates. The reason for the early dates is that these weapons were converted from early Enfield-Martini Mark Is. This can be sometimes be evidenced by a "Mark of Arm" marking which is off-center compared to the lock viewer's mark directly above."

As seen here on my rifle.
http://i1305.photobucket.com/albums/...6/DSC04117.jpg


I am a little confused though, I thought the production of MKIs was from 1871-1876?

[peter monahan]

The carbines, Cavalry and Artillery, were produced up through 1877, so perhaps this 'hybrid' was manufactured with parts, such as the breech, from the earlier Mark 1, and other bits - the long lever, from the Mk IVs. Might that explain the date discrepancy?

When I was in university, back when dinosaurs still roamed the earth, I found a lot of Mk IVs on sale - $75.00 I think - in Toronto, Canada and even persuaded the Dean of Residence that I be allowed to keep one in my room, as long as I took the firing pin out. Of course, I had no earthly idea how to do that, though I friend and i did succeed in disemboweling the beast. That rifle is long gone now, but was always my favourite and remains so, for British long arms. It had been restocked in Rawalpindi or Ishapoor in the 1930s, as most still around seem to have been, and if left in the sun for long would literally weep oil from the stock.

BTW, the reason for the long lever on the Mk IVs was that the 'Tini had problems with cartridge extraction and the extra length gave the user extra leverage. The biggest problem though was that when the coiled brass cases jammed, yanking hard on the lever pulled the base disk right off and left the case in the breech, to be extracted with a knife and lots of swearing.

Rudyard Kipling has a great story about the 'new Martini' rifles and how the soldiers played with the trigger action to ease the pull. In the tale, someone plans to use Private Mulvaney's piece to murder a sergeant and blame it on Mulvaney, who learns of the plot and boobytraps his rifle. Great yarn, which can be read here: http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/8184/

[gmac1986]

thanks for the insight and the story, I live very close to Toronto so its nice to hear these have been
in circulation in my area before the nepaleese IMA deal.....and at 75$ whoa!

" produced up through 1877, so perhaps this 'hybrid' was manufactured with parts, such as the breech, from the earlier Mark 1, and other bits - the long lever, from the Mk IVs. Might that explain the date discrepancy?"

not really.

Mine is clearly stamped 1886 (100 years prior to my birth) my main question is that had my rifle been a mk1 (1871-76) why is the 1886 dated that way? I would have thought if they were used prior in mk1's that they would have have been dated 71-76. were they unused (un-stamped) ? if so why weren't they used in the mk2 or 3 and dated accordingly?

I'm sorry if i'm missing something,I am aware these rifles were upgraded and re outfitted numerous times either by the lever or the extractor but I also only recently became aware of Kyber pass rifles ( a place my uncle revealed he visited in the 70's after seeing this and telling me he'd remembered shooting these from rooftops) and the whole mess that they entail..........hoping this isn't one.