1895 Martini-Enfield .303

[Drake]

I picked up a Martini-Enfield MkI recently. It's chambered in .303 since the 1895 rebarelling by Enfield. It was originally a Martini-Henry MkIII made by LSA in 1881. Anyhow, it's in overall good condition with fair rifling. I replaced the extractor as the orignal was broken. I test fired it last weekend with 150gr Prvi Partizan soft points, I believe they are boat tail bullets.

At about 25 yards it was keyholing.

Upon further inspection the crown appears undamaged but the rifling is very worn at the muzzle end. So, what should I consider to get this old rifle shooting straight again? I have some surplus MkVII ammo which has flat base bullets which I intend to try first. Would counterboring be worthwhile?

Thanks in advance for any advice, I will post some photos of the rifle this evening. I doubt I'll shoot it much but I'd love it to shoot well.

[Drake]

Some photos of the Martini-Enfield, as promised earlier.

!881/1895 Martini-Enfield MkI with 1900 Pattern 1895 bayonet.

http://hooverae.com/upload/files/130409/7087691.jpeg[/pic]

http://hooverae.com/upload/files/130409/7137477.jpeg[/pic]

The stock has a nice RSAF-Enfield cartouche. The double arrows indicate it was sold as surplus. The roman numeral 'I' shows it is a Mark I rifle while the arabic number 1 indicates it was a first-line weapon intended for front-line service (at the time it was made).

http://hooverae.com/upload/files/130409/7165847.jpeg[/pic]

Cape Government, South Africa ownership stamps.

http://hooverae.com/upload/files/130409/7199805.jpeg[/pic]

http://hooverae.com/upload/files/130409/7377697.jpeg[/pic]

Original 1881 London Small Arms Co stamps when the rifle was first made as a Martini-Henry Mark III. The royal cypher is barely visible.

http://hooverae.com/upload/files/130409/7403646.jpeg[/pic]

The Enfield stamps from 1895 when it was rebarreled and reissued as a Martini-Enfield Mark I.

http://hooverae.com/upload/files/130409/7414240.jpeg[/pic]

Nice to see with the update I can use the pic tag instead of manually specifying a thumbnail size!

[Woftam]

Nice, very nice. I've got a ME MkII (manufactured as such, not converted) that is fitted for the P1887 bayonet, although it should still take the P1895. Just wish I could find either at a reasonable price. Seriously envious of your P1895.
Very good clear stampings on yours too. What is stamped on the front of the action, I can make out the C G and the Sold out of Service mark but can't make out the rest. Do you know if the notch was part of the conversion process or later ? Looks to affect the bottom arrow so I'm thinking after.

For what its worth mine shoots fine with surplus. I'd leave counterboring as a last resort and try some other ammo through it first.

Congratulations on a fine acquisition.

[belgmart]

No boat tails for these rifles - flat-base should do quite a bit better. Don't forget it will proabably be quite a bit 'generous' as to bore size...

[Drake]

Thanks for the feedback on the ammo, I'll try some of the surplus MkVII this weekend.

Here are a few shots of stampings on the rifle. I'm not sure about the notch above the chamber, I haven't read anything about why that cut was made.

http://hooverae.com/upload/files/160409/7312774.jpeg[/pic]

http://hooverae.com/upload/files/160409/7565115.jpeg[/pic]

The serial number is stamped on the right side of the chamber, it matches the serial on the front of the receiver under the handguard.

http://hooverae.com/upload/files/160409/7591912.jpeg[/pic]

Martini-Henry Mark III stamp on the handguard mount.

http://hooverae.com/upload/files/160409/7664501.jpeg[/pic]

I pulled one of my 1942 MkVII cartridges to verify they were indeed flat-based. Cordite sure is some odd looking stuff.

http://hooverae.com/upload/files/160409/7785597.jpeg[/pic]

[DuncaninFrance]

I'm not sure about the notch above the chamber, I haven't read anything about why that cut was made.

Could it be a sight picture thing? Perhaps needed because of the ammo change / range difference / sight settings. The foresight looks as though it has been raised a little.
In 'Guns of the Empire' it says that " Reports from the colonies subsequently alleged that Martini-Enfields shot markedly to the left, leading to approval on 12 Feb 1903 of three laterally adjustable front sights (High, Normal and Low). The designation of rifles fitted with these advanced to Mark I* and Mark II*"
Perhaps that explains it?

[Drake]

I'm not sure about the notch above the chamber, I haven't read anything about why that cut was made.

Could it be a sight picture thing? Perhaps needed because of the ammo change / range difference / sight settings. The foresight looks as though it has been raised a little.
In 'Guns of the Empire' it says that " Reports from the colonies subsequently alleged that Martini-Enfields shot markedly to the left, leading to approval on 12 Feb 1903 of three laterally adjustable front sights (High, Normal and Low). The designation of rifles fitted with these advanced to Mark I* and Mark II*"
Perhaps that explains it?

The divot above the chamber lies well below the line of sight to the rear sight, so it's certainly not for visibility. There is a similar groove cut into the rear sight's base as well. As you can see, the rear sight is still well above this level.

http://hooverae.com/upload/files/170409/5062073.jpeg[/pic]

The front sight is well to the left of the sight base which seems to corroborate the rifle shooting to the left. I remember reading something about Martini-Henry MkIII rifles having the rear sight mounted off to the left to correct accuracy issues in those rifles. I wonder if that is related to the problems when they were converted to .303?

[DuncaninFrance]

Looks like some form of Battle Sight, perhaps a forerunner of the No: 4

[Drake]

Just to be clear I was taking about the notch in the rear sight base's hinge, not the battlesight.

Hard to say about the notches, though. I can't figure out how to use it if it's related to the sight picture. The rear sight base blocks it's view of the front sight completely.

[krinko]

"...the notch in the rear sight base's hinge...'

The backsight ladder's pattern dates to the Snider, when burying the front sight post in the bottom of the gigantic vee was a real possibility at close range.
I checked this on my Snider and the groove in the hinge makes it possible to sight with just the tip of the front sight post in the bottom of the vee. Groovy.
A functional element carried over into later designs, despite being obsolete---a normal situation in British arms, heh?
Don't know about the notch in the receiver, though.

Try the round nose 180 grain from Hornady to cure keyholing.
-----krinko