Longarms: Martini-Henry used by Boers in the Boer war?

[kopje]

I have in my possession a Martini-Henry rifle I am trying to trace. It is said to have been used on the Boer side in the Second Anglo-Boer War, and has a serial number not easy to read, but looks like WR 112134. Another serial number is quite clear: 65944, as is the letter 'W'. Please can anybody tell me if these numbers mean anything to them, and what are my chances of tracing such a weapon.
Many thanks.

[Doubled]

You may be able do so me limited tracing. You will first have to identify what rifle you have.

Pictures of the rifle and markings will help identify the rifle. For research on Boer rifle I suggest two books Boer Rifles And Carbines of the Anglo Boer War and Small Arms of the Anglo-Boer War 1899-1902. Both books are by Ron Bester and can be found on www.abebooks.com by searching Author Ron Bester and keyword Boer.

For your trace I would think Boer Rifles would be more useful as it is more detailed in defining the variations which will help identify the rifle. It also is heavily foot noted telling you where you may be able to find records on your rifle.

[kopje]

Thanks for the info Doubled, and I will certainly follow up that lead.
The rifle has in fact been loaned to me by courtesy of a Vicar friend of mine who enjoys firing a black-powder musket from time to time, is a full bottle on miltary history, and gives a thundering good sermon.
My own scene is Matabeleland from 1890 to 1897, and by extension the Matabele nation from the reign of Shaka to the death od Cecil Rhodes, and the effect of events of that period on the history of Rhodesia and the present day Zimbabwe.
Regards,

Kopje

Keep the Flame Lily burning

[kopje]

What I have managed to establish about that rifle is that it left British army service prior to 1874 as the rifle sling is still attached to the butt, and I am reliably informed that in 1874 Martini-Henry's were recalled to have the rifle sling mounted in front of the trigger guard, and the holes in the butt where the sling swivel had been removed from were plugged. What is interesting is that it is claimed to have been in the service of the Boers during the Second Anglo-Boer War, and I will never know how or where it left British army service when it was liberated by the Boers.

[ED, in Los Angeles]

I believe all Martinis left the factory with the standard triggerguard sling mount. The sling mount on the butt was a later adoption by some units, or it could be that the sling mount was installed on the buttstock by the factory for spesific units. I am not sure which units adapted this, but I have seen pictures of MKIV Martinis with the buttstock feature, and that would be 1887 and after. The buttstock hole was plugged upon re-conditioning of the gun by an armorer. What are the marks and Letters on the buttstock? What is the Mark of the gun. Near the Mark (on the right hand side of the reciever), should also be the year of manufacture and the Queens Crown.
Where is the 'W' on the gun...the knoxform or flat part of the barrel? Just because someone says it was used by the Boers means absolutly nothing. It carries no more creedence than if I claimed I served in the Boer War. Provinence is hard to come by. Remember also that by the time of the Boer War this Martini was no longer a front line weapon with British troops. Martinis are all over the world at this time. It could have been brought to your country from soon after date of manufacture up to our present time.

[kopje]

Hi ED, Sadly I have had to return the weapon to the retired Vicar who loaned it to me to see what I made of it. He personally brought it from South Africa on retiring back to England, and I, having spent thirty eight years in Africa, I can go along with his story, and just as he does, I too have grave doubts about the rifle, and reckon it is more of a Khyber Pass gun than anything else.
The 'W' is stamped in front of the trigger guard, along with an indistict number, and another much clearer number.
I will try to post a picture of it, but m having some problems over that.

[QSVC]

Sounds interesting...I'd be interested in photos as well......That number with the prefix WR, its not a Wesley Richards Made Specially for the ZAR piece?

The photos will no doubt reveal all.

Robert

[kopje]

I thing I have now sorted out how to resize a picture on a new system I m using, so hopefully here is a picture of the Martini-Henry rifle

[QSVC]

Well my theory didn't last long......

Over to more knowing than I.

Robert

[kopje]

Hi Robert,
Thanks for pointing me in that direction anyway, as I have now looked at some photographs of the Martini-Henry produced specially for ZAR, as engraved on the side of the rifle. Very interesting.
I have handled many weapons during my service career, and this one simply does not 'feel' right, and I suspect it has been manufactured in some odd corner of the world, copying the genuine article, but I could be so wrong.
I am adding another photo, of immediately in front of the trigger guard where the only identifying numbers and marks are stamped.
Regards,
John

[kopje]

It has been suggested to me the swing swivel may have been attached to the butt of the rifle to make it easier to carry slung across the back of a man mounted on a horse. It makes sense, but I can find nothing to substantiate that. How does it sound to you?

[ED, in Los Angeles]

kopje and all...
That appears to be a Mark III Martini, approved on August 22, 1879. It has the short ejection lever and the two screw (screws missing) attachment piece on the under side of the wooden forend.
As for your theory that the stock mounted sling swivel is for slinging the rifle when mounted may or may not be true. I do not know what kind of rifle mounted infantry carried. I must remind everybody that cavalry, lancers, artillery, engineers, and perhaps other support troop carried a carbine Martini...much shorter and in the case of the mounted units I mentioned, the carbine was carried in a saddle mounted scabbard. Some one in this forum stated that certain units opted for the stock mounted swivil. I am sure there is an easy found answer, i just don't have it. I was also informed that some units had brown leather slings as opposed to black.

[kopje]

Thans ED, the pieces of information are coming together, and I wonder if an earlier posting provided a real big clue: The initials 'WR' in front of a number on the rifle. I know Westley Richards made Martini-Henry's for the ZAR (South African Republic) but the details 'Made Specially for the Z.A.R.' was inscribed on a side plate, but did the use of just the initials before a number precede that,and it does indicate a Westley Richards rifle, or is the whole thing a good rifle but not made under licence, and the 'WR' just a co-incidence.

[zuluneil]

It looks More Like a Martini Enfield in .303" on a Mk3 action , the shortened barrel section at the forend, tall foresight block and barleycorn seems the giveaway, cant see it being a M-Metford as there is no Lewes pattern/ barleycorn conversion,

As ED wrote, it's a Mk3 Variant, not a Westley Richards ZAR pattern though as the reciever shape is wrong.

Its lost both it's sling swivels, so hence the conversion with a hole in the forend? or is it a swivel? hard to tell from the pics. I have seen this before on Boer War rifles, here is an image link from Jasons site showing a Martini Enfield with exactly the same traits
http://www.martinihenry.com/readersrifles/Pages/9.html

Rifle Brigade regiments retianed the stock swivel on thier Martinis until well into the late 1880's, and these slings would have black, not buff, to go with the black acroutements. I have also been recording Mk4 martinis, that had at some time had a sling swivel fitted, and later removed.

[Doubled]

There is nothing presented so far to indicate this is A British Military rifle. Rather more by what hasn't been presented supports Boer issue,

The markings on the rifle action should clearly Identify the rifle for what is. If it is ex-British military it will be clearly marked right and possibly left side what it is. The OP made no mention of these type marking which would have been conspicuous and prominent and I would have thought reported by the OP. Absent those marking I will say this is not a British Military Martini.




Absent these British marking it is also not a Mk anything. It my be similar to a MK pattern but only the British military rifle is a MK.

The commercial rifles could have parts of several different patterns all on one rifle and be correct and complete.

That WR number is not British Military. All British Military Martini's will have the serial number marked on the front of the action under the fore stock wood. The number or part of the number will appear on the barrel usually on the bottom and on the bottom of the rear sight ladder. The number will be up to a three digit then a letter and three digits. Three digits from 001 to 999, then A001 for 1001. Z999 would be 26999. There are some double letters. AA001 would be 27001.

OVS and and ZAR serial number were prefixed just that way, with OVS and ZAR and were quite large. . I have seen reference to WR prefixed markings before. My Memory says the WR is for Westley Richards. I cannot find a reference to that right now. I also seem to think I may have seen the these WR serial numbers issued by SAPS for rifles with no serial number for registration purposes.. I'll look around a bit and see what I can find.

Westley Richard as well as others provided the Boer Republic with large numbers of arms of all types and especially Martini's. These were in a large part unkmarked or other manufactured arms. Westley Richard also provide the Especially Made for ZAR rifle made with the Francotte detachable action. The rifle pictured is clearly not one of these. Here is what the action of one of those look like.



Sling location on a Boer rifle would be highly variable and irrelevant and does not indicate British military service.

All the answers to what this rifle really is are on the rifle. Clear pictures of the markings and their location will identify this rifle.

The fact that British military Markings were not reported on the receiver also heavily discount that it is a Khyber Pass rifle. The fact that it came from SA points away for KP origin. KP Martini's are almost unheard of in SA. I have been trying for a year to get one sent down to a collector in SA as he has never seen one.

My Westley Richards Mk II pattern Martini rifle has a similar looking front sight but is a 577/450.

Given the information presented so far the only definite thing that can be said about this rifle is that it is a Martini. Everything else is pure speculation.