2009 Lee & Martini Price Guide, Coggansfield
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:52 pm
The 2009 Coggansfield Fifth Annual Digest of Late British Imperial Longarm Prices, 2007-2008
April 2009
© D.P. Munro 2009.
Pp. 1-64 total.
________________
A. Rifles Covered by the Study.
I am very pleased to present the fifth annual Coggansfield digest of Martini and Lee prices. This edition covers sales over the period 2007-2008. We cover longarms (rifles and carbines) of the following types:
• Martini-Henry.
• Martini-Metford.
• Martini-Enfield.
• Lee-Metford.
• Lee-Enfield (long and short)
Where data are available, I include pricing on rare trials and experimental variants of the above. I also, for some models, distinguish prices among subvariations.
This is a long post, and so is done in four parts: this post and the three immediately following. This post describes the methodology, etc., while the following posts contain the actual pricing information.
________________
A.1 — Getting into this Price Digest.
All digests of this type must have parameters: otherwise there would be no limit to the quantity of data collected annually, and, correspondingly, I would never get around to publishing it. This being the case, the range of firearms covered mirrors my own collecting interest, which is to say, Martini-Henrys (and their derivatives) and long Lees and carbines. I also include short Lees in the price guide, though I do not collect them myself. Small calibre trainers are not included and nor are any handguns.
A Martini or Lee model must, for inclusion in this guide, meet the following criteria.
1. If a longarm is an approved British military model, it will be included (the exception is models where the numbers of sales are so great as to make tracking impossible). A purely commercial model, even if sold to British or colonial military authorities, cannot be included. However, a gun may be commercially made and be included, as long as it is true to a military pattern. Therefore, a “volunteer” Lee-Speed Lee-Metford mk. II, for example, can be included because the gun is an exact copy of a militarily approved firearm. A Swinburn carbine, even if it demonstrably bears, for example, Natal cavalry markings, cannot be included because the model was not militarily approved.
2. If the longarm is approved in the List of Changes (LoC), Indian List of Changes (ILoC) or the Australian List of Changes (ALoC), it will be included.
3. If the longarm was made in a government factory and issued to British military or paramilitary troops, it will be included, even if not officially approved in the LoC, ILoC or ALoC.
4. If the longarm is a pattern arm contained in the collection of the former RSAF Pattern Room, even if not subsequently approved or produced, it will be included. On the other hand, commercial or foreign models not of military pattern in the Pattern Room are not included.
________________
A.2 — What Is and What Is Not Rare.
It is often assumed that, just because relatively few of a certain model of gun were made, examples today must be rare. This is not true. The important factor is not how many were made but how many survive. There is of course no possible way of knowing how many of a given rifle model survive. However, it is instructive to discuss the frequency with which certain models crop up for sale. This does not tell one how many are left, but it is a reasonable indicator as to how many are around at least compared to other models.
The table below presents the relative frequency, among models, of sales observed by me. Unlike the rest of this publication, the frequency analysis is not restricted to a two-year time span. The analysis is based on frequency of observed sales for as long as I have been collecting price data on firearms, which is to say, about five years.
Because some readers of this publication will be Martini fans and others Lee buffs, I have chosen a referent firearm from each camp. By referent arm, I mean that gun for which I say, “For every 1 XX carbine (referent firearm), I see 5 YY rifles (object firearm).” The referent arms I have selected are (a) the Martini-Henry artillery carbine mk. I and (b) the Lee-Enfield cavalry carbine mk. I. Each is scarce enough to interesting but common enough to be familiar, at least in name, to most readers. Over the last five years I have run into 20 of the former (MHAC) and 29 of the latter (LEC).
Below, all Martini models are compared against the MHAC referent and all Lee models are compared against the LEC referent.
In all cases below, all subtypes of object rifles are combined into the calculation, as are volunteer versions of the same model (other than where indicated). For example, if I say, “For every 1 MHAC mk. I for sale, I encounter... 2.5 MHR mk. I,” this means that, for every mk. I artillery carbine, I see 2.5 of all MHR mk. I subtypes combined (military and volunteer). Put another way, MHR mk. Is of one sort or another crop up for sale about two and a half times as often as MHAC mk. Is.
The exception to this subtype-grouping rule is for subtypes that I price separately — usually because of rarity — in the main part of this analysis. Such separately priced subtypes also have separate frequency reports below. (The subtypes themselves are described in the main pricing section.) Finally, the frequency numbers for MHR mk. IIs and mk. IVs are greatly distorted by the fact that Atlanta Cutlery’s and International Military Antiques’ offerings are treated as one of each model, instead of several hundred of each model. Firearm abbreviations are explained in section E.3.
Martini Frequencies:
For every 1 MHAC mk. I for sale, I encounter...
• 0.10 MHR trials rifle.
• 2.70 MHR mk. I.
• 4.60 MHR mk. II.
• 3.90 MHR mk. III, type 1.
• 0.20 MHR mk. III, type 2.
• 4.35 MHR mk. IV.
• 0.20 MHR musket, IP.
• 0.15 MHCC mk. I, 1st Pattern.
• 1.80 MHCC mk. I, 2nd Pattern.
• 0.10 MHCC smoothbore, IP.
• 1.00 MHAC mk. I.
• 0.70 MHAC mk. II.
• 0.00 MHAC mk. III (pattern/sample arm only).
• 0.00 EMR mk. I, 1st Pattern.
• 0.05 EMR mk. I, 2nd Pattern.
• 0.10 MMR mk. I (trade pattern, no milit. models observed).
• 0.10 MMR mk. I, modified, Western Australia Pattern (trade pattern, no milit. models observed).
• 0.00 MMR mk. II.
• 0.40 MMR mk. II, Canada Pattern.
• 0.10 MMR mk. II, Natal Pattern.
• 0.15 MMR, South Australia Pattern (no mark number).
• 0.10 MMCC mk. I (trade pattern, no milit. models observed).
• 0.05 MMCC mk. I*.
• 0.05 MMCC mk. II.
• 0.10 MMCC mk. II*.
• 0.20 MMCC mk. III.
• 0.05 MMCC mk. III, Natal Pattern.
• 0.00 MMAC mk. I (pattern/sample arm only).
• 0.15 MMAC mk. II
• 0.70 MMAC mk. III.
• 1.85 MER mk. I, types 1 and 3 combined.
• 0.05 MER mk. I, type 2.
• 0.05 MER mk. I Fitted to Take the Patt. 1887 Bayonet.
• 0.20 MER mk. I Fitted to Take the Patt. 1888 Bayonet.
• 1.10 MER mk. II.
• 0.10 MER mk. II Fitted to Take the Patt. 1888 Bayonet.
• 0.05 MER mk. II*.
• 0.80 MECC mk. I.
• 0.00 MECC mk. I (Natal pattern).
• 0.05 MECC mk. I*.
• 0.15 MECC mk. II.
• 1.50 MEAC mk. I
• 0.85 MEAC mk. II.
• 0.15 MEAC mk. II*.
• 0.65 MEAC mk. III.
• 0.05 MEAC mk. III (Natal pattern).
Lee Frequencies:
For every 1 LEC mk. I for sale, I encounter...
• 0.00 MLM mk. I.
• 0.72 MLM mk. I*.
• 1.32 MLM mk. II.
• 0.17 MLM mk. II* (mil. & vol.); 0.03 (mil. only).
• 2.83 MLE mk. I.
• 1.52 MLE mk. I*.
• 0.00 long LE .303 single-loader, IP.
• 0.03 MLE Lockyer Rifle (experimental sights).
• 0.00 CLLM mk. I* IP (pattern/sample arm only).
• 0.38 CLLM mk. II (mil. & vol.); 0.00 (mil. only).
• 0.00 CLLM mk. II IP (pattern/sample arm only).
• 0.24 CLLE mk. I.
• 0.03 CLLE mk. I IP.
• 0.62 CLLE mk. I*.
• 0.00 CLLE mk. II IP.
• 0.00 LMC First Trials Pattern.
• 0.03 LMC Second Trials Pattern.
• 0.48 LMC mk. I, type 1.
• 0.03 LMC mk. I, type 2.
• 0.03 LMC mk. I, type 3.
• 0.03 LMC mk. I, type 4.
• 1.00 LEC mk. I.
• 0.28 LEC mk. I*.
• 0.00 LEC India Pattern.
• 1.31 LEC New Zealand Pattern (including trade pattern no. 3 carbine).
• 1.52 LEC RIC Pattern.
• 0.38 SMLE mk. I.
• 0.31 SMLE mk. I*.
• 0.00 SMLE mk. I* IP.
• 0.07 SMLE mk. I**.
• 0.34 SMLE mk. I** IP.
• 1.10 SMLE mk. I***.
• 0.03 SMLE mk. II cond.
• 0.06 SMLE mk. II* cond.
• 0.03 SMLE mk. II** cond.
• 0.00 SMLE mk. II*** cond.
• 2.59 SMLE mk. III.
• SMLE mk. III* — not tracked.
• 0.14 SMLE mk. IV cond.
• 1.10 SMLE mk. V (rifle no. 1, mk. V).
• 0.10 SMLE mk. VI (rifle no. 1, mk. VI).
• Rifle no. 4, all marks — not tracked.
• Rifle no. 5, both marks — not tracked.
• 0.10 short LE .303 single-loader, IP.
• Short LE .410 musket single-loader, IP — not tracked.
• 0.07 No. 1, Shortened & Lightened Trials Rifle.
• 0.17 No. 6, mk. I Trials Rifle.
• 0.00 No. 6, mk. I/I Trials Rifle.
• 0.00 No. 4 Lightened Trials Rifle.
• 0.03 Pattern 1913 rifle (P-13).
• Pattern 1914 rifle, both marks (P-14) — not tracked.
For readers’ convenience, in the price analysis sections that follow, I give the number made of each model discussed, so far as this is known. These production figures pertain solely to numbers made for, or ordered through, British War Department-approved military orders. These figures do not include independent colonial military orders if not made through the War Department and they do not include commercial production of “volunteer” pattern arms.
________________
B. Methodology.
If you print out this posting, or scroll down to read its contents, you will find a comparison of observed prices for dozens of Martini rifles and carbines and Enfield or Enfield-related rifles and carbines — about 100 models or submodels in total. (In truth, many people probably do not know that there even are that many Martini or Lee possibilities.)
As in previous years, 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 perhaps 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.
The comparisons are between these:
• Phillip Patterson, Standard Catalog of Military Firearms: The Collector’s Price and Reference Guide, 4th ed. (Iola, Wis.: Krause Publications, 2007).
• 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 anything better than NRA “very good” condition. This being the case, for Patterson 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. (If you are unsure what I mean by all this, go to the web site, http://www.auctionarms.com/help/NRAGrade.cfm, for a description of the American National Rifle Association’s grading standards for antique firearms.)
As for my own price 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 price of all the rifles of that type that I tracked. I generally do not track sporterised weapons which, as Manowar notes, should never be valued higher than a “fair” non-sporterised version of the same arm. I also give the percentage price change for each model between this year’s Coggansfield average and last year’s (though, for models with only a handful of sales a year, no inferences should be drawn from annual average price fluctuations).
This question of dealers’ descriptions is an important one. I base my descriptions on dealers’ descriptions, just as purchasers base their offering prices on those same descriptions. For the firearms below, I continue to use the dealer description, even if I subsequently find it to be inflated. For example, if a rifle is described as “excellent” and sells for $1,000, I record that as a grand for an excellent rifle, even if I later find out that the weapon was no better than “good.” This is because the $1,000 was offered for an “excellent” weapon (even if incorrectly described), and this reflects the market. If I were retroactively to downgrade the description to “good,” this would not reflect the market, as the buyer did not get to downgrade his price to, say, $500.
For each weapon, the reader should have up to seven figures to compare: Patterson’s average figure, Manowar’s average figure, my current average figure, my current high figure, my current low figure, my previous average figure and, finally, the percentage difference between this year’s average price and last year’s. Between the seven of them, these figures should give the reader a reasonably good picture of the current state of the market for any given arm.
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 2007 and 2008. 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 sale (or dealer asking) price for this model over period 2007-2008.
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.
Each data point represents a sale or an asking price, not a firearm. If the same weapon sells three times in two years, it counts as three data points, not one. With rare arms, this frequently occurs, with dealers increasing the price with every sale. I track sales at dozens of Internet sites weekly, sometimes daily, and I have become so familiar with some individual firearms that I see over and over again that I consider them to be old friends. It is particularly interesting to review the differences among the dealers’ claims about the same firearm and to watch the steadily hiking price. The most extreme example I have seen of rapid price escalation was that of a particularly nice, 1922-dated, low-serial-numbered SMLE mk. V. It was bought for $195 in late autumn 2005 at a mom-and-pop store and sold in early 2006 for $1,478.53 on one of the U.S. on-line auction web sites.
In future editions, I will retain the two-year methodology and use a rolling average. Thus, while this index averages sales over 2007 and 2008, next year’s will review sales from 2008 and 2009. 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: Patterson, Manowar and Coggansfield.
First, Patterson’s work is probably the most comprehensive — but it was published in 2007, meaning that it probably used 2005 data. Prices have only gone up since then, making Patterson’s cited prices dated and on the low side.
Second, Manowar’s web site was last updated in 2005, so it is reasonably 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 firearms (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, South Africa, 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. III* or no. 4 rifles, for example — 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, South Africa 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 found the hierarchy of expensiveness to be as follows (working from cheapest to costliest):
• South Africa.
• Australia.
• New Zealand.
• Canada.
• United States.
• United Kingdom.
As the Internet becomes ever more a standard parts of our lives, so there has been something of a globalization in Martini and Lee prices, at least within the Angloshpere (by which I mean Britain and the old dominions, plus the U.S.). While Australia and New Zealand were once markedly cheaper than Canada, and Canada noticeably cheaper than America, recent years have seen a great convergence in prices among these four countries. The outliers are South Africa, where collectible rifles can be bought at auction for very reasonable prices, and the U.K., where prices are about twice the U.S. norm.
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, both marks (“jungle carbine”).
• SMLE .410 single-loader musket.
Additionally, small-calibre training weapons (e.g., rifle no. 2, all marks) are not tracked, and neither are handguns.
________________
D. Final Observations.
The drying up of the supply of long Lees and early SMLEs commented on last year continues. For example, in 2007’s edition of this digest, covering 2005-06, I recorded 17 sales of MLM mk. I* rifles. For this year’s edition, I spotted only two such sales. Likewise, for the last edition, I ran into 21 MLM mk. IIs; for this edition, only 9. Whereas once I might have expected to come across about four SMLE mk. I rifles a year, now I see about one a year. The exception is the SMLE mk. I*** — a rifle far more common than many people suppose — which remains in fairly constant supply. The most probable explanation for all this is that these things are somewhat cyclical. If an unusually high number of long Lees changed hands over 2005-2006, the new owners may wait a few years before reselling them.
None of the above applies to Martinis, the supply of which seems to be expanding greatly, particularly the MHR mk. II rifle. The primary source of this deluge is Afghanistan, so the situation may not last forever. All the same, buyers may wish to make the most of the situation as it stands now. Martinis shown on the on-line auction sites tend to have to be listed repeatedly before being bought — or even bid on at all. Do not be shy about e-mailing a seller, asking him to lower his opening price. There is no guarantee that he will comply, but what do you have to lose by asking?
Speaking of Afghanistan, the flow of “Khyber Pass” copies and outright forgeries continues unabated. Once largely restricted to crude copies of .303 Martini-Enfields, a recent development has been an influx of copies of the Lee-Enfield no. 1, no. 4 and no. 5 rifles. The fraudsters’ fig leaf with the Martini knock-offs was that they could be billed as old British firearms “refurbished” in “British-funded” Afghan arsenals. Rest assured, this was absolute rubbish, but at least it sounded plausible. In the case of the Lees, there is no defence. These guns — and I use the term loosely — cannot for a moment be passed off as 19th century refurbs. Instead, they must be stated for what they are: intentionally fraudulent, crude fakes. To be fair, a number of the peddlers of these “rifles” do not pretend they are anything but locally made junk. However, some dealers do try to pass these monstrosities off as the real thing. These dealers — and by now, even the one-off on-line auction sellers — know they are perpetrating fraud, and many jurisdictions’ consumer-protection agencies might well be interested in these folks’ underhand activities.
Nonetheless, the ultimate line of defence is ourselves. When buyers stop purchasing these forgeries, sellers will stop peddling them. There is never, under any circumstances, any reason to buy a KP fake. If you try shooting it, you will be taking your life into your own hands. If you try using it as a parts gun, you will find that the bastard-sized parts will fit nothing on a proper British gun. If you try selling it, you will — rightly — be laughed at.
For more information, visit these web sites.
• http://www.martinihenry.com/khyberpage.html
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Enfiel ... ass_Copies
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martini_Enfield
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 next edition of this digest, covering 2008-2009, please e-mail Doug Munro at munro@intergroupservices.com. All information is strictly confidential: buyer’s and sellers’ names are never disclosed.
________________
E. Notes and References.
This section expands all abbreviations used herein and provides an extensive bibliography of sources used.
________________
E.1. — Pattern/Type Code.
• Natal Pattern (capitalized, no parentheses) = customarily used subpattern designation.
• (Natal pattern) (in parentheses, not capitalized) = unofficial subpattern designation used by author.
• Type 1, type 2, etc. = informal subpattern designation used by author.
________________
E.2. — Facility Abbreviations.
• BE: Blenheim Engineering Co.
• BRF: Birmingham Repair Facility (Bagot Street or Sparkbrook).
• BSA: Birmingham Small Arms Co. (thus named to 1872 and after 1897).
• BSA&M: Birmingham Small Arms & Metal Co. (same factory, thus named Dec. 1872-1897).
• EFD: RSAF Enfield.
• HB: Henry Barrel Co.
• HRB: Henry Rifled Barrel Co. (formal name for HB).
• LSA: London Small Arms Co.
• NA&A: National Arms & Ammunition Co.
• RSAF: Royal Small Arms Factory (at Enfield or Sparkbrook).
• RSARF: Royal Small Arms Repair Facility (at Bagot Street or Sparkbrook).
• Sk.: RSAF Sparkbrook.
________________
E.3. — Firearm Abbreviations.
• IP: India Pattern.
• EMR: Enfield-Martini rifle.
• LEC: Lee-Enfield carbine.
• LMC: Lee-Metford carbine.
• MEAC: Martini-Enfield artillery carbine.
• MECC: Martini-Enfield cavalry carbine.
• MER: Martini-Enfield rifle.
• MHAC: Martini-Henry artillery carbine.
• MHCC: Martini-Henry cavalry carbine.
• MHR: Martini-Henry rifle.
• MMAC: Martini-Metford artillery carbine.
• MMCC: Martini-Metford cavalry carbine.
• MMR: Martini-Metford rifle.
• MLE: Magazine Lee-Enfield rifle.
• MLM: Magazine Lee-Metford rifle.
________________
E.4 — Bibliography.
Anon. 2002: Anonymous. 2002 [orig. 1916]. “Machining the Lee-Enfield Barrel: Operations and Fixtures Employed.” In Making Rifle Barrels: Machinery’s Industrial Secrets, Selected Articles from Early Issues of Machinery Magazine Revealing Secrets of Manufacturing. Bradley, Ill.: Lindsay Publications, 2002.
Bester et al. 2003: Ron Bester & Associates. 2003. Small Arms of the Anglo-Boer War, 1899-1902: A Comprehensive Study of all Rifles, Carbines, Handguns and Edged Weapons Used by the Opposing Forces During the Anglo-Boer War. Brandfort, S.A.: Kraal Publishers.
BSA 1913: Birmingham Small Arms Co. (BSA). [1913]. B.S.A. Rifles and Rifle Sights: A Catalogue of Military Rifles, Target Match Rifles, High Velocity Sporting Rifles, Military and Sporting Carbines, B.S.A. Patent Rifle Sights, B.S.A. .410 Bore Shot Guns, B.S.A. Air Rifles, War Office Miniature Rifles, B.S.A. Miniature Bolt Rifles, Martini Miniature Rifles, Tubes for Sporting Shot Guns, &c. Manufactured by the Birmingham Small Arms Co. Ltd., fifth ed. Birmingham, U.K.: BSA.
Duckers 2005: Peter Duckers. 2005. British Military Rifles, 1800-2000. Princes Risborough, U.K.: Shire Books.
Dynes 1979: Robert J. Dynes. 1979. The Lee: British Services Rifle from 1888 to 1950. Bloomfield, Ont.: Museum Restoration Service.
Edgecombe 2003: David W. Edgecombe. 2003. Defending the Dominion: Canadian Military Rifles, 1855-1955. Ottawa, Ont.: Service Publications.
Edwards 2003: Robert W. Edwards. 2003. India’s Enfields: The Lee-Enfield Rifle in India, 1900-2004, 4th ed. Keedysville, Md.: Consortium Press.
Lewis 1996: Dennis Lewis. 1996. Martini-Henry .450 Rifles and Carbines. British Firearms series. Tucson, Ariz.: Excalibur Publications.
LoC: Ian D. Skennerton (ed.). 1977, 1979, 1987, 1993, 1998. List of Changes in British War Material in Relation to Edged Weapons, Firearms and Associated Ammunition and Accoutrements. In five volumes. Margate, Qld.: Ian D. Skennerton.
McMahon 1997: Ray McMahon. 1997. “The First Lee-Metford: Rifle, .303-inch, Magazine Mk. I.” In International Arms & Militaria Collector 3(2) (magazine no. 10).
McMahon 1998: _____. 1998. “The ‘Volunteer’ or Commercial Pattern Lee-Metford Rifles and Carbines.” In International Arms & Militaria Collector 4(2) (magazine no. 14).
McMahon 1999a. _____. 1999. “The Lee-Metford & Lee-Enfield .303" Carbines.” In International Arms & Militaria Collector 4(4) (magazine no. 16).
McMahon 1999b. _____. 1999. “West Australian Modified Martini .303" Rifle.” In International Arms & Militaria Collector 5(1) (magazine no. 17).
Pam 1998: David Pam. 1998. The Royal Small Arms Factory: Enfield & Its Workers. Enfield, U.K.: David Pam.
Petrillo 1992a: Alan M. Petrillo. 1992. The Lee Enfield Number 1 Rifles. British Firearms series. Tucson, Ariz.: Excalibur Publications.
Petrillo 1992b: _____. 1992. The Lee Enfield Number 4 Rifles. British Firearms series. Tucson, Ariz.: Excalibur Publications.
Petrillo 1994a: _____. 1994. British Services Rifles and Carbines, 1888-1900. British Firearms series. Tucson, Ariz.: Excalibur Publications.
Petrillo 1994b: _____. 1994. The Number 5 Jungle Carbine. British Firearms series. Tucson, Ariz.: Excalibur Publications.
Reynolds 1960: E.G.B. Reynolds. 1960. The Lee-Enfield Rifle: Its History and Development from First Designs to the Present Day. London, U.K.: Herbert Jenkins.
Reynolds 1973: _____. 1973. Enfield Arms: The Early Breech-Loaders. Small Arms Profile series, no. 18. Windsor, U.K.: Profile Publications Ltd., February.
Skennerton 1982: Ian D. Skennerton. 1982. The British Service Lee: The Lee-Metford and Lee-Enfield Rifles and Carbines, 1880-1980. London, U.K.: Arms & Armour Press.
Skennerton 1993: _____. 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 1994a: _____. 1994. “.303 Rifle, No. 1, S.M.L.E. Marks III and III*: Parts Identification & Lists, S.M.L.E. Series Notes, Exploded Parts Drawings, Descriptions, Accessories & Fittings.” Small Arms Identification Series, No. 1. Piqua, Ohio: I.D.S.A. Books.
Skennerton 1994b. _____. 1994. “.303 Rifle, No. 5 Mk I: Parts Identification & Lists, No. 5 Series Notes, Exploded Parts Drawings, Descriptions, Accessories & Fittings.” Small Arms Identification Series, No. 4. Piqua, Ohio: I.D.S.A. Books.
Skennerton 1997a. _____. 1997. “.303 Magazine Lee-Metford and Magazine Lee-Enfield: Parts Identification Lists, M.L.M. & M.L.E. Series Notes, Exploded Parts Drawings, Descriptions, Accessories & Fittings.” Small Arms Identification Series, No. 7. Piqua, Ohio: I.D.S.A. Books.
Skennerton 1997b: _____. 1997. “Auction Report.” In International Arms & Militaria Collector, magazine no. 11.
Skennerton 1998. _____. 1998. “.303 Pattern 1914 Rifle & Sniping Variants: Parts Identification Lists, No. 3 (P ’14) Rifle Notes, Exploded Parts Drawings, Descriptions, Accessories & Fittings.” Small Arms Identification Series, No. 10. Piqua, Ohio: I.D.S.A. Books.
Skennerton 2001a. _____. 2001. “.303 Rifle, No. 4 Marks I, 1*, 1/2, 1/3 & 2: Parts Identification Lists, No. 4 Series Notes, Exploded Parts Drawings, Descriptions, Accessories & Fittings.” Small Arms Identification Series, No. 2, second impression. Piqua, Ohio: I.D.S.A. Books.
Skennerton 2001b: _____. 2001. The Broad Arrow: British and Empire Factory Production, Proof, Inspection, Armourers, Unit & Issue Markings. Grants Pass, Ore.: Arms & Militaria Press.
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.
Skennerton 2007. _____. 2007. The Lee-Enfield: A Century of Lee-Metford & Lee-Enfield Rifles & Carbines. Labrador, Qld: Ian D. Skennerton.
Skennerton and Faris 2004: Ian Skennerton and Robert Faris. 2004. “The First .303 M.L.M. Carbine.” In International Arms & Militaria Collector, magazine no. 22.
SP n.d.: Service Publications (SP). [No date.] Small Arms Unit Marks: Applied to Rifles, Carbines, Swords, Bayonets, Dirks, etc. by British and Canadian Ordnance Corps. Ottawa, Ont.: SP.
Stratton 2000: Charles R. Stratton. 2000. The Pattern 1914 and U.S. Model 1917 Rifles. British Enfield Rifles series, vol. 4. Tustin, Calif.: North Cape Publications.
Stratton 2002: _____. 2002. SMLE (No. 1) Rifles Mk I and Mk II, 2nd ed., rev. British Enfield Rifles series, vol. 1. Tustin, Calif.: North Cape Publications.
Stratton 2003: _____. 2003. Lee-Enfield No. 4 and No. 5 Rifles, 2nd ed., rev. British Enfield Rifles series, vol. 2. Tustin, Calif.: North Cape Publications.
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.
Temple and Skennerton 1989: _____. 1989. A Treatise on the British Military Martini: The .40 & .303 Martinis, 1880-c. 1920. Burbank, Australia: B.A. Temple.
Temple and Skennerton 1995: _____. 1995. A Treatise on the British Military Martini: Manufacture, Training Arms & Accessories. Kilcoy, Australia: B.A. Temple.
Williams 2004: David Williams. 2004. The Birmingham Gun Trade. Stroud, U.K.: Tempus Publishing, Ltd.
Woodend 1981: Herbert Woodend. 1981. British Rifles: A Catalogue of the Enfield Pattern Room. London, U.K.: HMSO.
April 2009
© D.P. Munro 2009.
Pp. 1-64 total.
________________
A. Rifles Covered by the Study.
I am very pleased to present the fifth annual Coggansfield digest of Martini and Lee prices. This edition covers sales over the period 2007-2008. We cover longarms (rifles and carbines) of the following types:
• Martini-Henry.
• Martini-Metford.
• Martini-Enfield.
• Lee-Metford.
• Lee-Enfield (long and short)
Where data are available, I include pricing on rare trials and experimental variants of the above. I also, for some models, distinguish prices among subvariations.
This is a long post, and so is done in four parts: this post and the three immediately following. This post describes the methodology, etc., while the following posts contain the actual pricing information.
________________
A.1 — Getting into this Price Digest.
All digests of this type must have parameters: otherwise there would be no limit to the quantity of data collected annually, and, correspondingly, I would never get around to publishing it. This being the case, the range of firearms covered mirrors my own collecting interest, which is to say, Martini-Henrys (and their derivatives) and long Lees and carbines. I also include short Lees in the price guide, though I do not collect them myself. Small calibre trainers are not included and nor are any handguns.
A Martini or Lee model must, for inclusion in this guide, meet the following criteria.
1. If a longarm is an approved British military model, it will be included (the exception is models where the numbers of sales are so great as to make tracking impossible). A purely commercial model, even if sold to British or colonial military authorities, cannot be included. However, a gun may be commercially made and be included, as long as it is true to a military pattern. Therefore, a “volunteer” Lee-Speed Lee-Metford mk. II, for example, can be included because the gun is an exact copy of a militarily approved firearm. A Swinburn carbine, even if it demonstrably bears, for example, Natal cavalry markings, cannot be included because the model was not militarily approved.
2. If the longarm is approved in the List of Changes (LoC), Indian List of Changes (ILoC) or the Australian List of Changes (ALoC), it will be included.
3. If the longarm was made in a government factory and issued to British military or paramilitary troops, it will be included, even if not officially approved in the LoC, ILoC or ALoC.
4. If the longarm is a pattern arm contained in the collection of the former RSAF Pattern Room, even if not subsequently approved or produced, it will be included. On the other hand, commercial or foreign models not of military pattern in the Pattern Room are not included.
________________
A.2 — What Is and What Is Not Rare.
It is often assumed that, just because relatively few of a certain model of gun were made, examples today must be rare. This is not true. The important factor is not how many were made but how many survive. There is of course no possible way of knowing how many of a given rifle model survive. However, it is instructive to discuss the frequency with which certain models crop up for sale. This does not tell one how many are left, but it is a reasonable indicator as to how many are around at least compared to other models.
The table below presents the relative frequency, among models, of sales observed by me. Unlike the rest of this publication, the frequency analysis is not restricted to a two-year time span. The analysis is based on frequency of observed sales for as long as I have been collecting price data on firearms, which is to say, about five years.
Because some readers of this publication will be Martini fans and others Lee buffs, I have chosen a referent firearm from each camp. By referent arm, I mean that gun for which I say, “For every 1 XX carbine (referent firearm), I see 5 YY rifles (object firearm).” The referent arms I have selected are (a) the Martini-Henry artillery carbine mk. I and (b) the Lee-Enfield cavalry carbine mk. I. Each is scarce enough to interesting but common enough to be familiar, at least in name, to most readers. Over the last five years I have run into 20 of the former (MHAC) and 29 of the latter (LEC).
Below, all Martini models are compared against the MHAC referent and all Lee models are compared against the LEC referent.
In all cases below, all subtypes of object rifles are combined into the calculation, as are volunteer versions of the same model (other than where indicated). For example, if I say, “For every 1 MHAC mk. I for sale, I encounter... 2.5 MHR mk. I,” this means that, for every mk. I artillery carbine, I see 2.5 of all MHR mk. I subtypes combined (military and volunteer). Put another way, MHR mk. Is of one sort or another crop up for sale about two and a half times as often as MHAC mk. Is.
The exception to this subtype-grouping rule is for subtypes that I price separately — usually because of rarity — in the main part of this analysis. Such separately priced subtypes also have separate frequency reports below. (The subtypes themselves are described in the main pricing section.) Finally, the frequency numbers for MHR mk. IIs and mk. IVs are greatly distorted by the fact that Atlanta Cutlery’s and International Military Antiques’ offerings are treated as one of each model, instead of several hundred of each model. Firearm abbreviations are explained in section E.3.
Martini Frequencies:
For every 1 MHAC mk. I for sale, I encounter...
• 0.10 MHR trials rifle.
• 2.70 MHR mk. I.
• 4.60 MHR mk. II.
• 3.90 MHR mk. III, type 1.
• 0.20 MHR mk. III, type 2.
• 4.35 MHR mk. IV.
• 0.20 MHR musket, IP.
• 0.15 MHCC mk. I, 1st Pattern.
• 1.80 MHCC mk. I, 2nd Pattern.
• 0.10 MHCC smoothbore, IP.
• 1.00 MHAC mk. I.
• 0.70 MHAC mk. II.
• 0.00 MHAC mk. III (pattern/sample arm only).
• 0.00 EMR mk. I, 1st Pattern.
• 0.05 EMR mk. I, 2nd Pattern.
• 0.10 MMR mk. I (trade pattern, no milit. models observed).
• 0.10 MMR mk. I, modified, Western Australia Pattern (trade pattern, no milit. models observed).
• 0.00 MMR mk. II.
• 0.40 MMR mk. II, Canada Pattern.
• 0.10 MMR mk. II, Natal Pattern.
• 0.15 MMR, South Australia Pattern (no mark number).
• 0.10 MMCC mk. I (trade pattern, no milit. models observed).
• 0.05 MMCC mk. I*.
• 0.05 MMCC mk. II.
• 0.10 MMCC mk. II*.
• 0.20 MMCC mk. III.
• 0.05 MMCC mk. III, Natal Pattern.
• 0.00 MMAC mk. I (pattern/sample arm only).
• 0.15 MMAC mk. II
• 0.70 MMAC mk. III.
• 1.85 MER mk. I, types 1 and 3 combined.
• 0.05 MER mk. I, type 2.
• 0.05 MER mk. I Fitted to Take the Patt. 1887 Bayonet.
• 0.20 MER mk. I Fitted to Take the Patt. 1888 Bayonet.
• 1.10 MER mk. II.
• 0.10 MER mk. II Fitted to Take the Patt. 1888 Bayonet.
• 0.05 MER mk. II*.
• 0.80 MECC mk. I.
• 0.00 MECC mk. I (Natal pattern).
• 0.05 MECC mk. I*.
• 0.15 MECC mk. II.
• 1.50 MEAC mk. I
• 0.85 MEAC mk. II.
• 0.15 MEAC mk. II*.
• 0.65 MEAC mk. III.
• 0.05 MEAC mk. III (Natal pattern).
Lee Frequencies:
For every 1 LEC mk. I for sale, I encounter...
• 0.00 MLM mk. I.
• 0.72 MLM mk. I*.
• 1.32 MLM mk. II.
• 0.17 MLM mk. II* (mil. & vol.); 0.03 (mil. only).
• 2.83 MLE mk. I.
• 1.52 MLE mk. I*.
• 0.00 long LE .303 single-loader, IP.
• 0.03 MLE Lockyer Rifle (experimental sights).
• 0.00 CLLM mk. I* IP (pattern/sample arm only).
• 0.38 CLLM mk. II (mil. & vol.); 0.00 (mil. only).
• 0.00 CLLM mk. II IP (pattern/sample arm only).
• 0.24 CLLE mk. I.
• 0.03 CLLE mk. I IP.
• 0.62 CLLE mk. I*.
• 0.00 CLLE mk. II IP.
• 0.00 LMC First Trials Pattern.
• 0.03 LMC Second Trials Pattern.
• 0.48 LMC mk. I, type 1.
• 0.03 LMC mk. I, type 2.
• 0.03 LMC mk. I, type 3.
• 0.03 LMC mk. I, type 4.
• 1.00 LEC mk. I.
• 0.28 LEC mk. I*.
• 0.00 LEC India Pattern.
• 1.31 LEC New Zealand Pattern (including trade pattern no. 3 carbine).
• 1.52 LEC RIC Pattern.
• 0.38 SMLE mk. I.
• 0.31 SMLE mk. I*.
• 0.00 SMLE mk. I* IP.
• 0.07 SMLE mk. I**.
• 0.34 SMLE mk. I** IP.
• 1.10 SMLE mk. I***.
• 0.03 SMLE mk. II cond.
• 0.06 SMLE mk. II* cond.
• 0.03 SMLE mk. II** cond.
• 0.00 SMLE mk. II*** cond.
• 2.59 SMLE mk. III.
• SMLE mk. III* — not tracked.
• 0.14 SMLE mk. IV cond.
• 1.10 SMLE mk. V (rifle no. 1, mk. V).
• 0.10 SMLE mk. VI (rifle no. 1, mk. VI).
• Rifle no. 4, all marks — not tracked.
• Rifle no. 5, both marks — not tracked.
• 0.10 short LE .303 single-loader, IP.
• Short LE .410 musket single-loader, IP — not tracked.
• 0.07 No. 1, Shortened & Lightened Trials Rifle.
• 0.17 No. 6, mk. I Trials Rifle.
• 0.00 No. 6, mk. I/I Trials Rifle.
• 0.00 No. 4 Lightened Trials Rifle.
• 0.03 Pattern 1913 rifle (P-13).
• Pattern 1914 rifle, both marks (P-14) — not tracked.
For readers’ convenience, in the price analysis sections that follow, I give the number made of each model discussed, so far as this is known. These production figures pertain solely to numbers made for, or ordered through, British War Department-approved military orders. These figures do not include independent colonial military orders if not made through the War Department and they do not include commercial production of “volunteer” pattern arms.
________________
B. Methodology.
If you print out this posting, or scroll down to read its contents, you will find a comparison of observed prices for dozens of Martini rifles and carbines and Enfield or Enfield-related rifles and carbines — about 100 models or submodels in total. (In truth, many people probably do not know that there even are that many Martini or Lee possibilities.)
As in previous years, 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 perhaps 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.
The comparisons are between these:
• Phillip Patterson, Standard Catalog of Military Firearms: The Collector’s Price and Reference Guide, 4th ed. (Iola, Wis.: Krause Publications, 2007).
• 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 anything better than NRA “very good” condition. This being the case, for Patterson 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. (If you are unsure what I mean by all this, go to the web site, http://www.auctionarms.com/help/NRAGrade.cfm, for a description of the American National Rifle Association’s grading standards for antique firearms.)
As for my own price 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 price of all the rifles of that type that I tracked. I generally do not track sporterised weapons which, as Manowar notes, should never be valued higher than a “fair” non-sporterised version of the same arm. I also give the percentage price change for each model between this year’s Coggansfield average and last year’s (though, for models with only a handful of sales a year, no inferences should be drawn from annual average price fluctuations).
This question of dealers’ descriptions is an important one. I base my descriptions on dealers’ descriptions, just as purchasers base their offering prices on those same descriptions. For the firearms below, I continue to use the dealer description, even if I subsequently find it to be inflated. For example, if a rifle is described as “excellent” and sells for $1,000, I record that as a grand for an excellent rifle, even if I later find out that the weapon was no better than “good.” This is because the $1,000 was offered for an “excellent” weapon (even if incorrectly described), and this reflects the market. If I were retroactively to downgrade the description to “good,” this would not reflect the market, as the buyer did not get to downgrade his price to, say, $500.
For each weapon, the reader should have up to seven figures to compare: Patterson’s average figure, Manowar’s average figure, my current average figure, my current high figure, my current low figure, my previous average figure and, finally, the percentage difference between this year’s average price and last year’s. Between the seven of them, these figures should give the reader a reasonably good picture of the current state of the market for any given arm.
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 2007 and 2008. 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 sale (or dealer asking) price for this model over period 2007-2008.
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.
Each data point represents a sale or an asking price, not a firearm. If the same weapon sells three times in two years, it counts as three data points, not one. With rare arms, this frequently occurs, with dealers increasing the price with every sale. I track sales at dozens of Internet sites weekly, sometimes daily, and I have become so familiar with some individual firearms that I see over and over again that I consider them to be old friends. It is particularly interesting to review the differences among the dealers’ claims about the same firearm and to watch the steadily hiking price. The most extreme example I have seen of rapid price escalation was that of a particularly nice, 1922-dated, low-serial-numbered SMLE mk. V. It was bought for $195 in late autumn 2005 at a mom-and-pop store and sold in early 2006 for $1,478.53 on one of the U.S. on-line auction web sites.
In future editions, I will retain the two-year methodology and use a rolling average. Thus, while this index averages sales over 2007 and 2008, next year’s will review sales from 2008 and 2009. 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: Patterson, Manowar and Coggansfield.
First, Patterson’s work is probably the most comprehensive — but it was published in 2007, meaning that it probably used 2005 data. Prices have only gone up since then, making Patterson’s cited prices dated and on the low side.
Second, Manowar’s web site was last updated in 2005, so it is reasonably 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 firearms (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, South Africa, 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. III* or no. 4 rifles, for example — 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, South Africa 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 found the hierarchy of expensiveness to be as follows (working from cheapest to costliest):
• South Africa.
• Australia.
• New Zealand.
• Canada.
• United States.
• United Kingdom.
As the Internet becomes ever more a standard parts of our lives, so there has been something of a globalization in Martini and Lee prices, at least within the Angloshpere (by which I mean Britain and the old dominions, plus the U.S.). While Australia and New Zealand were once markedly cheaper than Canada, and Canada noticeably cheaper than America, recent years have seen a great convergence in prices among these four countries. The outliers are South Africa, where collectible rifles can be bought at auction for very reasonable prices, and the U.K., where prices are about twice the U.S. norm.
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, both marks (“jungle carbine”).
• SMLE .410 single-loader musket.
Additionally, small-calibre training weapons (e.g., rifle no. 2, all marks) are not tracked, and neither are handguns.
________________
D. Final Observations.
The drying up of the supply of long Lees and early SMLEs commented on last year continues. For example, in 2007’s edition of this digest, covering 2005-06, I recorded 17 sales of MLM mk. I* rifles. For this year’s edition, I spotted only two such sales. Likewise, for the last edition, I ran into 21 MLM mk. IIs; for this edition, only 9. Whereas once I might have expected to come across about four SMLE mk. I rifles a year, now I see about one a year. The exception is the SMLE mk. I*** — a rifle far more common than many people suppose — which remains in fairly constant supply. The most probable explanation for all this is that these things are somewhat cyclical. If an unusually high number of long Lees changed hands over 2005-2006, the new owners may wait a few years before reselling them.
None of the above applies to Martinis, the supply of which seems to be expanding greatly, particularly the MHR mk. II rifle. The primary source of this deluge is Afghanistan, so the situation may not last forever. All the same, buyers may wish to make the most of the situation as it stands now. Martinis shown on the on-line auction sites tend to have to be listed repeatedly before being bought — or even bid on at all. Do not be shy about e-mailing a seller, asking him to lower his opening price. There is no guarantee that he will comply, but what do you have to lose by asking?
Speaking of Afghanistan, the flow of “Khyber Pass” copies and outright forgeries continues unabated. Once largely restricted to crude copies of .303 Martini-Enfields, a recent development has been an influx of copies of the Lee-Enfield no. 1, no. 4 and no. 5 rifles. The fraudsters’ fig leaf with the Martini knock-offs was that they could be billed as old British firearms “refurbished” in “British-funded” Afghan arsenals. Rest assured, this was absolute rubbish, but at least it sounded plausible. In the case of the Lees, there is no defence. These guns — and I use the term loosely — cannot for a moment be passed off as 19th century refurbs. Instead, they must be stated for what they are: intentionally fraudulent, crude fakes. To be fair, a number of the peddlers of these “rifles” do not pretend they are anything but locally made junk. However, some dealers do try to pass these monstrosities off as the real thing. These dealers — and by now, even the one-off on-line auction sellers — know they are perpetrating fraud, and many jurisdictions’ consumer-protection agencies might well be interested in these folks’ underhand activities.
Nonetheless, the ultimate line of defence is ourselves. When buyers stop purchasing these forgeries, sellers will stop peddling them. There is never, under any circumstances, any reason to buy a KP fake. If you try shooting it, you will be taking your life into your own hands. If you try using it as a parts gun, you will find that the bastard-sized parts will fit nothing on a proper British gun. If you try selling it, you will — rightly — be laughed at.
For more information, visit these web sites.
• http://www.martinihenry.com/khyberpage.html
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Enfiel ... ass_Copies
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martini_Enfield
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 next edition of this digest, covering 2008-2009, please e-mail Doug Munro at munro@intergroupservices.com. All information is strictly confidential: buyer’s and sellers’ names are never disclosed.
________________
E. Notes and References.
This section expands all abbreviations used herein and provides an extensive bibliography of sources used.
________________
E.1. — Pattern/Type Code.
• Natal Pattern (capitalized, no parentheses) = customarily used subpattern designation.
• (Natal pattern) (in parentheses, not capitalized) = unofficial subpattern designation used by author.
• Type 1, type 2, etc. = informal subpattern designation used by author.
________________
E.2. — Facility Abbreviations.
• BE: Blenheim Engineering Co.
• BRF: Birmingham Repair Facility (Bagot Street or Sparkbrook).
• BSA: Birmingham Small Arms Co. (thus named to 1872 and after 1897).
• BSA&M: Birmingham Small Arms & Metal Co. (same factory, thus named Dec. 1872-1897).
• EFD: RSAF Enfield.
• HB: Henry Barrel Co.
• HRB: Henry Rifled Barrel Co. (formal name for HB).
• LSA: London Small Arms Co.
• NA&A: National Arms & Ammunition Co.
• RSAF: Royal Small Arms Factory (at Enfield or Sparkbrook).
• RSARF: Royal Small Arms Repair Facility (at Bagot Street or Sparkbrook).
• Sk.: RSAF Sparkbrook.
________________
E.3. — Firearm Abbreviations.
• IP: India Pattern.
• EMR: Enfield-Martini rifle.
• LEC: Lee-Enfield carbine.
• LMC: Lee-Metford carbine.
• MEAC: Martini-Enfield artillery carbine.
• MECC: Martini-Enfield cavalry carbine.
• MER: Martini-Enfield rifle.
• MHAC: Martini-Henry artillery carbine.
• MHCC: Martini-Henry cavalry carbine.
• MHR: Martini-Henry rifle.
• MMAC: Martini-Metford artillery carbine.
• MMCC: Martini-Metford cavalry carbine.
• MMR: Martini-Metford rifle.
• MLE: Magazine Lee-Enfield rifle.
• MLM: Magazine Lee-Metford rifle.
________________
E.4 — Bibliography.
Anon. 2002: Anonymous. 2002 [orig. 1916]. “Machining the Lee-Enfield Barrel: Operations and Fixtures Employed.” In Making Rifle Barrels: Machinery’s Industrial Secrets, Selected Articles from Early Issues of Machinery Magazine Revealing Secrets of Manufacturing. Bradley, Ill.: Lindsay Publications, 2002.
Bester et al. 2003: Ron Bester & Associates. 2003. Small Arms of the Anglo-Boer War, 1899-1902: A Comprehensive Study of all Rifles, Carbines, Handguns and Edged Weapons Used by the Opposing Forces During the Anglo-Boer War. Brandfort, S.A.: Kraal Publishers.
BSA 1913: Birmingham Small Arms Co. (BSA). [1913]. B.S.A. Rifles and Rifle Sights: A Catalogue of Military Rifles, Target Match Rifles, High Velocity Sporting Rifles, Military and Sporting Carbines, B.S.A. Patent Rifle Sights, B.S.A. .410 Bore Shot Guns, B.S.A. Air Rifles, War Office Miniature Rifles, B.S.A. Miniature Bolt Rifles, Martini Miniature Rifles, Tubes for Sporting Shot Guns, &c. Manufactured by the Birmingham Small Arms Co. Ltd., fifth ed. Birmingham, U.K.: BSA.
Duckers 2005: Peter Duckers. 2005. British Military Rifles, 1800-2000. Princes Risborough, U.K.: Shire Books.
Dynes 1979: Robert J. Dynes. 1979. The Lee: British Services Rifle from 1888 to 1950. Bloomfield, Ont.: Museum Restoration Service.
Edgecombe 2003: David W. Edgecombe. 2003. Defending the Dominion: Canadian Military Rifles, 1855-1955. Ottawa, Ont.: Service Publications.
Edwards 2003: Robert W. Edwards. 2003. India’s Enfields: The Lee-Enfield Rifle in India, 1900-2004, 4th ed. Keedysville, Md.: Consortium Press.
Lewis 1996: Dennis Lewis. 1996. Martini-Henry .450 Rifles and Carbines. British Firearms series. Tucson, Ariz.: Excalibur Publications.
LoC: Ian D. Skennerton (ed.). 1977, 1979, 1987, 1993, 1998. List of Changes in British War Material in Relation to Edged Weapons, Firearms and Associated Ammunition and Accoutrements. In five volumes. Margate, Qld.: Ian D. Skennerton.
McMahon 1997: Ray McMahon. 1997. “The First Lee-Metford: Rifle, .303-inch, Magazine Mk. I.” In International Arms & Militaria Collector 3(2) (magazine no. 10).
McMahon 1998: _____. 1998. “The ‘Volunteer’ or Commercial Pattern Lee-Metford Rifles and Carbines.” In International Arms & Militaria Collector 4(2) (magazine no. 14).
McMahon 1999a. _____. 1999. “The Lee-Metford & Lee-Enfield .303" Carbines.” In International Arms & Militaria Collector 4(4) (magazine no. 16).
McMahon 1999b. _____. 1999. “West Australian Modified Martini .303" Rifle.” In International Arms & Militaria Collector 5(1) (magazine no. 17).
Pam 1998: David Pam. 1998. The Royal Small Arms Factory: Enfield & Its Workers. Enfield, U.K.: David Pam.
Petrillo 1992a: Alan M. Petrillo. 1992. The Lee Enfield Number 1 Rifles. British Firearms series. Tucson, Ariz.: Excalibur Publications.
Petrillo 1992b: _____. 1992. The Lee Enfield Number 4 Rifles. British Firearms series. Tucson, Ariz.: Excalibur Publications.
Petrillo 1994a: _____. 1994. British Services Rifles and Carbines, 1888-1900. British Firearms series. Tucson, Ariz.: Excalibur Publications.
Petrillo 1994b: _____. 1994. The Number 5 Jungle Carbine. British Firearms series. Tucson, Ariz.: Excalibur Publications.
Reynolds 1960: E.G.B. Reynolds. 1960. The Lee-Enfield Rifle: Its History and Development from First Designs to the Present Day. London, U.K.: Herbert Jenkins.
Reynolds 1973: _____. 1973. Enfield Arms: The Early Breech-Loaders. Small Arms Profile series, no. 18. Windsor, U.K.: Profile Publications Ltd., February.
Skennerton 1982: Ian D. Skennerton. 1982. The British Service Lee: The Lee-Metford and Lee-Enfield Rifles and Carbines, 1880-1980. London, U.K.: Arms & Armour Press.
Skennerton 1993: _____. 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 1994a: _____. 1994. “.303 Rifle, No. 1, S.M.L.E. Marks III and III*: Parts Identification & Lists, S.M.L.E. Series Notes, Exploded Parts Drawings, Descriptions, Accessories & Fittings.” Small Arms Identification Series, No. 1. Piqua, Ohio: I.D.S.A. Books.
Skennerton 1994b. _____. 1994. “.303 Rifle, No. 5 Mk I: Parts Identification & Lists, No. 5 Series Notes, Exploded Parts Drawings, Descriptions, Accessories & Fittings.” Small Arms Identification Series, No. 4. Piqua, Ohio: I.D.S.A. Books.
Skennerton 1997a. _____. 1997. “.303 Magazine Lee-Metford and Magazine Lee-Enfield: Parts Identification Lists, M.L.M. & M.L.E. Series Notes, Exploded Parts Drawings, Descriptions, Accessories & Fittings.” Small Arms Identification Series, No. 7. Piqua, Ohio: I.D.S.A. Books.
Skennerton 1997b: _____. 1997. “Auction Report.” In International Arms & Militaria Collector, magazine no. 11.
Skennerton 1998. _____. 1998. “.303 Pattern 1914 Rifle & Sniping Variants: Parts Identification Lists, No. 3 (P ’14) Rifle Notes, Exploded Parts Drawings, Descriptions, Accessories & Fittings.” Small Arms Identification Series, No. 10. Piqua, Ohio: I.D.S.A. Books.
Skennerton 2001a. _____. 2001. “.303 Rifle, No. 4 Marks I, 1*, 1/2, 1/3 & 2: Parts Identification Lists, No. 4 Series Notes, Exploded Parts Drawings, Descriptions, Accessories & Fittings.” Small Arms Identification Series, No. 2, second impression. Piqua, Ohio: I.D.S.A. Books.
Skennerton 2001b: _____. 2001. The Broad Arrow: British and Empire Factory Production, Proof, Inspection, Armourers, Unit & Issue Markings. Grants Pass, Ore.: Arms & Militaria Press.
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.
Skennerton 2007. _____. 2007. The Lee-Enfield: A Century of Lee-Metford & Lee-Enfield Rifles & Carbines. Labrador, Qld: Ian D. Skennerton.
Skennerton and Faris 2004: Ian Skennerton and Robert Faris. 2004. “The First .303 M.L.M. Carbine.” In International Arms & Militaria Collector, magazine no. 22.
SP n.d.: Service Publications (SP). [No date.] Small Arms Unit Marks: Applied to Rifles, Carbines, Swords, Bayonets, Dirks, etc. by British and Canadian Ordnance Corps. Ottawa, Ont.: SP.
Stratton 2000: Charles R. Stratton. 2000. The Pattern 1914 and U.S. Model 1917 Rifles. British Enfield Rifles series, vol. 4. Tustin, Calif.: North Cape Publications.
Stratton 2002: _____. 2002. SMLE (No. 1) Rifles Mk I and Mk II, 2nd ed., rev. British Enfield Rifles series, vol. 1. Tustin, Calif.: North Cape Publications.
Stratton 2003: _____. 2003. Lee-Enfield No. 4 and No. 5 Rifles, 2nd ed., rev. British Enfield Rifles series, vol. 2. Tustin, Calif.: North Cape Publications.
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.
Temple and Skennerton 1989: _____. 1989. A Treatise on the British Military Martini: The .40 & .303 Martinis, 1880-c. 1920. Burbank, Australia: B.A. Temple.
Temple and Skennerton 1995: _____. 1995. A Treatise on the British Military Martini: Manufacture, Training Arms & Accessories. Kilcoy, Australia: B.A. Temple.
Williams 2004: David Williams. 2004. The Birmingham Gun Trade. Stroud, U.K.: Tempus Publishing, Ltd.
Woodend 1981: Herbert Woodend. 1981. British Rifles: A Catalogue of the Enfield Pattern Room. London, U.K.: HMSO.
