Martini Henry MkIII converted to MkIV

P

PCB

Regular
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Location
Amherstburg, On
Good afternoon folks, my son and I were looking at a Martini Henry recently that appears to be a Mark III converted to a Mark IV (1887). The rifle carries both stamps and we can see where the hole for the short lever has been plugged. How common was this? Could the rifle still be considered useable? The rifling looks very good but the stock is cracked at the top just behind the receiver. I know it's near impossible to fix a value to a rifle without seeing it but pictures are not possible at this time, any ball park help would be appreciated. It does have a very nice tiger stripped grain to the wood.
Thanks
 
I am not sure one could convert a Mk III to a Mk IV. I believe the receivers are substantially different. It is not unusual to see Mk IVs with plugged (short lever) holes. I shoot my Mk IV with BP loads on a regular basis.

For an indication of pricing, you might try checking out some retailers like P&S or IMA online.
 
The original Mk.I Enfield Martini (as opposed to Martini Enfield which was 303) was chambered in .402 caliber. I believe that production had begun when it was decided to adopt the 303 Lee Metford rifle as THE new service arm. This would have meant three service calibers in the supply chain (402 EM, 450/577 MH and 303 LM). Since the 303 was the future, all the .402 rifles were converted back to the original 450/577, thus making only two calibers of cartridge to supply.

The conversion consisted of a new receievr and a bored out barrel. The short lever was replaced by a longer unit, hence the plugged hole where the short lever would have fit.

New made Mk.IVs had new butts with no plugged hole.

So yes you have a conversion, but more along the lines of new manufacture of an updated model (mk.IV) using some new and some parts from an obscolete. There were a couple hundred thousand, brand new, sitting in stores with no use. Brits were (still are) pretty frugal.

Post pics and we can tell you which variation of Mk.IV it is (there are three) and the story that goes with it.

Ballpark value? Hard to say on an invisible rifle so $400-$700?? Possibly more if very nice condition. IMA (International Military Antiques) stateside sells cleaned and complete nepalese service units for around $1000.
 
Last edited:
englishman_ca said:
The original Mk.I Enfield Martini (as opposed to Martini Enfield which was 303) was chambered in .402 caliber. I believe that production had begun when it was decided to adopt the 303 Lee Metford rifle as THE new service arm. This would have meant three service calibers in the supply chain (402 EM, 450/577 MH and 303 LM). Since the 303 was the future, all the .402 rifles were converted back to the original 450/577, thus making only two calibers of cartridge to supply.

The conversion consisted of a new receievr and a bored out barrel. The short lever was replaced by a longer unit, hence the plugged hole where the short lever would have fit.

New made Mk.IVs had new butts with no plugged hole.

So yes you have a conversion, but more along the lines of new manufacture of an updated model (mk.IV) using some new and some parts from an obscolete. There were a couple hundred thousand, brand new, sitting in stores with no use. Brits were (still are) pretty frugal.

Post pics and we can tell you which variation of Mk.IV it is (there are three) and the story that goes with it.

Ballpark value? Hard to say on an invisible rifle so $400-$700?? Possibly more if very nice condition. IMA (International Military Antiques) stateside sells cleaned and complete nepalese service units for around $1000.
Click to expand...

my martini henry mkIV has a early butt for the old short lever that has been plugged. there is no converting to a mkIV the receiver is different
 
"there is no converting to a mkIV the receiver is different".

With due respect, I beg to differ. Type A and B Mk.IV Martini Henrys are conversions of the Mk.I Enfield Martini. Type C Mk.IV Henrys are new made.

His gun is likely a EM converted to a MH. The receiver was replaced as part of the conversion of the Type 1 EM with its hump back, side mount safety catch lever and speed loader. Conversions had the barrel rebored, set back one thread and rechambered.
New forearm fitted and the butt rejigged for the long lever.

The type 2 EM already had the classic 'hump back' shape reciever, these are the ones with the offset IV marking. (V added to existing I)and
Conversions had the barrel rebored, set back one thread and rechambered.
Used back the original forearm but the butt was reworked for long lever.

If the rifle isn't a conversion, then it is certainly fitted with a butt from such.

Maybe just symantics, but ya, I agree if you mean that there was never a Mk.III conversion to Mk.IV (yikes, I just said never with regards to an Enfield).

Pics would confirm, at this point it is all blind guess work.
 
Last edited:
I'll see what I can do about pictures. What I find curious is that the receiver is stamped Mark IV on the side in the usual location, but on the bottom of the receiver is a stamped III*. That just got me wondering about what happened to this particular rifle.
Thanks for the info gentlemen.
 
englishman_ca said:
"there is no converting to a mkIV the receiver is different".

With due respect, I beg to differ. Type A and B Mk.IV Martini Henrys are conversions of the Mk.I Enfield Martini. Type C Mk.IV Henrys are new made.

His gun is likely a EM converted to a MH. The receiver was replaced as part of the conversion of the Type 1 EM with its hump back, side mount safety catch lever and speed loader. Conversions had the barrel rebored, set back one thread and rechambered.
New forearm fitted and the butt rejigged for the long lever.

The type 2 EM already had the classic 'hump back' shape reciever, these are the ones with the offset IV marking. (V added to existing I)and
Conversions had the barrel rebored, set back one thread and rechambered.
Used back the original forearm but the butt was reworked for long lever.

If the rifle isn't a conversion, then it is certainly fitted with a butt from such.

Maybe just symantics, but ya, I agree if you mean that there was never a Mk.III conversion to Mk.IV (yikes, I just said never with regards to an Enfield).

Pics would confirm, at this point it is all blind guess work.
Click to expand...

The original post stated "appears to be a (MH) Mark III converted to a Mark IV" and, as both I and antiqueguy have stated, one cannot convert a Mk III to a Mk IV because the receivers are substantially different. If the post had indicated the possibility of a Type I EM converted to a MH Mk IV it would have been a horse of a different color. However, that would not explain the " III*" stamped on the receiver. In my limited experience, it is a relatively easy matter to identify a Type I EM converted to a MH Mk IV. On those I have seen, The "IV" stamped on the right side of the receiver is offset to the right of center with the "I" centered. That is a result of the "V" having been added at the time of conversion.

I agree this is all just speculation in the absence of pictures. My guess is a Mk IV, conversion or not. Lord knows what the "III*" is.
 
"both I and antiqueguy have stated, one cannot convert a Mk III to a Mk IV". How come? It is possible to swap out just the receiver on a Mk.III for one from a Mk.IV and everything Mk.III would still fit.

Like you, I am tinking that it in all probability it is a common Mk.IV. The III might be a marking on the forearm hook.

It was the OP that suggested it was a conversion from Mk.III to Mk.IV. I am trying to suggest that it is not a conversion from Mk.III, but from EM Mk.I. The receivers were substantially different enough for the factory to replace them. If there was a way for the Brits to use them, they would have done so. Probably the way that I put it missed the mark.

Could be a parts gun, a mixture. It is common to see original ex service Mk.IV rifles with parts marked EM, III or IV. They all fit.

Call me Bubba, I am guilty of creating hybrids out of my junk drawer parts. One current project is a Mk.I Lee Metford cavalry carbine. No survivors known to exist, not even drawings. But I will be able to present one. All matching patina all WD and Enfield marked parts.

Which would bring me to wander off topic of what to do with 'fantasy' rifle builds.

I often see my reworks doing the collector circuit. Some gain value and their history grows with each new owner, such as my Mk.IV cavalry carbine. None known to exist. But I had one, all Enfield parts. Maybe I should mark them in some way. Years down the road collectors might be scratching their heads to identify.

I do agree with you that there was never an official conversion from Mk.III to Mk.IV (but I maintain that it could be done).

I am not meaning to appear to be a smart arse, I consider this good discussion. My problem today is that I am bored with too much down time (hurry up and wait) and that I drink too much sugary coffee, so I'll just shut up wait till we see pics.
 
Last edited:
the III on the bottom of the receiver may mean it was a third class arm most likely could mean it had rust and was freshened up. but other then the lever and extractor all other internal parts are swappable from early MK's to the MK IV.
 
h ttp://www.martinihenry.org

h ttp://www.martinihenry.org/index.php?route=product/category&path=61_59

h ttps://www.facebook.com/groups/360259304071469/
 
Well i now have pictures, even joined CNG so i could upload pictures directly to a post. Still can't figure out how to do it. I'm all ears if anyone has suggestions.
Meanwhile one of the markings is an arrow above a WD then a crown E 82 followed by a III.
Sorry this is awkward till i can figure out the pictures.
Could the WD mean withdrawn from service?
 
Hopefully some pictures, Martini Henry MkIII and MkIV markings on same rifle?

Finally I think I may have been able to upload some pictures, lets see if this worked. My son and I were looking at a Martini Henry recently that we thought to be a Mark III converted to a MkIV (1887). The rifle carries both stamps, the MkIV on the side and the MkIII on the metal plate forward the trigger guard. We are a little confused about the markings. Is anybody able to interpret what we are looking at?
The front sight post has been broken off, any idea if something that that could be fixed? We would like to be able to shoot with this rifle.
Thanks

IMG_20140913_152159.jpg

IMG_20140913_152439.jpg

IMG_20140913_152529.jpg

IMG_20140913_152817.jpg

IMG_20140913_152320.jpg

IMG_20140913_152356.jpg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20140913_152159.jpg
    IMG_20140913_152159.jpg
    52.4 KB · Views: 88
  • IMG_20140913_152356.jpg
    IMG_20140913_152356.jpg
    41.9 KB · Views: 89
  • IMG_20140913_152439.jpg
    IMG_20140913_152439.jpg
    32.2 KB · Views: 87
  • IMG_20140913_152529.jpg
    IMG_20140913_152529.jpg
    32.1 KB · Views: 87
  • IMG_20140913_152817.jpg
    IMG_20140913_152817.jpg
    28.9 KB · Views: 87
  • IMG_20140913_152320.jpg
    IMG_20140913_152320.jpg
    49.7 KB · Views: 88
It was once a Mk.I Enfield Martini that was converted from .402 cal to .450 cal to become a Mk.IV Martini Henry. The receiver was used back and the 'V' added to the 'I' designation to make 'IV'.

The III on the plate tells me that the plate itself came from a Mk.III rifle at some point, which is quite common, maybe even came assembled from the factory this way.



Looks like somebody tried to modify and solder a higher blade onto your ramp. You could just redo and repair it to get you shooting.

There are original as cast sight blocks (need finishing) on fleapay that would be a correct replacement.
 
I can't remember the full details, either modern ammo people were using was different, or the ranges the sight ladder was dialed in for was different from the distances people shoot these days, anyway, some people would raise the front sight blade as the rifles would shoot high. Something to consider if you put a new front sight on the barrel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom