Coggansfield’s Rare Martini and Lee Price Digest
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:33 am
Coggansfield’s Second Annual Digest of Late British Imperial Longarm Prices, 2004-2005
February 2006
© D.P. Munro 2006, Baltimore, Md., U.S.A.
Pp. 1-23 total.
_____
A. Preface.
In spring 2005, concerned about seemingly inaccurate pricing given in commercially available gun-value directories, I reproduced on line the results of an ongoing spreadsheet of gun prices I had been keeping for a while. The spreadsheet results covered Lee-Metford and Lee-Enfield prices over 2004 and the early part of 2005. The results were posted by me to three of the major Lee-Enfield bulletin boards. I have kept the spreadsheet going since then, and indeed have added Martinis to it. The newest results are reproduced below. I intend to make this an annual publication. For the present, it will cover Martinis and Lees though, later on, I may expand it to cover other British and related arms as well.
This edition of this index covers longarms (rifles and carbines) of the following types:
• Martini-Henry.
• Martini-Metford.
• Martini-Enfield.
• Lee-Metford.
• Lee-Enfield.
Where data are available, I include pricing on rare trials and experimental variants of the above.
This is a long post, and so is done in two parts: this post and the one immediately following. This post describes the methodology, etc., while the second post contains the actual pricing information.
_____
B. Methodology.
What I have done below is compare my own price research to the prices published in two respected guides (one in book form and one on line). I mean no disrespect to the publishers. Their research is more extensive than mine and I have found their guides very useful, despite reporting what seem to me to be prices on the low side.
If you print out this posting, or scroll down to read its contents, you will find a comparison of observed prices for dozens Martini rifles and carbines and Enfield or Enfield-related rifles and carbines. The comparisons are between these:
• Ned Schwing (ed.), Standard Catalog of Military Firearms: The Collector’s Price and Reference Guide, 2nd ed. (Iola, Wis.: Krause Publications, 2003).
• Manowar’s Firearm Values, Internet site (http://www.fo.com/cr-buds/prices.asp).
• My own (“Coggansfield”) observations over the past two years, aggregated and averaged.
In my experience, dealer claims to the contrary, very few milsurps are in better than “very good” condition. This being the case, for Schwing and Manowar, I have given their prices for “very good” rifles. Readers should bear in mind that their prices for “excellent” and “mint” items are higher, sometimes considerably so.
As for my own figures, I give the highest and lowest observed price for each type of rifle, regardless of condition, though in each case I describe its condition as best I can (thought mostly I have to trust sellers’ often exaggerated claims in this respect). I also give the average of all the rifles of that type that I tracked. I do not track sporterised weapons, which Manowar notes should never be valued higher than a “fair” non-sporterised version of the same arm.
In sum, for each weapon, the reader should have five figures to compare: Schwing’s average figure, Manowar’s average figure, my average figure, my high figure and my low figure. Between the five of them, these figures should give the reader a reasonably good picture of the current state of the market.
Having said this, “the market” is just that: people buying and selling. There is no right or wrong, just how high people are prepared to pay or how low they are prepared to sell. This may offend some readers’ preconceived notions of what is “fair.” This digest passes no judgement on whether or not certain sales are”fair” or not; I just report the prices as I find them. However, particularly in cases of very uncommon weapons, one anomalously high or low sale can distort the picture. In instances such as these, I have pointed out, not that the resulting average is “right” or “wrong,” but that it may have been skewed.
_____
C. Time Span.
I average my data over two-year increments of time, in this case, the years 2004 and 2005. In other words, if below you see that a certain type of arm had a Coggansfield average sales price of $600, that means that this was the average of sales of this arm over period 2004-2005.
The reason is this: many of the weapons listed below are very scarce, with only a handful of sales a year. If a given type of arm has three sales a year, and one of these sales is very expensive, this will greatly impact my Coggansfield average price. A truer price picture is given by giving an average of two years’ worth of sales, thus reducing the effect of aberrantly high or low individual sales.
In future editions, I will retain the two-year methodology, but use a rolling average. Thus, while this index averages sales over 2004 and 2005, next year’s will review sales from 2005 and 2006. In this manner, readers will still be able to keep track of trends in pricing.
_____
D. Limitations.
A note on caveats for each of the sources of figures used here: Schwing, Manowar and Coggansfield.
First, Schwing’s work is probably the most comprehensive — but it was published in 2003, meaning that it probably used 2002 data. Prices have only gone up since then, making Schwing’s cited prices dated and on the low side.
Second, Manowar’s web site was last updated on June 20, 2005, so it is quite current. Its given prices are for the most part considerably lower than my findings. The drawback with Manowar’s site is that it mostly does not distinguish among modified models of Enfields (for example, a Lee-Metford mk. I and a mk. I* are counted as the same thing, when in fact the former is far more rare than the latter and correspondingly more expensive).
Third, my own findings are marred by the fact that, obviously, I am just one person and cannot make all that extensive a review. My methodology is to track auction sales in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States (primarily the latter), gunboard “WTS” sales, dealer asking prices in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the U.K. and the U.S. (again, primarily the latter), and asking prices at the Baltimore, Maryland gunshow, the United States’ largest annual antique firearms event.
In regard to auctions and gunboard WTS listings, I only count actual sales. As for dealers and the gunshow, I count asking prices, as that is all I have to go on (I have no way of knowing if the items sold for the asking price or not). In this respect, my figures probably lead to slightly inflated averages, though the difference is unlikely to be great.
Because there are limits to number of sales I can track for each type of rifle, my numbers for each type are sometimes small — sometimes just a couple of rifles for rarer types. In each case, I state the number of rifles reviewed by me, e.g., “n=2” (meaning I tracked two rifles). Additionally, I cannot track sales of guns by “mom and pop” retailers, which frequently do not have web sites. Because sales at such establishments are often cheaper than sales from high-end, on-line dealers, my inability to include mom-and-pop sales may again have the effect of inflating my average prices. On the other hand, this factor is mitigated somewhat by the fact that I only consider scarce weapons — no SMLE mk. IIIs, for example, nor rifle no. 4s — and these little establishments do not often stock unusual firearms of the sort covered in this index.
One strength of my methodology is that I track overseas sales too. I regularly review dealer sales, WTS postings and auctions in New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the U.K. Below, all prices are in, or have been converted to, U.S. dollar values. All sales are U.S. sales (or foreign sales to U.S. customers) unless otherwise stated. As a matter of general principle, I have generally found the hierarchy of expensiveness to be as follows (working from cheapest to costliest):
• Australia.
• New Zealand.
• Canada.
• United States.
• United Kingdom.
There are too many sales of certain types of gun for me to be able to track. Readers should be aware that this index does not cover the following:
• Rifle no. 1, mk. III* (Short Magazine Lee-Enfield).
• Rifle no. 3, mks. I and I* (Pattern 1914 or P-14).
• Rifle no. 4, all marks.
• Rifle no. 5, all marks (“jungle carbine”).
• SMLE .410 single-loader musket.
Additionally, small-calibre training weapons are not tracked, and neither are handguns.
_____
E. Final Observations.
The obvious question is, what has happened over the past year? For most of the weapons discussed below, it is difficult to detect trends, given the tiny number of sales annually. Having said this, certain observations may tentatively be made.
The hobby-wide fascination with long Lee-Enfields seems to be slowing a little, ever so slightly. Whereas once anyone selling a decent MLE mk. I could be almost assured of getting $975 or more for it, I have recently detected a number selling in the low $900 range.
Carbine sales, too, may be slowing, despite the scarcity if all Lee carbines. Over summer 2005, a reasonably nice, though admittedly lightly sanded, LMC mk. I languished for many weeks on Gunbroker.com before selling for a relatively modest $1,500. A New Zealand carbine offered by the same seller did not sell at all, though in this case it should be added that the initial asking prices of first $1,000 and, later, $900 were somewhat above market.
On the other hand, the same slow-down cannot be observed in the average pricing of the ever-popular Lee-Metford mk. II rifle. These guns still routinely fetch over $1,000 — sometimes well over $1,000 — in the U.S. and Europe. This is despite the fact that neither the MLM mk. II nor the MLE mk. I can truly be considered “rare.”
This said, some weapons remain remarkably elusive. Despite a production run of a hair under 13,500, no sale of any military Lee-Metford mk. II* rifle was observed by me over 2004-2005. The only one I saw was a conversion to a .22-in. trainer. This scarcity only applies to military mk. II* rifles. The commercial Lee-Speed volunteer pattern mk. II* is, while far from common, certainly not unheard of.
The Lee-Enfield mk. I* carbine is also very difficult to come by, too, despite having been produced in considerably greater quantities than either the Lee-Metford mk. I carbine or the Lee-Enfield mk. I carbine. Even after the conversion in the early 1900s of 8,000 into Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC) carbines, there would still have been some 18,000 floating around. Apparently very few of these remain. Over 2004-2005, I observed only two LEC mk. I* sales, though I additionally came across a handful of sales of sporterised mk. I*s. However, as I only track weapons that are true to pattern, I did not record the details of these Bubba-ed carbines. (Another LEC mk. I* came on the market in the U.S. in late January 2006, too late for inclusion herein.)
Turning to Martinis, the flooding of the market with Nepalese mk. IIs and mk. IVs appears finally to be bringing about a slight depression in prices. Weapons that were once snapped up on the two big U.S. auction sites — Gunbroker.com and Auctionarms.com — now tend to be relisted several times before being sold, frequently at a price below the initial asking price when the items were first listed. This is particularly the case for mk. IVs, which can now easily be had in the very low $500 range. They have always been available for that price for those prepared to shop around, but now one need not even do that. One can just sit back and wait for them to be relisted a few times on the auction sites.
The presence of American troops in Afghanistan has also resulted in the appearance on the U.S. market of many so-called “bring-back” weapons. Extreme caution must be exercised in purchasing these guns. Many are outright native-made copies (known as “Khyber Pass” copies). And even the British-made firearms tend to have a high proportion of Khyber Pass replacement parts. Among Martinis, commonly encountered native-made replacement parts are breech blocks and buttstocks; among Lees, the bolts are often native made.
Among Martinis, mk. IIs, IIIs and IVs are in no particularly short supply, though the III is the least common of the three. Buyers can afford to be choosy here. As for the much vaunted mk. I, it is probably fair to call it rare-ish — nothing more. I came across 16 sales of mk. Is over 2004-2005. The vast majority of these were of the type Barry Templeton and Ian Skennerton call the “2nd pattern interim” subvariation, a late version of the second pattern mk. I that incorporated many features of the third pattern mk. I (Temple and Skennerton 1983:87-89). As far as I am aware, all of these 2nd pattern interim models ultimately come from the same source: a batch of 2,100 bought by Canada from Britain in early 1874 and never issued to regular troops (Edgecombe 2003:68-69).
Atlanta Cutlery has a handful of another mk. I subvariation, the “3rd pattern upgrade” subtype. I myself have encountered two at Atlanta Cutlery and have heard of a third. The “3rd pattern upgrade” subtype is a 3rd pattern mk. I subsequently given a partial upgrade to mk. II status by the installation of a mk. II trigger and associated components (Temple and Skennerton 1983:87-89). It is not at all common and is not the same as the frequently seen mk. I to mk. II conversion.
In closing, nothing herein should be taken as representing definitive pricing for the named firearms. This digest is simply made up of calculations based on observations. It reflects the market, but the market can be “wrong.” For example, there are instances below of extremely rare firearms selling for extraordinarily low prices simply because the seller did not know what he had. Likewise, there are instances where firearms have sold for considerably above the sorts of prices one might reasonably expect, again because of ignorance on the part of the buyer. If you are new to firearms purchasing, I recommend you consult an appraiser before making any steep outlays. The author accepts no responsibility for selling or purchasing decisions made by readers of this index.
If you have firearms sales and pricing data you would like included in the nest edition of this digest, covering 2005-2006, please e-mail Doug Munro at munro@intergroupservices.com. All information is strictly confidential: buyer’s and sellers’ names are never disclosed.
_____
References.
Edgecombe 2003: David W. Edgecombe. 2003. Defending the Dominion: Canadian Military Rifles, 1855-1955. Ottawa, Ont.: Service Publications.
Skennerton 1993. Ian D. Skennerton. 1993. The Lee-Enfield Story: The Lee-Metford, Lee-Enfield, S.M.L.E. and No. 4 Series Rifles and Carbines, 1880 to the Present. Piqua, Ohio: I.D.S.A. Books.
Skennerton 2002: _____. 2002. “.450 & .303 Martini Rifles and Carbines: Parts Identification & Lists, M.H., M.M. & M.E. Notes, Exploded Parts Drawings, Armourers Instructions, Accessories & Fittings.” Small Arms Identification Series, No. 15. Grants Pass, Ore.: Arms & Militaria Press.
Temple and Skennerton 1983: B.A. Temple and I.D. Skennerton. 1983. A Treatise on the British Military Martini: The Martini-Henry, 1869-c.1900. Kilcoy, Australia: B.A. Temple.
February 2006
© D.P. Munro 2006, Baltimore, Md., U.S.A.
Pp. 1-23 total.
_____
A. Preface.
In spring 2005, concerned about seemingly inaccurate pricing given in commercially available gun-value directories, I reproduced on line the results of an ongoing spreadsheet of gun prices I had been keeping for a while. The spreadsheet results covered Lee-Metford and Lee-Enfield prices over 2004 and the early part of 2005. The results were posted by me to three of the major Lee-Enfield bulletin boards. I have kept the spreadsheet going since then, and indeed have added Martinis to it. The newest results are reproduced below. I intend to make this an annual publication. For the present, it will cover Martinis and Lees though, later on, I may expand it to cover other British and related arms as well.
This edition of this index covers longarms (rifles and carbines) of the following types:
• Martini-Henry.
• Martini-Metford.
• Martini-Enfield.
• Lee-Metford.
• Lee-Enfield.
Where data are available, I include pricing on rare trials and experimental variants of the above.
This is a long post, and so is done in two parts: this post and the one immediately following. This post describes the methodology, etc., while the second post contains the actual pricing information.
_____
B. Methodology.
What I have done below is compare my own price research to the prices published in two respected guides (one in book form and one on line). I mean no disrespect to the publishers. Their research is more extensive than mine and I have found their guides very useful, despite reporting what seem to me to be prices on the low side.
If you print out this posting, or scroll down to read its contents, you will find a comparison of observed prices for dozens Martini rifles and carbines and Enfield or Enfield-related rifles and carbines. The comparisons are between these:
• Ned Schwing (ed.), Standard Catalog of Military Firearms: The Collector’s Price and Reference Guide, 2nd ed. (Iola, Wis.: Krause Publications, 2003).
• Manowar’s Firearm Values, Internet site (http://www.fo.com/cr-buds/prices.asp).
• My own (“Coggansfield”) observations over the past two years, aggregated and averaged.
In my experience, dealer claims to the contrary, very few milsurps are in better than “very good” condition. This being the case, for Schwing and Manowar, I have given their prices for “very good” rifles. Readers should bear in mind that their prices for “excellent” and “mint” items are higher, sometimes considerably so.
As for my own figures, I give the highest and lowest observed price for each type of rifle, regardless of condition, though in each case I describe its condition as best I can (thought mostly I have to trust sellers’ often exaggerated claims in this respect). I also give the average of all the rifles of that type that I tracked. I do not track sporterised weapons, which Manowar notes should never be valued higher than a “fair” non-sporterised version of the same arm.
In sum, for each weapon, the reader should have five figures to compare: Schwing’s average figure, Manowar’s average figure, my average figure, my high figure and my low figure. Between the five of them, these figures should give the reader a reasonably good picture of the current state of the market.
Having said this, “the market” is just that: people buying and selling. There is no right or wrong, just how high people are prepared to pay or how low they are prepared to sell. This may offend some readers’ preconceived notions of what is “fair.” This digest passes no judgement on whether or not certain sales are”fair” or not; I just report the prices as I find them. However, particularly in cases of very uncommon weapons, one anomalously high or low sale can distort the picture. In instances such as these, I have pointed out, not that the resulting average is “right” or “wrong,” but that it may have been skewed.
_____
C. Time Span.
I average my data over two-year increments of time, in this case, the years 2004 and 2005. In other words, if below you see that a certain type of arm had a Coggansfield average sales price of $600, that means that this was the average of sales of this arm over period 2004-2005.
The reason is this: many of the weapons listed below are very scarce, with only a handful of sales a year. If a given type of arm has three sales a year, and one of these sales is very expensive, this will greatly impact my Coggansfield average price. A truer price picture is given by giving an average of two years’ worth of sales, thus reducing the effect of aberrantly high or low individual sales.
In future editions, I will retain the two-year methodology, but use a rolling average. Thus, while this index averages sales over 2004 and 2005, next year’s will review sales from 2005 and 2006. In this manner, readers will still be able to keep track of trends in pricing.
_____
D. Limitations.
A note on caveats for each of the sources of figures used here: Schwing, Manowar and Coggansfield.
First, Schwing’s work is probably the most comprehensive — but it was published in 2003, meaning that it probably used 2002 data. Prices have only gone up since then, making Schwing’s cited prices dated and on the low side.
Second, Manowar’s web site was last updated on June 20, 2005, so it is quite current. Its given prices are for the most part considerably lower than my findings. The drawback with Manowar’s site is that it mostly does not distinguish among modified models of Enfields (for example, a Lee-Metford mk. I and a mk. I* are counted as the same thing, when in fact the former is far more rare than the latter and correspondingly more expensive).
Third, my own findings are marred by the fact that, obviously, I am just one person and cannot make all that extensive a review. My methodology is to track auction sales in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States (primarily the latter), gunboard “WTS” sales, dealer asking prices in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the U.K. and the U.S. (again, primarily the latter), and asking prices at the Baltimore, Maryland gunshow, the United States’ largest annual antique firearms event.
In regard to auctions and gunboard WTS listings, I only count actual sales. As for dealers and the gunshow, I count asking prices, as that is all I have to go on (I have no way of knowing if the items sold for the asking price or not). In this respect, my figures probably lead to slightly inflated averages, though the difference is unlikely to be great.
Because there are limits to number of sales I can track for each type of rifle, my numbers for each type are sometimes small — sometimes just a couple of rifles for rarer types. In each case, I state the number of rifles reviewed by me, e.g., “n=2” (meaning I tracked two rifles). Additionally, I cannot track sales of guns by “mom and pop” retailers, which frequently do not have web sites. Because sales at such establishments are often cheaper than sales from high-end, on-line dealers, my inability to include mom-and-pop sales may again have the effect of inflating my average prices. On the other hand, this factor is mitigated somewhat by the fact that I only consider scarce weapons — no SMLE mk. IIIs, for example, nor rifle no. 4s — and these little establishments do not often stock unusual firearms of the sort covered in this index.
One strength of my methodology is that I track overseas sales too. I regularly review dealer sales, WTS postings and auctions in New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the U.K. Below, all prices are in, or have been converted to, U.S. dollar values. All sales are U.S. sales (or foreign sales to U.S. customers) unless otherwise stated. As a matter of general principle, I have generally found the hierarchy of expensiveness to be as follows (working from cheapest to costliest):
• Australia.
• New Zealand.
• Canada.
• United States.
• United Kingdom.
There are too many sales of certain types of gun for me to be able to track. Readers should be aware that this index does not cover the following:
• Rifle no. 1, mk. III* (Short Magazine Lee-Enfield).
• Rifle no. 3, mks. I and I* (Pattern 1914 or P-14).
• Rifle no. 4, all marks.
• Rifle no. 5, all marks (“jungle carbine”).
• SMLE .410 single-loader musket.
Additionally, small-calibre training weapons are not tracked, and neither are handguns.
_____
E. Final Observations.
The obvious question is, what has happened over the past year? For most of the weapons discussed below, it is difficult to detect trends, given the tiny number of sales annually. Having said this, certain observations may tentatively be made.
The hobby-wide fascination with long Lee-Enfields seems to be slowing a little, ever so slightly. Whereas once anyone selling a decent MLE mk. I could be almost assured of getting $975 or more for it, I have recently detected a number selling in the low $900 range.
Carbine sales, too, may be slowing, despite the scarcity if all Lee carbines. Over summer 2005, a reasonably nice, though admittedly lightly sanded, LMC mk. I languished for many weeks on Gunbroker.com before selling for a relatively modest $1,500. A New Zealand carbine offered by the same seller did not sell at all, though in this case it should be added that the initial asking prices of first $1,000 and, later, $900 were somewhat above market.
On the other hand, the same slow-down cannot be observed in the average pricing of the ever-popular Lee-Metford mk. II rifle. These guns still routinely fetch over $1,000 — sometimes well over $1,000 — in the U.S. and Europe. This is despite the fact that neither the MLM mk. II nor the MLE mk. I can truly be considered “rare.”
This said, some weapons remain remarkably elusive. Despite a production run of a hair under 13,500, no sale of any military Lee-Metford mk. II* rifle was observed by me over 2004-2005. The only one I saw was a conversion to a .22-in. trainer. This scarcity only applies to military mk. II* rifles. The commercial Lee-Speed volunteer pattern mk. II* is, while far from common, certainly not unheard of.
The Lee-Enfield mk. I* carbine is also very difficult to come by, too, despite having been produced in considerably greater quantities than either the Lee-Metford mk. I carbine or the Lee-Enfield mk. I carbine. Even after the conversion in the early 1900s of 8,000 into Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC) carbines, there would still have been some 18,000 floating around. Apparently very few of these remain. Over 2004-2005, I observed only two LEC mk. I* sales, though I additionally came across a handful of sales of sporterised mk. I*s. However, as I only track weapons that are true to pattern, I did not record the details of these Bubba-ed carbines. (Another LEC mk. I* came on the market in the U.S. in late January 2006, too late for inclusion herein.)
Turning to Martinis, the flooding of the market with Nepalese mk. IIs and mk. IVs appears finally to be bringing about a slight depression in prices. Weapons that were once snapped up on the two big U.S. auction sites — Gunbroker.com and Auctionarms.com — now tend to be relisted several times before being sold, frequently at a price below the initial asking price when the items were first listed. This is particularly the case for mk. IVs, which can now easily be had in the very low $500 range. They have always been available for that price for those prepared to shop around, but now one need not even do that. One can just sit back and wait for them to be relisted a few times on the auction sites.
The presence of American troops in Afghanistan has also resulted in the appearance on the U.S. market of many so-called “bring-back” weapons. Extreme caution must be exercised in purchasing these guns. Many are outright native-made copies (known as “Khyber Pass” copies). And even the British-made firearms tend to have a high proportion of Khyber Pass replacement parts. Among Martinis, commonly encountered native-made replacement parts are breech blocks and buttstocks; among Lees, the bolts are often native made.
Among Martinis, mk. IIs, IIIs and IVs are in no particularly short supply, though the III is the least common of the three. Buyers can afford to be choosy here. As for the much vaunted mk. I, it is probably fair to call it rare-ish — nothing more. I came across 16 sales of mk. Is over 2004-2005. The vast majority of these were of the type Barry Templeton and Ian Skennerton call the “2nd pattern interim” subvariation, a late version of the second pattern mk. I that incorporated many features of the third pattern mk. I (Temple and Skennerton 1983:87-89). As far as I am aware, all of these 2nd pattern interim models ultimately come from the same source: a batch of 2,100 bought by Canada from Britain in early 1874 and never issued to regular troops (Edgecombe 2003:68-69).
Atlanta Cutlery has a handful of another mk. I subvariation, the “3rd pattern upgrade” subtype. I myself have encountered two at Atlanta Cutlery and have heard of a third. The “3rd pattern upgrade” subtype is a 3rd pattern mk. I subsequently given a partial upgrade to mk. II status by the installation of a mk. II trigger and associated components (Temple and Skennerton 1983:87-89). It is not at all common and is not the same as the frequently seen mk. I to mk. II conversion.
In closing, nothing herein should be taken as representing definitive pricing for the named firearms. This digest is simply made up of calculations based on observations. It reflects the market, but the market can be “wrong.” For example, there are instances below of extremely rare firearms selling for extraordinarily low prices simply because the seller did not know what he had. Likewise, there are instances where firearms have sold for considerably above the sorts of prices one might reasonably expect, again because of ignorance on the part of the buyer. If you are new to firearms purchasing, I recommend you consult an appraiser before making any steep outlays. The author accepts no responsibility for selling or purchasing decisions made by readers of this index.
If you have firearms sales and pricing data you would like included in the nest edition of this digest, covering 2005-2006, please e-mail Doug Munro at munro@intergroupservices.com. All information is strictly confidential: buyer’s and sellers’ names are never disclosed.
_____
References.
Edgecombe 2003: David W. Edgecombe. 2003. Defending the Dominion: Canadian Military Rifles, 1855-1955. Ottawa, Ont.: Service Publications.
Skennerton 1993. Ian D. Skennerton. 1993. The Lee-Enfield Story: The Lee-Metford, Lee-Enfield, S.M.L.E. and No. 4 Series Rifles and Carbines, 1880 to the Present. Piqua, Ohio: I.D.S.A. Books.
Skennerton 2002: _____. 2002. “.450 & .303 Martini Rifles and Carbines: Parts Identification & Lists, M.H., M.M. & M.E. Notes, Exploded Parts Drawings, Armourers Instructions, Accessories & Fittings.” Small Arms Identification Series, No. 15. Grants Pass, Ore.: Arms & Militaria Press.
Temple and Skennerton 1983: B.A. Temple and I.D. Skennerton. 1983. A Treatise on the British Military Martini: The Martini-Henry, 1869-c.1900. Kilcoy, Australia: B.A. Temple.
