Something for a Martini

[shippingsteel]

Picked this one up the other day, a little out of my normal area of operations but the price was definitely right and it had loads of very interesting markings, so how could I resist.!

While they are a very attractive looking pattern, you don't come across them that often and they are quite problematic to collect as they were made with knurled leather grips. So as you can imagine after 125 years, finding something still in presentable condition becomes quite difficult. This example while being far from pristine, managed to scrub up OK so now I just need to find out if I can somehow squeeze it into my GW period collection. Any thoughts on it being topical or otherwise would be appreciated.

It was originally made as a P1886 Trials bayonet for the proposed Enfield-Martini rifle in .402 calibre, but this model fell by the wayside in favour of the new .450 Martini-Henry rifle (Mark IV).

So later in 1891 these spare trials bayonets were then converted to suit the Martini-Henry rifle and became known as the Pattern 1887 Sword Bayonet Mk IV. Around 23,000 of these bayonets were converted in this way.

It is stated that most of the Martini-Henry Mk IV rifles that were fitted with these bayonets were supplied for service in India, although some were also provided for use by the Royal Navy.

With that being said can anyone now find me some evidence to link this bayonet with usage during the Great War period.? Surely there has to be a photo somewhere of a Martini-Henry in Indian service.? Thanks for your help.

Cheers, S>S

[Michael Johnson]

I suspect the Indian Army units would have been rearmed with Lee-Enfields by 1914, but the Martini-Henry was probably still in use by Frontier Police units, including the Assam Military Police.

[4thGordons]

I have two different pictures from WWI of British soldiers with Martinis.

In one it may be a photographer's prop as there are some other oddities about the uniform but in the other it is a squad of 6 ASC men armed with Martini carbines. I am not sure what calibre they are in as quite large numbers of Martinis were converted to .303 and I think it was largely .303 versions (and .22LR training versions) which continued in service during the Great War. Because the claibre conversion rebarrelled the rifles I think the MRD on your bayonet would be too large to work - although I am not certain of this.

Chris

[TonyE]

In WWI the Royal Navy purchased about 2,500 .303 Martini Enfields from the trade and issued them to trawlers and miscellaneous craft. They also bought 500 in .577/450 calibre and issued these to the Royal Naval Air Service.

The Volunteer Defence Corps were also isued with .303 Martinis, including ones newly made during the war by the Birmingham gun trade. A few years ago a very interesting picture was posted of a saluting party firing a volley beside a grave, armed with Martinis and bayonets that were almost certainly trade made WWI weapons.

Regards

TonyE

[4thGordons]

Here is a Gordon with a Martini (and and odd sporran!)

Taken by a Blackpool photographer.

This looks to be a short lever Martini, probably using the 1895 pattern "spike" bayonet (I cannot see the mounting lug on the barrel-band which would be needed for the blade pattern). It may of course be a prop.

Chris

Edit: here is the rifle to which your bayonet would fit, the lug is visible on the side of the front barrel band.

[Pete1052]

The design of Friedrich von Martini of Switzerland used in the breech of the Martini-Henry was actually the refinement of a design by the American Henry Peabody at about the end of the American Civil War. Peabody's design was used in rifles and carbines made by the Providence Tool Company, Rhode Island, in the 1860s and '70s. Some writers have criticized U.S. Army Ordnance for not adopting a breechloader is its primary infantry arm during the Civil War; actually during the war there was a lot of experimentation with both breechloading conversions of muzzleloaders as well as new breechloading designs. Had the war lasted longer than it did there probably would have been breechloading rifles issued to U.S. infantry units in 1866 or '67. As it turned out, the .45-70 "Trapdoor" was adopted by the U.S. Army a few years after the war's end.

[Pete1052]

Mr. Shippingsteel -- regarding your Martini, do you want it shaken or stirred?

[shippingsteel]

Mr. Shippingsteel -- regarding your Martini, do you want it shaken or stirred?

Yeah I did have something like that in mind Pete.! Anyway for the moment you can "just call me James" ....

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

Thanks for all the input provided so far, guys/gents.!! (take your pick)

So it would appear that the Martinis were still in the picture in some shape or form during the GW, but the model which I need (the Mk IV in .450) would have probably been less involved if at all. I believe the .303 Martini-Enfield rifles that were in common usage were only made to accept the newly converted P1895 socket bayonets, so that doesn't help my cause. I still think the RN angle is possibly my best bet, as these bayonets remained in Naval service for quite a long time. Long enough to become commonly referred to as the "naval sword bayonet" of that period.

Also the Indian link is probably still a strong possibilty. (I heard that quite a lot of the ex Indian M-H rifles ended up in Nepal, and large numbers of those have been regularly surfacing in recent times.) I'm pleased to say that my bayonet is not marked as one of those, but it does have the "sold out service" mark which could possibly indicate a transfer to Indian state ownership at some time.?

When you think of sword bayonets you normally automatically picture them as being mounted under the rifle. It seems a little counter-intuitive to our current thinking that this pattern of sword bayonet was mounted to the side of the barrel similar to a socket bayonet, with the blade in the horizontal position. I have found this pic of some Indians with the M-H rifles and the P1887 bayonets fixed in this position. Must have caused some issues with the handling and accuracy of the rifle you would think.?

I wonder if we could call on the talents of the GWF "dating service" to put a possible time frame on this picture below.? Thanks for your help.! (Note the British officers in the back & some form of wheeled MG, a Maxim gun perhaps)

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

I just realised that another likely contender for the role of carrying the P1887 bayonet into the GW era would have been the .303 Martini-Metford Mk II rifle. This was yet another conversion of the Martini-Henry, chambered to take the new .303 cartridge, but in this case the barrel profile remained unchanged allowing for the P1887 bayonet to be retained. The corresponding .303 Martini-Enfield conversion went for a smaller barrel size which meant that the P1887 could not be fitted, hence the need for the new size socket bayonet made to suit.

It is interesting that the Martini-Metford conversions were done in 1891, the exact same year that these P1887 Mk IV bayonets were also converted. Could it be that they were being made to order, with these newly converted rifles in mind.?

The photo below shows the barrel band bayonet lug for attachment and the thicker barrel profile of the Martini-Metford Mk II rifle.

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

Here is the ricasso shot that identifies this example as being one of the original 1886 trials bayonets for the Enfield-Martini rifle. Note the letters EM that have been "struckthrough" when it underwent the conversion to P1887, and the corresponding Enfield inspection mark. On the reverse ricasso it is marked with the VR cypher, date of manufacture as /86, and the mark of conversion shown simply as C 91. Other characteristics that identify this example as a Mark IV are the fullered blade, the four rivet grip and the older style leaf spring attachment for locking it in position. It is also not drilled with the clearance hole in the pommel like all the other marks of P1887 bayonets.

Cheers, S>S