Grease between Forend and Barrel - Some form of bedding?

I have purchased a fairly original 1876 mk II in 557/450 and stripped it down for a look at the condition of the parts.

I have taken a Martini apart before and have an Artillery Carbine of circa 1885, long since converted to .22LR in 1900 and 1936 which unfortunately involved taking off most of the markings. The finish is excellent and it looks almost new, which rather defeats the object of having an old milsurp rifle.:rolleyes:

My intention is that the Mk II be presentable and safe when shooting but retain the general patina of an 1876 rifle. I am therefore not interested in rebluing but have reoiled the stock with Tung Oil as it was minging and the unit marks were somewhat indistinct under all the grime. The old finish came off easily enough with some wax remover and a few bumps were raised with steam but i did not stain the wood before reoiling. The stock refinish was fine and it is in general a little bit tidier than it was and the mechanics have benefited from a nut and bolt deep clean and grease /oil. The bore is crisp and the lands at the front of the barrel tightly grip a .459 calibre 500gr bullet, leaving perfect land marks. :)

All in all it looks good HOWEVER when I took it apart I discovered a bed of thick yellow grease between the barrel and the foreend along the entire length. Under the bed the barrel was pristine, along the edge of the grease pitting had started from trapped moisture. The pitting is light and will not affect the barrel strength.

I had not encountered grease here previously as my other Martini has a sporting forend fitted in 1936. (Being teak I have refinished the foreend and walnut stock and stained them so they match)

I have removed the grease, which looked like it had been there since the 19th century and which had stained the upper edges of the forend. This allowed the inside of the forend to be oiled which will seal the wood and prevent moisture change. It also allowed me to check the markings on the underside of the barrel.

The question is whether this grease had a practical use in the shooting characteristics of the Martini and if so should I replace it and what with?

The foreend is otherwise in contact with the barrel only at the front band/sight and in front of the receiver.

Questions I have been asking myself include such aspects as barrel harmonics, vibration on firing and whether the forend would warp if there was clearance with the barrel. Some rifles benefit from being allowed to free float whilst others, like the SMLE, are more accurate when packed.

Any views on the grease would be most appreciated.

A year ago I bought an M-H Mk. IV in just about "as new" condition internally, but of course with the usual quota of dings and scratches from 120 years of being shunted about.
Attachment 15928
It stank. The barrel channel was packed with some kind of animal-based grease or fat that had gone rancid, and the stock was weeping oil from the fat that had been filtered through the wood over a century. But underneath the gunge the bluing was 100%. So maybe there is something in your suggestion that it was deliberate, and not just the whim of a previous owner.

The block mechnanism was also packed, so much so that it could not fire a primer - the striker just oozed forwards and made a faint click. After cleaning, the rifle performed as intended, and I have already shown the immaculate bore in a previous posting.
Attachment 15927
Because the firing mechanism was also packed, I am inclined to think that the packing was an arsenal conservation measure, rather than bedding. But you could be right.

Patrick

P.S. the attached target thumbnail has nothing to do with the M-H, but I don't know how to remove it!

The grease is SOP for long term storage and should be thoroughly removed before firing the rifle. Otherwise the heat from the barrel will liquify the grease and it will soak into the wood....and turn it to mush. Many a MILSURP stock has been weakened unwittingly by those who left the grease in place. Virtually all of the Brit MH rifles coming out of Nepal have very heavy grease under the barrel, which in part explains the soft spots around the lugs and screws.

Thanks Richard for the clarification.

The yellow grease looks likes it had been there for a long time under the barrel but judging from the white grease in the action etc. the rifle has been in use for some time with it there.

Now safefully removed and it will go back in dry.

Has anyone any experience or view on whether the barrel performs better free floating or restrained in some way?

Since the forearm is primarily attached to the barrel, the only way to free float a MH barrel is to remove the forearm....which isn't very conducive to shooting. While there are differences between the various marks, the variables you have to play with are how tight the bands are and whether you have intentional pressure points along the forearm, normally created by folded pieces of paper. While no two will behave exactly alike, I find bedding the forearm at the point of the attachment lug on the MK I and MK II and then placing a bit of folded paper under the barrel at the first band which is snugged up, while leaving the front band loose provides the best accuracy. On my MK IV, there is no bedding, but the treatment of the bands are the same.

Thanks Richard, I will try that tonight when I put it all back together then test it on Sunday at the range.

Clean the barrel and barrel channel. Cut a strip of aluminum pop can the width of the rear barrel band. wrap the aluminum around the barrel and trim it so it doesn't over lap. Slide the barrel band over the barrel and aluminum shim and tighten the screw using no more than two fingers on the screw driver.

paper anbd card stock jas ben used a lot for this. In fortunately card stock changes with humidity. If you get the card stocl wet for moisture in the air or cleaninf oils zero can shift.

More important the band tension you need to also find a bullet that shoots and you need to test at meaningful ranges---100 yards minimum 200 yards better.

Firstr find a bullet that fits the throat of the barrel. From the Pictures it appears you have B model. Richard, correct me, but I believe the throat on the B model is .470. C Models and all other MH are .468.

You will need to find some bullets that are .470 diameter for shooting in the .470 throat and .468 diameter the other. You can get an RCBS .468 from Buffalo Arms. You can get a .468 and a .470 from Cast Bullet Engineering.

Once you have a correct fitting bullet load up some cartridges for incremental or ladder test.

I summarize how that is done but for details suggest you visit this website and get all the details. Barrel Vibrations, Ladder Test to develop Loads

Basically you load 20 rounds. Each round with incrementally more powder than the previous up to the Maximum. Shot a few foulers with several cartridges with starting load, then shoot the incremental round one on at a time at your target. Make notes on the impact point of each round. At the end of the 20 rounds look at the target for shots that are closest together. The loads that printed the group are the loads you should test by shooting groups.

Here is what I would do for the Martini. Maximum load is 95 grains of Fg minumum is 65 grains Fg. The increment for that range is 1.5 grains. So starting load is 65 grains, next load 66.5 grains.

Here is the increments for this range.

65
66.5
68
69.5
71
72.5
74
75.5
77
78.5
80
81.5
83
84.5
86
87.5
89
90.5
92
95

When I was much heavier into long range varmint shooting, I always used this method to find the best load for any new rifle or when I change a bullet. I have also found it works for the Martini also. Try it, it works.

As an "oh by the way" it is the rare MH indeed that holds on to its cleaning rod during a session of shooting. Somewhere along the line they appear to jump out of their retaining notch...most often unnoticed....and begin creeping forward with every shot. When I remember (which means sometimes I don't) I pull the rod and place in a safe place before shooting. While it served a useful purpose in the field, there are much better tools to use for wiping your bore at the range, which also avoids getting residue on the rod which is transferred to its channel and starts rusting the rod away....which we see all too many of in otherwise well maintained rifles. A solid coated rod such as made by Dewey (http://www.cabelas.com/fryprod-0/pro...9958.uts.shtml) is my tool of choice. Strong, easy on the muzzle and doesn't rust.

DoubleD,

Thanks for the advice. I got the whole thing up and together this morning with minimum tension on the front band, just enough to retain the front sling swivel. The forend has a bit of play up at the front end but is solid over the rear band with its packing in place.

I only have 19 cases so I will load them pretty much as suggested and try it.

I only have .459 500 grain bullets and have paper patched them to .470. I will try to get another mould soon but UK is not so easy for these things or cheap. Was the .470 measurement including the patch?

Also how would you gauge the overall cartridge length? The throat seems to be an awful long way in there. Should I mount the bullet very high in the case so there is contact or back into the case and leave a gap that has to be traversed by the bullet upon firing?

How would you tell it is a B model of a Mk II?

All this advice gratefully received.:)

Richard,
The cleaning rod is in good shape but does indeed shake loose upon firing. I take it out before firing and don't use it for cleaning as I have better rods at home for this task.

Do you use a muzzle protector when you are cleaning? I see Peter Dyson has some for sale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by martini

DoubleD,

I only have .459 500 grain bullets and have paper patched them to .470. I will try to get another mould soon but UK is not so easy for these things or cheap. Was the .470 measurement including the patch?

---

Yes, diameter includes the patch.

Take a look at Cast bullet engineering for Martini mould CAST BULLET ENGINEERING - Home
. They ship world wide. The Martini Mould they make is the design of Jim Goodwin who use have NDFS- North Devon Firearms specialties.
CBE makes a very high quality brass mould at a very reasonable price.

Quote:

---

Also how would you gauge the overall cartridge length? The throat seems to be an awful long way in there. Should I mount the bullet very high in the case so there is contact or back into the case and leave a gap that has to be traversed by the bullet upon firing?

---

You do want to seat your bullet long, but I doubt you can get it out far enough to seat in the rifling. You wouldn't want it seated into the rifling any way. I doubt you can close the action to seat a bullet into the rifling, just not enough leverage.

Quote:

---

How would you tell it is a B model of a Mk II?

---

The length of the Nocks form. I guessed right I guess, Richard won't let me get such stuff wrong.

Quote:

---

Do you use a muzzle protector when you are cleaning? I see Peter Dyson has some for sale.

---

The idea of the coated rod is that you don't need a bore guide. I use the Dewey rod and have not seen any sign muzzle wear. What I have seen is wear on the rod, the plastic coating get scraped away by the sharp rifling.

I assume you mean a MK IV not a MK II....since there are no separate patterns for the MK II. First for the obvious, if we are talking the one at the front of this post, it is a Pattern "A", with the dead give away being the short knoxform visible in the block picture. Also it should have a plain front sight and not a ramped one like the "B" and "C" do. Now back to telling the difference. While there are a number of subtle differences, I'll stay with the ones you can spot externally from 5 feet away.

The "A" has a new receiver with the "IV" centered under the lock viewers mark. The "A" while a rebuild from a Enfield Martini, the original EM rifles had a number of features attached to the receiver that made using a new one just easier. The knoxform is very short and as stated, it has a plain front sight and not a ramped one.

The "B" reuses the later model EM receiver. While you'd think that the date on the receiver would be a help, both EM and MK IV rifles had receivers with dates overlapping MK IV production. With the overlap, the date isn't definitive.....but the MK "IV" is not centered under the lockviewer's mark. Since these were originally EM MK I rifles the "I" was centered under the lock viewer's mark. When converted to MH MK IV rifles, a "V" was added to make the "IV" thus making the mark offset to the right. The Pattern "B" has a slightly shorter (by one thread width) knoxform and barrel than the Pattern "C", but unless side by side you won't notice. You will notice it has a ramped front sight.

The Pattern "C" was supposedly assembled from all new parts, including a new receiver that should have the "IV" centered under the lockviewer's mark. It also has the longest knoxform and has the ramped sights.

Now some will say that while the "A" and "B" reused the EM buttstocks which had the original retaining cup for the short lever filled, the "C" used new buttstocks that don't have that hole filled. I've had a number of MK IV rifles go through my hands of all patterns and have gone through pallets of them at AC. I have never seen a buttstock without the filled hole....not a single one. While I'm quite willing to grant they exist, I can only conclude from my observations that while the "C" were all new parts, that many of the new buttstocks were originally made and placed in stores as spares for the EM and then were used in assembling many if not most Pattern "C" rifles. If it was otherwise, you'd think that we'd routinely see buttstocks without the fill......but we don't.

Now as I caution folks routinely that point out discrepancies between their rifle and a given pattern, all of these patterns were in production at the same time in the same factory by the same workmen.....and I'm sure EM parts were ruined in the conversion with new parts substituted....as happens with all wholesale conversions. As such "brand new" MK IV rifles likely had deviations from the accepted standards. Also almost all of these have been through one or more rebuilds where "parts is parts" govern what gets assembled with what. The most pertinent difference is that the "A" and "B" reused the earlier EM barrels which were rebored, rerifled and rechambered for the 577/450, leading to slightly different tolerances. Aside from that, the only other practical difference is that the Pattern "A" will accept the earlier socket bayonet as well as the later blade(sword) bayonets, while the "B" and "C" owing to their ramped front sights won't accept a socket bayonet.

FWIW I prefer the Pattern "A" as shown at the front of this post. I can't give you a good reason why beyond they are the least common and still take the less expensive socket bayonet....which I've got quite a few of at this point. My regular shooter is a pattern "B", likely because it was my first MK IV and is accurate enough that I haven't had an itch to work with the others too much. From my point of view, the MK IV regardless of pattern is the best for shooting of the 577/450 MH family.

As to the question on using a muzzle protector, I see no need for one using a coated rod. Others would disagree. To each their own. Using one certainly doesn't hurt anything and if it lets someone sleep easier at night, so be it.

Brilliant advice, I will follow up on the Martini specific mould.

The groupings were not brilliant on Sunday, I had paper patched to .470 with some rounds and others had .459 with plenty of lube. unfortunately the lubed ones shot adequately but the paper patched ones were all over the shop. I suspect the paper patched ones did not have enough beeswax in the case and were fired later after the fouling had built up, hence were not gliding through the barrel.

Back to the drawing board on the cartridges, all part of the fun of a martini.